What is /o/'s opinion on the 1968-1972 Oldsmobile Cutlass/442/Supreme?
>>13822062
Living legend
>>13822062
looks like yet another typical burgerbarge from back in the day, probably drives shitty and makes a lot of noise but comfortable to sit in and with a big ridiculous engine that pulls like a draught horse.
Faster than usual luxury cars, slower than usual muscle cars.
>>13822097
They were pretty fast with a 455ci engine senpai.
>>13822108
>455ci
what's that in civilized country measurements
>>13822111
7.5 liter
>>13822108
Any GM had that engine available.
>>13822123
big ridiculous engine, got it.
>>13822144
What about the Cadillac 8.2 liter engine? 500 cubic inches.
>>13822163
i just see that kind of shit and can't help but think "...wouldn't it be just as fast if not faster if you used a smaller engine and trimmed down the bloody weight"?
>>13822163
If I pull that carb off, will you die?
>>13822168
Bigger engines get more torque and after a while it did become bragging rights. The Cadillac 500 and Ford 460 weren't that performance oriented. Americans did like smaller engines however, the 350 (5.7) Chevy, Mopar 340, and Ford 305 (5.0) are all in the better handling muscle cars.
The biggest engine in physical size was the 426 Hemi, nicknamed "the elephant" to make the hemisphere head design, the block has to be huge and it's all cast iron. The block is still used for dragsters today and have bored the cylinders out to over 580 cubic inches.
>>13822172
It would be extremely painful
>>13822168
"why go smaller? Gas is cheap, we have huge open expanses, and the bigger the car is the more comfy shit we can fit in it. Plus, the bigger the engine, the more power we can make, and we can advertise that power and sell a shitload of these fuckers" - The 1960's American Auto Manufacturer
Also, if you want cut down weight, look at true muscle cars, like the Road Runner: it was sold with cloth seats and rubber floor mats. That was basically is.
>>13822197
christ, that is a monster. must be loud enough to rattle an entire neighborhood.
Even what you call "smaller" engines are rather prodigious though honestly.
>>13822197
>mfw jenkins and his 350's
>>13822199
You're a big engine.
>>13822204
No computers, electronics, and was before miles of vacuum lines, all that went in the engine bay was the engine so it allowed for more engine. Cars were huge too. That Olds is around 17ft long and classified as a midsize which is full size now. The interior is about the size of a modern midsize
>>13822250
yeah there's one thing I'll say I love how absolutely fucking analog all that shit is. no sensors to crap out on you, no codes you have to look up, you don't need a fucking laptop to tune or diagnose the damned thing...
Don't know where to post this, and not gonna start my own thread. But my gramps got a 73 or 74 Monte Carlo. It's in pretty fuckin good condition. Is it worth fixing up and making nice again?
>>13822271
If it's in good condition, why the fuck not if you have the means?
Also, try Classic Car General over here: >>13806548
It goes through periods of quiescence and activity, but generally people in there know their shit and are willing to help out.
>>13822278
Was gonna post there, but the last reply was like two hours ago lol.
>>13822271
Matters how bad condition it is. They will never be worth as much as cars from 1972 and older. They still made great cruisers and will hold the value they to have.
>>13822209
>>13822271
That looks like it's already been restored.
>>13822315
That's not mine, just got a pic from Google
>>13822350
Heh, I was assuming that the problem bits were on the inside.
>>13822168
They are under 4000 lbs. Look it up.
Modern cars' safety equipment weights a lot.
As for speed being slow with the big motor, consider that they have carbs, bias-ply tires and 3 speed transmissions.
>>13822350
>just got a pic from Google
Die in a fire.
>>13822875
My Grandpa has an old Fiero. I'm thinking about restoring it.