My father had one of those EXTREMELY rare cars. He sold it when I was 7 years old in 1976. My God I wish I had that beautiful car today. Hurts my heart for real.
The 68 Hurst/Olds is probably my favorite Oldsmobile ever made other than a 70 442 W-30. Very fast and also very good looking. The only thing I don't like about these is that they were only available with an automatic transmission...no 4 speed option. They had the biggest displacement V8 of any mid size muscle car built before 1970. The Gentleman's hot rod. Really awesome ride
Super hot car. 13.24 @ 107mph and 5.3 0-60 on crappy skinny 14" polyglass tires? Damn! Launch that car on modern Michelin Pilots and its a high 12 second car. Aside of the L88 Vette, this was the baddest car of the muscle car era.
Part of the Hurst packaging was the featuring of the Hurst Pro-Matic 2-Ratchet Automatic Shifter Kit. That was the whole point. Hurst dual-gate shifters offered two algorithms of gear shifting. Before this unique project, George Hurst offered his remarkable gear shifting solution in 1963. It was designed to make it possible for muscle-car drivers to shift gears more rapidly than with standard automatics. It was marketing for Hurst branded, advanced automatic shifting.
Well I'll have to say, out of all the big block beauties put through the wringer on Bud's show, this Olds Hurst has to be the best handling piece of Detroit Iron I've seen in a long, long time.
I worked at Demmer Engineering (Demmer Tool & Die) when Olds and Demmer were building these. Watched some history being made. Loved the Olds performance guys. Too bad they were always hamstrung by the GM brass in Detroit.
When I was in high school in 74 to 78 I drove a67 olds cutlass with a330 olds 4 able with a two speed power glide and my second olds was a 67 442 4bbl 4 speed with 456 rear in gears Those were the days!!!!
@@nathanholmquist6077 @Nathan Holmquist I got a 67 cutlass just like you had.. Its a big project but its got alot of potential. Im only 17 so its a great learning experience. Cutlass supreme, 4bbl 330 2 speed, 10 bolt posi w/ 3.73 gear. Should run pretty good! Thanks for the comment! - Tee🤙
"When you get this show out of the can"--back in the days when it was on a reel of film, carried in a silver round canister. I own a '68 4-4-2 with a 400 hp 455, and the only thing Hurst should have added? the older switch pitch torque convertor. I have one installed, and its neat, manually switching from 1,800 RPM stall speed to 3,300 RPM. Drive at the first setting, and you aren't getting all the transmission heat typical of a high stall convertor. But swap to the higher setting and punch it...
with variable duration lifters on a split cam with an average .49 lift and 260 duration, I can leave my manual valve body THM400 in top gear, and pull away and drive all day in top gear, get 15 mpg. Or I can swap to the higher stall speed and run thru the gears, do 0-60 mph in 5.5 seconds with a 3:1 gear ratio. If it didn't have 243,000 miles and if i didn't live in the snow belt, I would drive it daily :)
Back in “79” my sister had a real one. ( I was 14)These car were awesome. This car and other were the beginning,for me to start learning how to fix, rebuild, and restore cars.... love this car... thank to my sister and brother in law, for teaching me how to work on all the great cars I have worked on( 1901- today)
@@jeremythompson9122 13 .2 hrst olds 68..upgrades1190s ...12.2.oh yea.... Ive built one 463...40 over.fucking nasty....people tellin me all day how mean she sounds too.
They were slow, though. The W30 was essentially a lightly warmed over full size Olds sedan engine. The results spoke for themselves. (A 2013 through 2017 V6 Honda Accord would easily run with a bone stock 1970 W30 442!) Here are three vintage road tests: wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990469466228/1970-03_CL_1970_Olds_W-30__Test_1-6.pdf wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990447689764/1970-05_HPC_1970_442_W-30_Test_1-6.pdf wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990444673251/1970-04_HR_1970_W-30_and_W-31_Tests_1-2.pdf And a 2013 Honda Accord V6 road test for comparative purposes. (I'm using the Accord as an example because it's not even a "fast car" by modern standards. www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-honda-accord-coupe-v-6-manual-test-review
I know, but 500 lb. ft. of torque never gets old for a daily driver. It's not an LS6 Chevelle, but not everybody wanted that. 1/4 mile times have very little to do with how fun a car is to drive.
@@harddrivin1le-970 Really wouldn't say they were slow. 500 lb/ft of torque is pretty impressive. Horsepower sells cars...torque wins races. Plus the W-30 engine in 1968 was 400 cubes...not 455. The 455 W-30 didn't come out until 1970 because of GM's 400 cube limit in mid size cars before then
@@harddrivin1le-970 Yeah well a car built in 1970 didn't have the technology that today's cars have either so you can't really compare today's cars with one that was built 50 years ago
Only because it was factory MODIFIED under the direction of Doc Watson, including the installation of aftermarket Hooker headers. The production line stock examples ran like this (yawn): wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990483987880/1968-09_MT_1968_Hurst_Olds_Test_1-2.pdf
Those are gross ratings, which are essentially meaningless. This engine produced approximately 300 SAE Net ("as installed" horsepower, which has been the standard since 1972.
Are you kidding? This particular car was a purpose built factory ringer. Production line stock examples ran like this:wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990483987880/1968-09_MT_1968_Hurst_Olds_Test_1-2.pdf A 1968 Hemi Roadrunner, for example would have buried it - not even close.
@@64fairlane305 No doubt , I just saw it a few videos back. I think it was one of the Cobra jet fords , they said it's hp and tq was rated at 3400. 335hp and like 470ft pounds if I remember it right. Or pretty close to that. 3400rpm? That's sandbagging for sure.
Even in today's world, it's still more than respectable with its performance in acceleration, braking, and even handling. It was ahead of its time but it also wasn't an all factory car either
W-30 cam was a good improvement over stock and headers sure helped so cam was OLDS but headers not. lots of those cars had serious gear options like 433 which is all you could run with a 5 grand motor and an auto. I had a grammar school friend and his Dad ordered a late 60's Dodge station wagon, he got 390 gears not something you would be driving 80 in for any distance, 390 gears was something you would get with a tow package, My Father had a 66 Toronado, that car has capable on the highway, even around town it had plenty of power for its girth
true, if you wanted highway, you ordered the Turnpiker...2bbl 400, 9:1 compression, 290 hp out to a 2.56:1 rear screw. With 4-4-2 suspension, you felt safe over the speed limit.
13.24 1/4 mile?? This car was super duper tuned! Flipped air cleaner gave me a first glimps..Being a very low 14 sec out of the box its sure shows you what's capable on all GM A body big blocks...
These cars were bad ass fast. One of the strongest Super cars for 68 was from Oldsmobile,! Not bad for what many people saw as a old man's car. I laugh to myself when I watch this video. One of the very special features on this car is Oldsmobiles very effective Forced Air Induction . Then some bozo has flipped the air cleaner lid upside down. Negated the Forced Air Induction. Also, he says the car has AC but it does not. Awesome video.
I don't care if new engines make more HP/TQ. Even in 2018, still haven't duplicated the feel of these big inch carbureted pushrod engines making big low end torque numbers in a midsize car. Nothing like it. There's more to life than 1/4 mile times which have very little to do with how fun a car is to drive.
Amen to that, bro! They're friggin' cool in a way that will never be replicated. And those cars doesn't even need hemis, ls6, w30 or cobra jet engines. they lead in style and attitude
These "behemoths" were created for ONE thing ONLY.......DRAG RACING! The "FTD" factor of these cars was "missing in action" at the first bend in the road! The DINOSAURS will NEVER return!
I agree with most of what you said.. but 1968 technology is no match for 2020. I'd love to own this car but for a daily driver?? no way. 7mpg max, If you commute to work any distance the fuel stops will be a lot and always. My other comment is handling.. With high tech suspensions and amazing tires we have today even SUV's would out handle with no problem. But like scdevon said, you cannot duplicate that sweet sound those old muscle cars made. I'd make mine a weekend cruiser.
CAR CRAFT magazine tested this very same car and revealed that it was specially modified by Olds and including aftermarket long tube headers. (The cam doesn't sound stock here, either.)) Actual production cars were substantially slower (lower 14s in the 100 MP range in the quarter). It's also since been revealed that Olds did this entire thing in house, despite GM's 400 CID limit in mid size cars.
Stock 455s with sticks had a 308 degree cams then (huge overlap!!). I believe Jack claims that particular 390hp motor was unopened from Olds. Late 60s were radical motors right from the factory. L88s in Vettes are generally believed to make 550hp in reality. Very hot engines back then.
What he said above. Presumably for test purposes, the inverted air cleaner was shown to be more effective than the "ram air" in actual practice. For a filmed road test for public consumption, it's not likely an oversight. Intake honk likely generated too much noise for gov't tastes.
The air temp should be much cooler with the ducts so it's not defeating the purpose of ram air, which is in quotes because it's false. The air might be a half a degree cooler with the lid upside up, but it won't breathe quite as good either. This setup might be the best combination of breathing and temp.
Is he offering that guy a cup of peach ice cream? The '68 Hurst Olds has air conditioning and "stereo tape".... 8-Track tape, that is....and BTW, its easy to "knock" 8-Track tape due to reliability issues, but if I had a choice between 8-track, compact cassette, or CD or MP3, (cant play vinyl in the car)I would choose 8-Track if reliability weren't an issue. The best bass and treble I have ever heard from my Robin Trower (or any music for that matter) music came from my 8 track....to heck with the hiss.... after a while you don't even hear it. And BTW, that car in this film has to be an early prototype with all of that body lean because I have driven '70 442 (with 8-track) and the anti roll bars were super thick and that car never rolled in the turns like this car does. Oh and thanks again for posting these blasts from the past. The honesty is quite refreshing.
Oh, and the '70 442 I drove had drum brakes all around, manual steering, manual brakes, manual windows, no A/C, 455 4spd. And it was a true 442 because the paper was still under the back seat.
A friend has a 1956 Cadillac Coupe Deville Convertible with a Factory Record Player. It even works driving. The arm is heavily weighted and wears out the "45's" really fast.
That thing’s got a serious high lift cam - that idle when he rolls up at the start! Potato potato baby ha. But the Hurst car wasn’t a manual? That’s a let down ha.
no not modified, it was 1 of 515 produced. some were even faster if they did not have air conditioning. you like your mopars. others, like real cars, as my t shirt says and I said in the 70s, adios mopar freaks!!!
no not modified, it was 1 of 515 produced. some were even faster if they did not have air conditioning. you like your mopars. others, like real cars, as my t shirt says and I said in the 70s, adios mopar freaks!!!
@@1967davethewave. If you're talking about gross HP (at crank), thats not even close. My desktop dyno software says 434.39HP gross HP for a 3800lb car with similar gearing. You dont run 13.24@107 in a 3800lb car with 358hp gross. Not even close....
@@Bridging_the_Political_Divide I love the Hurst Olds, Im not cutting it down but almost all muscle cars from that era were either right on their ratings or slightly below based on their trap speeds through the quarter mile. I've never known Desktop dyno software to be that accurate either. I just went through 4 different online quarter mile calculators and put in 3800lbs car with a 107 trap speed. The horsepower calculations ranged from 338 to 363 and that's gross. Putting in 3800lbs and a 390hp the Wallace calculator says E.T. should be 12.44@108.63. My 69 GTO weighs in at 3825 with me and a half a tank of gas. The 455 in it dynoed at 477hp at 5270. It runs through the traps at 116. 12.42 is my quickest on street tires while 11.95 is the best on slicks. So we know exactly what gross power my GTO makes and what speed it runs through the traps and exactly how much it weighs while racing. I'm curious to see if you put those numbers in your Desktop Dyno what they will calculate? If you get a number that is close I will concede but I'm betting it gives you a higher number. It has also been my experience that most people grossly over estimate horsepower.
@@1967davethewave Desktop dyno software is waaaaaay more accurate and "real world" than those simple 2 field calculators you are talking about (which are making many assumptions). Desktop dyno you have to input every particular about the car. Those overly-simplistic 2 field calculators (Ive seen them) are theoretical with every thing perfect. They are so simplistic, they arent even worth using. 11.95 on 477 gross HP in a 3825 lb car seems very optomistic, would have to see the timeslips and dyno sheets to be convinced. At any rate, Ive ran dozens of production cars through my software and find it to be very, very accurate. Much more accurate than the simple 2 field "calculators" you are talking about. That 13.24 Olds on little 14" street tires is in reality a high 12s car with traction...easy. No 3800lb car is in the high 12s on 338hp gross (laughter)...be serious! Can you post your timeslip and dyno sheets somewhere for us to review?
@@Bridging_the_Political_Divide I can't download my time slips on youtube. I might be able to if I had a channel but I don't. But horsepower is just a calculation of how fast a unit of weight is moved in a given distance. That's a simple mathematical formula, not a complicated calculation at all. I have seen many people use Desktop Dyno to try and calculate the horsepower they will have and the results are always laughable when compared with actual dyno tests. I guess we can agree to disagree but I also used to drag race a '13 Challenger SRT. It ran a best of 12.69@109.9. It weighed 4450 with me behind the wheel. According to these "simple 2 field calculators" it should run 12.32@109.68. The speed determines the horsepower, again as all hp is speed of work, while the E.T. is dependent on traction and driver error. I know you think that these cars had way more power than advertised but if they did I think they would have advertised them with more horsepower. Why wouldn't they want to show the car with more power than a Hemi if it had MORE power than a Hemi? I mean that would have sold cars right?
The only car that surely beats it is the L88 Vette. 13.24 @ 107 is probably next strongest. Put this car on Michelin Pilots and its a high 12s car. The Hemi Mopars or LS6 Chevelles didnt turn any better times.
@@Bridging_the_Political_Divide you're correct, only the vet at that time would have been faster if you're speaking about how they came out from the factory.
Modulating your braking was not big in the 70's and early 80's. I can still remember my buddy (who was very smart in school, BTW) telling me how good his brakes were on his mid 70's Capri he had built and I said "what's so good?" and he answered "you just touch the brakes and they lock right up!". I had to explain to him that wasn't really what you needed or desired in a braking system....LOL
oh, the brakes were horrible back then. GM first musclecars ran drums from the Nova. My 1968 4-4-2 had drums on all fours, thankfully the fellow I bought it from swapped to 1969 front discs. of course they are power operated, so you still go thru the windshield at the end of the driveway until you remember what you have to do to drive an old car :) and the numb power steering....mmmmm...mmmmmm.
there was only one 1968 H/O made with a manual shift. John Demmer's son got it. I couldn't find mention in the Hurst book why they only used automatics, my guess is either they used the Toronado engine and just didn't want to put a pilot bushing in the flywheel, or they were already selling enough manual shifters to competitor Pontiac (and what they sold to Mopar was just the pistol grip shifter, the rods handling the shift was the crappy Inland brand any Mopar shifter got) and probably wanted to push the Dual Gate sales.
you are correct, and the first automatics they used were the Buick 2 speeds. And their automatics tended to run a milder cam, just like the GTO. The original 4-4-2 was just a cop car package, but I guess "Cop car for you" didn't do well in ads :) Ah well, Olds sells luxury cars, and their buyers like the car to do everything for them. A Hurst shifted Rock Crusher would have been great, wide or close ratio.
@@albertgaspar627 close ratio is the way to go my big block camaro had the m21 cr and man it worked so good when you used it wirh engine torque curve boom boom boom you were gone or sideways about to go 180 cause of posi locker
Only 15's?, this car probably clawed for traction, they should have put some sticky meats on and I guarantee that time would have been better, and me personally I like the styling of the 69 over the 68, it just looks tougher!
It's documented fact that this particular car was equipped with a fully blueprinted and "super tuned" engine that was fitted with a set of Hooker headers. As they rolled off the showroom floor new, they had nothing on a 2013 - 2017 V6 Honda Accord automatic sedan.
+harddrivin1le - sorry but even the w30 engines were hand built and blueprinted.. and enough with the 1500 lb Honda's, they such the bag from a dead horse, the engines back then we're underrated horsepower wise so the insurance rates did not kill the owner. ya a 2001 Honda whatever could blow away a maverick on paper but the street is real!!!
Because it was 50 years ago... Lots of cars at the time had drums on all four wheels. At least this had power discs on the front. Don't think many (if any) other American cars besides a Vette were available with discs on all 4 wheels.
300 or so SAE Net (not to be confused with the pre 1972 gross ratings) HP isn't "powerful" by today's standards. And unlike the modified Hurst Olds featured in the video, the bone stock production car examples ran like this:wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990414699662/1969-06_MT_1969_Hurst_Olds_1-2.pdf Also, drum brakes were the norm in 1968. The '69 model I posted was equipped with front docs, and the same engine as the '68.
Why do all the engine compartments in these videos look like the car has 100,000 miles on it and has been driven through a dust bowl? They're always so dirty looking
Are you kidding? This is a factory MODIFIED car that was assembled under the direction of Doc Watson. Modifications included the installation of Hooker headers, along with a fully blueprinted engine. The production line stock examples ran like this: wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990483987880/1968-09_MT_1968_Hurst_Olds_Test_1-2.pdf
These cars were "muscle cars", NOT supercars! To qualify as a "supercar", meant not just STRAIGHT line performance, handling of the HIGHEST order, which these cars DID NOT have! If ANY of these "muscle cars" were running in a "LeMans 24hour" race against TRUE "supercars", they would be spitting valve keepers after 2 hours, GUARANTEED!!
@@TheOzthewiz Seem to remember Corvettes winning their class at Sebring in '64. '65, '66, '67, '68 and a Z/28 winning in '69. Corvettes won class at Daytona in '66, Mustang in '67, Corvette in '68, Firebird in '69. Taillights my ass...Detroit was doing just fine. Ferrari was obviously winning alot but Lamborghini wasn't winning shit. And don't want to hear that they weren't factory supported at the time because neither was Corvette.
Hurst cars, the Olds 455 and the Hurst Rambler Scrambler, were well thought out and executed packages. Most muscle cars came poorly tuned, with next to useless shift linkage and severe wheel hop. Not the Hurst cars, worth the extra $$.
The low 13 quarter surprised me. During the era of wheel spin what other car could run low 13's in 68? This may have been the quickest muscle car you could buy in 1968?
I just listened to this again. He mentions 7 inch slicks by Goodyear and M&H fit this car. Probably used for the quarter mile times. ETs are not a good comparison, too many variables. Top speed in the quarter is a real indication of available power. 107 would put this car up there with a handful of 68 cars.
Deucealive75 There were plenty of special edition muscle cars in 68/69 that could pull the 1/4 in 10s. Like the amc amx ss with 10.73s @ 128mph. But that was a $2000 premium on a $3000 car with only 50 made.
That's Doc Watson's MODIFIED factory ringer, complete with Hooker Headers bolted to a fully blueprinted and super-tuned" engine. Such cars were common back in that day, and were more or less typical was what was tested by the enthusiast magazines during muscle car zenith. Consumer advocacy was still in its infancy back then, and pretty much anything went. The production line stock '68 - '69 (mechanically identical) Hurst Olds car ran like this: 1968: wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990483987880/1968-09_MT_1968_Hurst_Olds_Test_1-2.pdf 1969 (1 aboard and the stout 3.91 axle ratio; engines were identical for both years): wildaboutcarsonline.com/cgi-bin/pub9990262549620.cgi?itemid=9990414699662&action=viewad&categoryid=9990488127362&page=1&placeonpage=3&totaldisplayed=50 This '69 was equipped with the more street friendly 3.42 axle ratio: wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990410813248/1969-07_CL_1969_Hurst_Olds_Test_1-4.pdf
You can tell by the idle that the car was worked. Also, CAR CRAFT magnate tested the very same car with Doc Watson. They also tested a worked W-30 442 and W-31 (350) Cutlass S. All were modified cars per Doc Watson and the headers were clearly visible under the hood. I've posted several links to margin tests of 1968 - 1969 (mechanically identical) Hurst Olds cars elsewhere here. Quarter mile trap speeds ranged from 97 MPH to 101 MPH. None of the cars came close to matching this car's 107 MPH trap speed, That difference in trap speed for a car of this weight reflects an additional 50 or so as installed (net) HP.
Also, the headers were fitted to a custom exhaust system with no mufflers and employed the stock tips. That was also common practice with '67 - '69 Z27 test cars, since headers were sold as an over the counter GM part. Such headers were "medium length" and weren't fitted with the massive downpipes and collectors of the examples used in NHRA "stock" and "super stock" class racing. You can also be sure that this particular car was fitted with an optimized engine that likely contained a custom cam grind, an honest 11.5: compression ratio and some custom head and valve work. Check out this article, as written by Ro McGonegal a couple decades after the original "400 6 pack" Road Runner test. Ro was deeply involved in drag testing then new muscle cars back in the day for "Super Stock" magazine, and this article is fascinating. Of particular interest is commentary devoted to factory ringers that were specially modified to impress the press: sixpacksixbbl.homestead.com/a12roadtestspage11.html
This is some interesting info..So these headers would be shorty's in todays words? I see they have the heat tube hooked up to them..It still a bit confusing as he mentions this car has A/C but it's obvious it doesn't, but the 69 you linked has it, "also with the flipped air filter lid".. Brings up a question I have as far as "Doctored" test cars..Years ago I had I believe a "Hot Rodding" magazine that detailed the 70 Buick GS stage1 that ran a 13.38 in Motor Trends Magazine test..Although it didn't have headers it was super tuned..I can't for the life of me remember what was done to it, nor can I find a link, any help??
I had JBA shorties on my 1999 1LE LS1 Z28. They were designed to mate up with the stock exhaust system. Mid-lengths are longer and generally require a custom exhaust system. "Shorties" didn't really exist back then. Basically, this particular '68 H/O was fitted with a custom exhaust system. Here's an original 1967 - 1969 Z28 header, which was available at the Chevy parts counter and carried an official GM part number. As you can see, it's much more substantial than today's "'shorties." www.heartbeatcitycamaro.com/store/product/27322/1967-1968-Camaro-NOS-302-Z-28-Factory-Headers/ Here's another article for you to check out. The '68 Hurst Olds cars equipped with A/C used an engine that was extremely similar to this "365" (Gross) HP version in terms of parts and tune. Check out what it made in as production line stock, "as installed" (SAE Net) state - just 226 HP (Net) vs. the advertised 365 Gross! i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/CSABAHQ_zpsf457c19e.jpg~original The non A/C cars received a modestly more aggressive cam (from the 350 CID W31) modestly better "D" heads and slightly warmer carb and ignition tuning. Figure 30 more Net HP at best over the non-A/C cars, though both engines were rated at the same "390" HP.
Not true , the 442 was limited to the 400 but the Hurst olds were fitted with the 455 at demmer since an aftermarket car didn't have to adhere to the GM standard of no more than 400ci in an intermediate car.
"The agility of a bobcat... " LMAO, more like "the agility of a runny stool in a babies diaper..." Don't get me wrong here either, I LOVE everything Oldsmobile & Buick but that statement made me laugh, along with the associated video of the "Street Missile" bludgeoning itself through that downhill corner with the grace of an obese cat chasing a mouse...
So...? how much of a $$ difference. This Olds can pull a boat, or even a Cadillac on a trailer.. Can your 4banger Porsche or even a 12banger Jaguar do that..?
On what planet? Stock your car runs a 15 second quarter mile. Car Craft also ran low 13's and even a high 12 with this car back in '68. If your car is modified there's nothing "odd" about it... Nor is there anything odd about 45 years of progress...
My father had one of those EXTREMELY rare cars. He sold it when I was 7 years old in 1976.
My God I wish I had that beautiful car today. Hurts my heart for real.
The 68 Hurst/Olds is probably my favorite Oldsmobile ever made other than a 70 442 W-30. Very fast and also very good looking. The only thing I don't like about these is that they were only available with an automatic transmission...no 4 speed option. They had the biggest displacement V8 of any mid size muscle car built before 1970. The Gentleman's hot rod. Really awesome ride
Super hot car. 13.24 @ 107mph and 5.3 0-60 on crappy skinny 14" polyglass tires? Damn! Launch that car on modern Michelin Pilots and its a high 12 second car. Aside of the L88 Vette, this was the baddest car of the muscle car era.
Part of the Hurst packaging was the featuring of the Hurst Pro-Matic 2-Ratchet Automatic Shifter Kit. That was the whole point. Hurst dual-gate shifters offered two algorithms of gear shifting.
Before this unique project, George Hurst offered his remarkable gear shifting solution in 1963. It was designed to make it possible for muscle-car drivers to shift gears more rapidly than with standard automatics. It was marketing for Hurst branded, advanced automatic shifting.
Well I'll have to say, out of all the big block beauties put through the wringer on Bud's show, this Olds Hurst has to be the best handling piece of Detroit Iron I've seen in a long, long time.
That it handled as well as it did is unbelievable because of the bias ply tires.
I worked at Demmer Engineering (Demmer Tool & Die) when Olds and Demmer were building these. Watched some history being made. Loved the Olds performance guys. Too bad they were always hamstrung by the GM brass in Detroit.
Great story.
0 to 60 in 5.3 seconds on skinny ass tires 55 years ago? Incredible.
*The Glory Days of Oldsmobile, The Hurst Olds!*
The ONLY thing "glorious" about a Hurst Olds was "Linda Vaughn" (Miss Hurst Olds) posing beside one in an "under sized" bikini!
@@TheOzthewiz She has nothing to do with the automobile itself.
When I was in high school in 74 to 78 I drove a67 olds cutlass with a330 olds 4 able with a two speed power glide and my second olds was a 67 442 4bbl 4 speed with 456 rear in gears Those were the days!!!!
@@nathanholmquist6077 @Nathan Holmquist I got a 67 cutlass just like you had.. Its a big project but its got alot of potential. Im only 17 so its a great learning experience. Cutlass supreme, 4bbl 330 2 speed, 10 bolt posi w/ 3.73 gear. Should run pretty good! Thanks for the comment!
- Tee🤙
@@TheOzthewiz you could not be moore wrong
"When you get this show out of the can"--back in the days when it was on a reel of film, carried in a silver round canister. I own a '68 4-4-2 with a 400 hp 455, and the only thing Hurst should have added? the older switch pitch torque convertor. I have one installed, and its neat, manually switching from 1,800 RPM stall speed to 3,300 RPM. Drive at the first setting, and you aren't getting all the transmission heat typical of a high stall convertor. But swap to the higher setting and punch it...
I agree. The switch pitch converter on the Turbo 400 was one of GMs best features. Hurst should have included it.
with variable duration lifters on a split cam with an average .49 lift and 260 duration, I can leave my manual valve body THM400 in top gear, and pull away and drive all day in top gear, get 15 mpg. Or I can swap to the higher stall speed and run thru the gears, do 0-60 mph in 5.5 seconds with a 3:1 gear ratio.
If it didn't have 243,000 miles and if i didn't live in the snow belt, I would drive it daily :)
5.3 seconds 0-60 is pretty damn good
I want to go to a Mau Mau Convention on a Saturday night to see how much fun it is.
Back in “79” my sister had a real one. ( I was 14)These car were awesome. This car and other were the beginning,for me to start learning how to fix, rebuild, and restore cars.... love this car... thank to my sister and brother in law, for teaching me how to work on all the great cars I have worked on( 1901- today)
Can you remember or know where she bought it?
Since they are/were quite rare, it's a good chance that it belonged to my dad before.
Low 13s while burning rubber all through first gear. That's a low 12sec car with modern sticky tires.
Yep i have that motor...few upgrades an a big cam
Not sure about low 12s in factory tune. But definitely capable of that with modern tires and a few mods
@@jeremythompson9122 13 .2 hrst olds 68..upgrades1190s ...12.2.oh yea.... Ive built one 463...40 over.fucking nasty....people tellin me all day how mean she sounds too.
One of the truly best, and many times forgotten, MC's of it's day along with the Buick GSX!
The W30 could be my favorite GM engine ever. Awesome street manners.
You could street race this car on Friday night and drive it to church on Sunday.
They were slow, though. The W30 was essentially a lightly warmed over full size Olds sedan engine. The results spoke for themselves. (A 2013 through 2017 V6 Honda Accord would easily run with a bone stock 1970 W30 442!) Here are three vintage road tests:
wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990469466228/1970-03_CL_1970_Olds_W-30__Test_1-6.pdf
wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990447689764/1970-05_HPC_1970_442_W-30_Test_1-6.pdf
wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990444673251/1970-04_HR_1970_W-30_and_W-31_Tests_1-2.pdf
And a 2013 Honda Accord V6 road test for comparative purposes. (I'm using the Accord as an example because it's not even a "fast car" by modern standards.
www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-honda-accord-coupe-v-6-manual-test-review
I know, but 500 lb. ft. of torque never gets old for a daily driver. It's not an LS6 Chevelle, but not everybody wanted that. 1/4 mile times have very little to do with how fun a car is to drive.
@@harddrivin1le-970 Really wouldn't say they were slow. 500 lb/ft of torque is pretty impressive. Horsepower sells cars...torque wins races. Plus the W-30 engine in 1968 was 400 cubes...not 455. The 455 W-30 didn't come out until 1970 because of GM's 400 cube limit in mid size cars before then
@@harddrivin1le-970 Yeah well a car built in 1970 didn't have the technology that today's cars have either so you can't really compare today's cars with one that was built 50 years ago
Give me the 68' or 69' w31 350 RamRod any day over the w30. What a little street beast! Bench & Post too
Beautiful car. Pure Oldsmobile
This thing kicked ass right out of the box!
Only because it was factory MODIFIED under the direction of Doc Watson, including the installation of aftermarket Hooker headers. The production line stock examples ran like this (yawn):
wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990483987880/1968-09_MT_1968_Hurst_Olds_Test_1-2.pdf
Badass..i have a 40 over tweaked with some goodies and c heads wth drag radials...into the eleven..fuckers nutty.
In a 1976 trans am.siff suspension..big balls for a stoplight car.
Yeah, nothing like a "blue printed" engine with headers, "stock" right out of the box!
harddrivin1le - Shut up already Debbie Downer!
Boy times do change. I'm an Olds fan for forty years...but look at that body lean. Thx for posting.
The typical American "barge" when it came to the "twisties"! LOL
500 lbs torque @3,600 rpm ,,oh my and 390 horses nice
Fastest car ever tested back in those days...
Those are gross ratings, which are essentially meaningless. This engine produced approximately 300 SAE Net ("as installed" horsepower, which has been the standard since 1972.
Are you kidding? This particular car was a purpose built factory ringer. Production line stock examples ran like this:wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990483987880/1968-09_MT_1968_Hurst_Olds_Test_1-2.pdf
A 1968 Hemi Roadrunner, for example would have buried it - not even close.
@@harddrivin1le-970 kid you have no idea. Allmost every "musclecar" from that period was underrated. www.yenko.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1316189
@@64fairlane305
No doubt , I just saw it a few videos back.
I think it was one of the Cobra jet fords , they said it's hp and tq was rated at 3400.
335hp and like 470ft pounds if I remember it right.
Or pretty close to that.
3400rpm?
That's sandbagging for sure.
Those GM boys sure did know what they were doing! This thing beat everything from Mopar or Ford, according to this shows tests.
Not a Mustang 427 or a Buick GS Stage1 but the rest ok
@@64fairlane305 I have not seen the tests from this show. Do you know where I can find those tests?
I remember seeing one new in the Olds dealership in Dayton, Oh. Great looking and performing car in it's day.
I always loved the 69 Cutlass convertible, Black on Black.
Even in today's world, it's still more than respectable with its performance in acceleration, braking, and even handling. It was ahead of its time but it also wasn't an all factory car either
W-30 cam was a good improvement over stock and headers sure helped so cam was OLDS but headers not. lots of those cars had serious gear options like 433 which is all you could run with a 5 grand motor and an auto. I had a grammar school friend and his Dad ordered a late 60's Dodge station wagon, he got 390 gears not something you would be driving 80 in for any distance, 390 gears was something you would get with a tow package, My Father had a 66 Toronado, that car has capable on the highway, even around town it had plenty of power for its girth
true, if you wanted highway, you ordered the Turnpiker...2bbl 400, 9:1 compression, 290 hp out to a 2.56:1 rear screw. With 4-4-2 suspension, you felt safe over the speed limit.
Fastest stock, out of the factory Olds was the 1966 W-30 442.
just about every top ten or top 15 quickest muscle cars, has this on it. But most forget it even existed, focusing on the 454-455 monsters of 1970.
What a cool car....
13.24 1/4 mile?? This car was super duper tuned! Flipped air cleaner gave me a first glimps..Being a very low 14 sec out of the box its sure shows you what's capable on all GM A body big blocks...
That was with a 3 spd auto tranny.
I like the silver and black better then the white and gold .
These cars were bad ass fast. One of the strongest Super cars for 68 was from Oldsmobile,! Not bad for what many people saw as a old man's car. I laugh to myself when I watch this video. One of the very special features on this car is Oldsmobiles very effective Forced Air Induction . Then some bozo has flipped the air cleaner lid upside down. Negated the Forced Air Induction. Also, he says the car has AC but it does not. Awesome video.
I noticed that as well.
Looking back as a 66 year old, the cars of that time were a blast. Too much motor, not enough brakes and shitty tires made for a fun ride...lol.
The 1967-1972 olds are the best and 1981-1987 best body lines.cutlasses
68 don't get asked much or got outshined by its successor 69 Hurst!! But i am one of the guys who love 68 over 69! 68 is more beautiful than 69!
Bud had a pack of smokes in his shirt pocket! YEAHHH!!! 🤘😎🤘
I love the hokey background music with the bongo drums!
This car is my first love, been faithful ever since.
Did anyone notice that they flipped the air cleaner lid upside down? It’s an old school trick;)
Wow 5.3 seconds to 60 that was super back then with 14 tires
That really was "a goin Jessy"
Oh come on it can't actually be more fun than a maou maou convention on a Saturday night!!! Or can it ?!!
Oh YES, it can!
I don't care if new engines make more HP/TQ. Even in 2018, still haven't duplicated the feel of these big inch carbureted pushrod engines making big low end torque numbers in a midsize car.
Nothing like it. There's more to life than 1/4 mile times which have very little to do with how fun a car is to drive.
Amen to that, bro!
They're friggin' cool in a way that will never be replicated.
And those cars doesn't even need hemis, ls6, w30 or cobra jet engines.
they lead in style and attitude
These "behemoths" were created for ONE thing ONLY.......DRAG RACING! The "FTD" factor of these cars was "missing in action" at the first bend in the road! The DINOSAURS will NEVER return!
Wake up from your coma please.Newer is way better.Handling braking acceleration top speed .
No replacement for displacement
I agree with most of what you said.. but 1968 technology is no match for 2020. I'd love to own this car but for a daily driver?? no way. 7mpg max, If you commute to work any distance the fuel stops will be a lot and always. My other comment is handling.. With high tech suspensions and amazing tires we have today even SUV's would out handle with no problem. But like scdevon said, you cannot duplicate that sweet sound those old muscle cars made. I'd make mine a weekend cruiser.
When cars had style. Now every car looks the same. Molded plastic!
Just listening to the idle tells you this is an animal but I wouldn’t want to be stuck in traffic without spare spark plugs.
CAR CRAFT magazine tested this very same car and revealed that it was specially modified by Olds and including aftermarket long tube headers. (The cam doesn't sound stock here, either.)) Actual production cars were substantially slower (lower 14s in the 100 MP range in the quarter). It's also since been revealed that Olds did this entire thing in house, despite GM's 400 CID limit in mid size cars.
If they got 13.24 in the quarter mile on them tires I'm sure that was a 12 second car easy with slicks
When I was a kid, someone in the neighborhood had one back when they were new. Never met the person and then one day it was gone and never came back.
Impressive.
These people, are the founding father's of the cars you see today
I would take a GTO over any other GM mid size for many of the years...except for this one...its special.
Obviously a ringer with that idle sound at the beginning, a little disappointing that they didn’t call it out
Haha omg that lope was horrendous.
Stock 455s with sticks had a 308 degree cams then (huge overlap!!). I believe Jack claims that particular 390hp motor was unopened from Olds. Late 60s were radical motors right from the factory. L88s in Vettes are generally believed to make 550hp in reality. Very hot engines back then.
My neighbor had a 68 hearse, it sounded exactly the same as that one. He didn't know modifications.
Damn you could dust anything but a Corvette or a Cobra 427 in that '68 Hurst.
LOVED WATCHING THIS SHOW EVERY WEEKEND BACK IN THE DAY!!!!!!! LOOKS LIKE BUD IS HOLDING A CANDLEMUSIC IS JUST TOO MUCH
5:34 That music should play when we pull away from a traffic light. I think things would move along faster.
Air cleaner lid is on upside down. Kinda defeating the purpose of "ram air".
edit: also, tire squeal noise is dubbed in.
What he said above. Presumably for test purposes, the inverted air cleaner was shown to be more effective than the "ram air" in actual practice. For a filmed road test for public consumption, it's not likely an oversight. Intake honk likely generated too much noise for gov't tastes.
We used to flip the pan in highschool days - sounded throatier, too ;)
The air temp should be much cooler with the ducts so it's not defeating the purpose of ram air, which is in quotes because it's false. The air might be a half a degree cooler with the lid upside up, but it won't breathe quite as good either. This setup might be the best combination of breathing and temp.
@@the_lost_navigator
Yeah, it sounded so much better with it flipped!!
Now that is a car
“Plus a little thing called: ram air”
5:26 a/c? Where'd they hide it? Didn't these have 15x7 wheels too?
If you listen to the video again the guy says it has G70 r14 tires, 14-in rims.
Good Video
13:24 in the 1/4 with those tires. 0 to 60 5.3. Imagine it with slicks.
Is he offering that guy a cup of peach ice cream? The '68 Hurst Olds has air conditioning and "stereo tape".... 8-Track tape, that is....and BTW, its easy to "knock" 8-Track tape due to reliability issues, but if I had a choice between 8-track, compact cassette, or CD or MP3, (cant play vinyl in the car)I would choose 8-Track if reliability weren't an issue. The best bass and treble I have ever heard from my Robin Trower (or any music for that matter) music came from my 8 track....to heck with the hiss.... after a while you don't even hear it. And BTW, that car in this film has to be an early prototype with all of that body lean because I have driven '70 442 (with 8-track) and the anti roll bars were super thick and that car never rolled in the turns like this car does. Oh and thanks again for posting these blasts from the past. The honesty is quite refreshing.
Oh, and the '70 442 I drove had drum brakes all around, manual steering, manual brakes, manual windows, no A/C, 455 4spd. And it was a true 442 because the paper was still under the back seat.
A friend has a 1956 Cadillac Coupe Deville Convertible with a Factory Record Player. It even works driving. The arm is heavily weighted and wears out the "45's" really fast.
Now to find 1970 +\- ford thunderbird vids
That thing’s got a serious high lift cam - that idle when he rolls up at the start! Potato potato baby ha. But the Hurst car wasn’t a manual? That’s a let down ha.
Thats a going Gessy!
no not modified, it was 1 of 515 produced. some were even faster if they did not have air conditioning. you like your mopars. others, like real cars, as my t shirt says and I said in the 70s, adios mopar freaks!!!
no not modified, it was 1 of 515 produced. some were even faster if they did not have air conditioning. you like your mopars. others, like real cars, as my t shirt says and I said in the 70s, adios mopar freaks!!!
It's funny that they have the top of the breather upside down and it has ram air. Seems like that would let it pull in hot air and hurt performance.
Demmer cars. I work in the building where they were converted
Very,very underestimated MUSCLE CAR !!!
To do 107 in the qtr tells you this makes way more that 390HP. Not a light car, probably making more like 440/450HP.
Run the car's specs though a Quarter mile horsepower calculator. Assuming the car with driver weighs about 3800lbs it has 358hp.
@@1967davethewave. If you're talking about gross HP (at crank), thats not even close. My desktop dyno software says 434.39HP gross HP for a 3800lb car with similar gearing. You dont run 13.24@107 in a 3800lb car with 358hp gross. Not even close....
@@Bridging_the_Political_Divide I love the Hurst Olds, Im not cutting it down but almost all muscle cars from that era were either right on their ratings or slightly below based on their trap speeds through the quarter mile. I've never known Desktop dyno software to be that accurate either. I just went through 4 different online quarter mile calculators and put in 3800lbs car with a 107 trap speed. The horsepower calculations ranged from 338 to 363 and that's gross. Putting in 3800lbs and a 390hp the Wallace calculator says E.T. should be 12.44@108.63. My 69 GTO weighs in at 3825 with me and a half a tank of gas. The 455 in it dynoed at 477hp at 5270. It runs through the traps at 116. 12.42 is my quickest on street tires while 11.95 is the best on slicks. So we know exactly what gross power my GTO makes and what speed it runs through the traps and exactly how much it weighs while racing. I'm curious to see if you put those numbers in your Desktop Dyno what they will calculate? If you get a number that is close I will concede but I'm betting it gives you a higher number. It has also been my experience that most people grossly over estimate horsepower.
@@1967davethewave Desktop dyno software is waaaaaay more accurate and "real world" than those simple 2 field calculators you are talking about (which are making many assumptions). Desktop dyno you have to input every particular about the car. Those overly-simplistic 2 field calculators (Ive seen them) are theoretical with every thing perfect. They are so simplistic, they arent even worth using. 11.95 on 477 gross HP in a 3825 lb car seems very optomistic, would have to see the timeslips and dyno sheets to be convinced. At any rate, Ive ran dozens of production cars through my software and find it to be very, very accurate. Much more accurate than the simple 2 field "calculators" you are talking about. That 13.24 Olds on little 14" street tires is in reality a high 12s car with traction...easy. No 3800lb car is in the high 12s on 338hp gross (laughter)...be serious! Can you post your timeslip and dyno sheets somewhere for us to review?
@@Bridging_the_Political_Divide I can't download my time slips on youtube. I might be able to if I had a channel but I don't. But horsepower is just a calculation of how fast a unit of weight is moved in a given distance. That's a simple mathematical formula, not a complicated calculation at all. I have seen many people use Desktop Dyno to try and calculate the horsepower they will have and the results are always laughable when compared with actual dyno tests. I guess we can agree to disagree but I also used to drag race a '13 Challenger SRT. It ran a best of 12.69@109.9. It weighed 4450 with me behind the wheel. According to these "simple 2 field calculators" it should run 12.32@109.68. The speed determines the horsepower, again as all hp is speed of work, while the E.T. is dependent on traction and driver error. I know you think that these cars had way more power than advertised but if they did I think they would have advertised them with more horsepower. Why wouldn't they want to show the car with more power than a Hemi if it had MORE power than a Hemi? I mean that would have sold cars right?
I wonder can this Hurst out run the Chevelle LS6, or a Hemi?
Probably not but it all depends on the transmission, rear axle ratio, driver error, and even weather conditions
The only car that surely beats it is the L88 Vette. 13.24 @ 107 is probably next strongest. Put this car on Michelin Pilots and its a high 12s car. The Hemi Mopars or LS6 Chevelles didnt turn any better times.
@@Bridging_the_Political_Divide you're correct, only the vet at that time would have been faster if you're speaking about how they came out from the factory.
Modulating your braking was not big in the 70's and early 80's. I can still remember my buddy (who was very smart in school, BTW) telling me how good his brakes were on his mid 70's Capri he had built and I said "what's so good?" and he answered "you just touch the brakes and they lock right up!". I had to explain to him that wasn't really what you needed or desired in a braking system....LOL
oh, the brakes were horrible back then. GM first musclecars ran drums from the Nova. My 1968 4-4-2 had drums on all fours, thankfully the fellow I bought it from swapped to 1969 front discs. of course they are power operated, so you still go thru the windshield at the end of the driveway until you remember what you have to do to drive an old car :) and the numb power steering....mmmmm...mmmmmm.
"Going Jessie"? Had to look that one up.
1:14................no, you didn't want US to talk with Jack, you wanted us to watch YOU talk with Jack.
7:07 drop anchor!
why a automatic ? i know its the dual gate but they do make manual shifters too
ALL H/O's were automatics - agree bummer
there was only one 1968 H/O made with a manual shift. John Demmer's son got it. I couldn't find mention in the Hurst book why they only used automatics, my guess is either they used the Toronado engine and just didn't want to put a pilot bushing in the flywheel, or they were already selling enough manual shifters to competitor Pontiac (and what they sold to Mopar was just the pistol grip shifter, the rods handling the shift was the crappy Inland brand any Mopar shifter got) and probably wanted to push the Dual Gate sales.
@@albertgaspar627 does it make any sense that a 442 be a auto? 4. 4. 2 isnt the middle letter ,4 speed
you are correct, and the first automatics they used were the Buick 2 speeds. And their automatics tended to run a milder cam, just like the GTO. The original 4-4-2 was just a cop car package, but I guess "Cop car for you" didn't do well in ads :)
Ah well, Olds sells luxury cars, and their buyers like the car to do everything for them. A Hurst shifted Rock Crusher would have been great, wide or close ratio.
@@albertgaspar627 close ratio is the way to go my big block camaro had the m21 cr and man it worked so good when you used it wirh engine torque curve boom boom boom you were gone or sideways about to go 180 cause of posi locker
Call it a 442A or 4A2 if it has an automatic.:)
Where would a late 60’s car review be without bongos on the soundtrack? LOL
“And with air-conditioning and stereo it’s the only way to fly”
13 sec 1/4 .. holy shhttt
Only 15's?, this car probably clawed for traction, they should have put some sticky meats on and I guarantee that time would have been better, and me personally I like the styling of the 69 over the 68, it just looks tougher!
0-60 in 5.3 is impressive for the weight and technology.
Buds got cigarettes in his pocket
Runs like its on 7 cylinders but it wakes up of idle and hard runner
That car had a big old cam
107 mph in the quarter mile? That's a mid to low 13 second 1/4 mile.
awesome think he said it went 13.24 107mph the exact same time as my 1996 z28 with full bolt ons and 3.42 gears not to shabby
It's documented fact that this particular car was equipped with a fully blueprinted and "super tuned" engine that was fitted with a set of Hooker headers. As they rolled off the showroom floor new, they had nothing on a 2013 - 2017 V6 Honda Accord automatic sedan.
+harddrivin1le - sorry but even the w30 engines were hand built and blueprinted.. and enough with the 1500 lb Honda's, they such the bag from a dead horse, the engines back then we're underrated horsepower wise so the insurance rates did not kill the owner. ya a 2001 Honda whatever could blow away a maverick on paper but the street is real!!!
Good look up tha ass but...mine is pure rage...evil.
harddrivin1le - Except Being seen in. Although, in the Honda you’d go unnoticed.
Premium Fuel only!! 35 cents a gallon
Don't tailgate on the interstate.
Why do even these powerful cars have drums?
Because it was 50 years ago... Lots of cars at the time had drums on all four wheels. At least this had power discs on the front. Don't think many (if any) other American cars besides a Vette were available with discs on all 4 wheels.
A lot of them could be had with them. They just weren't standard at the time.
300 or so SAE Net (not to be confused with the pre 1972 gross ratings) HP isn't "powerful" by today's standards. And unlike the modified Hurst Olds featured in the video, the bone stock production car examples ran like this:wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990414699662/1969-06_MT_1969_Hurst_Olds_1-2.pdf
Also, drum brakes were the norm in 1968. The '69 model I posted was equipped with front docs, and the same engine as the '68.
Going FAST is all that matters, stopping is secondary!
Why do all the engine compartments in these videos look like the car has 100,000 miles on it and has been driven through a dust bowl? They're always so dirty looking
Erock thought the same thing
Supercar ? Oh my Goodness
What else was running high 12's out of the box back in '68? Probably not a Ferrari or Lamborghini.
Are you kidding? This is a factory MODIFIED car that was assembled under the direction of Doc Watson. Modifications included the installation of Hooker headers, along with a fully blueprinted engine. The production line stock examples ran like this:
wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990483987880/1968-09_MT_1968_Hurst_Olds_Test_1-2.pdf
These cars were "muscle cars", NOT supercars! To qualify as a "supercar", meant not just STRAIGHT line performance, handling of the HIGHEST order, which these cars DID NOT have! If ANY of these "muscle cars" were running in a "LeMans 24hour" race against TRUE "supercars", they would be spitting valve keepers after 2 hours, GUARANTEED!!
@@sidefx996 Put that "Detroit stuff" on the track with a Ferrari or Lambo and the Doctor Old's Special would just see tail lights!!
@@TheOzthewiz Seem to remember Corvettes winning their class at Sebring in '64. '65, '66, '67, '68 and a Z/28 winning in '69. Corvettes won class at Daytona in '66, Mustang in '67, Corvette in '68, Firebird in '69. Taillights my ass...Detroit was doing just fine. Ferrari was obviously winning alot but Lamborghini wasn't winning shit. And don't want to hear that they weren't factory supported at the time because neither was Corvette.
Hurst cars, the Olds 455 and the Hurst Rambler Scrambler, were well thought out and executed packages. Most muscle cars came poorly tuned, with next to useless shift linkage and severe wheel hop. Not the Hurst cars, worth the extra $$.
The low 13 quarter surprised me. During the era of wheel spin what other car could run low 13's in 68? This may have been the quickest muscle car you could buy in 1968?
I just listened to this again. He mentions 7 inch slicks by Goodyear and M&H fit this car. Probably used for the quarter mile times. ETs are not a good comparison, too many variables. Top speed in the quarter is a real indication of available power. 107 would put this car up there with a handful of 68 cars.
Ok. I assumed they got the 13 with the stock tires they used during their testing.
Deucealive75 There were plenty of special edition muscle cars in 68/69 that could pull the 1/4 in 10s. Like the amc amx ss with 10.73s @ 128mph. But that was a $2000 premium on a $3000 car with only 50 made.
That's Doc Watson's MODIFIED factory ringer, complete with Hooker Headers bolted to a fully blueprinted and
super-tuned" engine. Such cars were common back in that day, and were more or less typical was what was tested by the enthusiast magazines during muscle car zenith. Consumer advocacy was still in its infancy back then, and pretty much anything went.
The production line stock '68 - '69 (mechanically identical) Hurst Olds car ran like this:
1968: wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990483987880/1968-09_MT_1968_Hurst_Olds_Test_1-2.pdf
1969 (1 aboard and the stout 3.91 axle ratio; engines were identical for both years):
wildaboutcarsonline.com/cgi-bin/pub9990262549620.cgi?itemid=9990414699662&action=viewad&categoryid=9990488127362&page=1&placeonpage=3&totaldisplayed=50
This '69 was equipped with the more street friendly 3.42 axle ratio:
wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990410813248/1969-07_CL_1969_Hurst_Olds_Test_1-4.pdf
Good to know..I can't see any headers hanging though? Wondering if they just quoted the times of a header installed car? Thanks for the other links..
You can tell by the idle that the car was worked. Also, CAR CRAFT magnate tested the very same car with Doc Watson. They also tested a worked W-30 442 and W-31 (350) Cutlass S. All were modified cars per Doc Watson and the headers were clearly visible under the hood. I've posted several links to margin tests of 1968 - 1969 (mechanically identical) Hurst Olds cars elsewhere here. Quarter mile trap speeds ranged from 97 MPH to 101 MPH. None of the cars came close to matching this car's 107 MPH trap speed, That difference in trap speed for a car of this weight reflects an additional 50 or so as installed (net) HP.
Also, the headers were fitted to a custom exhaust system with no mufflers and employed the stock tips. That was also common practice with '67 - '69 Z27 test cars, since headers were sold as an over the counter GM part. Such headers were "medium length" and weren't fitted with the massive downpipes and collectors of the examples used in NHRA "stock" and "super stock" class racing. You can also be sure that this particular car was fitted with an optimized engine that likely contained a custom cam grind, an honest 11.5: compression ratio and some custom head and valve work. Check out this article, as written by Ro McGonegal a couple decades after the original "400 6 pack" Road Runner test. Ro was deeply involved in drag testing then new muscle cars back in the day for "Super Stock" magazine, and this article is fascinating. Of particular interest is commentary devoted to factory ringers that were specially modified to impress the press:
sixpacksixbbl.homestead.com/a12roadtestspage11.html
This is some interesting info..So these headers would be shorty's in todays words? I see they have the heat tube hooked up to them..It still a bit confusing as he mentions this car has A/C but it's obvious it doesn't, but the 69 you linked has it, "also with the flipped air filter lid"..
Brings up a question I have as far as "Doctored" test cars..Years ago I had I believe a "Hot Rodding" magazine that detailed the 70 Buick GS stage1 that ran a 13.38 in Motor Trends Magazine test..Although it didn't have headers it was super tuned..I can't for the life of me remember what was done to it, nor can I find a link, any help??
I had JBA shorties on my 1999 1LE LS1 Z28. They were designed to mate up with the stock exhaust system. Mid-lengths are longer and generally require a custom exhaust system. "Shorties" didn't really exist back then.
Basically, this particular '68 H/O was fitted with a custom exhaust system.
Here's an original 1967 - 1969 Z28 header, which was available at the Chevy parts counter and carried an official GM part number. As you can see, it's much more substantial than today's "'shorties."
www.heartbeatcitycamaro.com/store/product/27322/1967-1968-Camaro-NOS-302-Z-28-Factory-Headers/
Here's another article for you to check out. The '68 Hurst Olds cars equipped with A/C used an engine that was extremely similar to this "365" (Gross) HP version in terms of parts and tune. Check out what it made in as production line stock, "as installed" (SAE Net) state - just 226 HP (Net) vs. the advertised 365 Gross!
i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/CSABAHQ_zpsf457c19e.jpg~original
The non A/C cars received a modestly more aggressive cam (from the 350 CID W31) modestly better "D" heads and slightly warmer carb and ignition tuning. Figure 30 more Net HP at best over the non-A/C cars, though both engines were rated at the same "390" HP.
fast
facebook.com/groups/131633717350604/
455 !!! Lol
68 Hurst/Olds had a 400. 455 1st available on 69 model.
Not true , the 442 was limited to the 400 but the Hurst olds were fitted with the 455 at demmer since an aftermarket car didn't have to adhere to the GM standard of no more than 400ci in an intermediate car.
The '69 is better looking.
3600 lbs my ass......
"The agility of a bobcat... " LMAO, more like "the agility of a runny stool in a babies diaper..."
Don't get me wrong here either, I LOVE everything Oldsmobile & Buick but that statement made me laugh, along with the associated video of the "Street Missile" bludgeoning itself through that downhill corner with the grace of an obese cat chasing a mouse...
According to car & driver magazine, my 1981 Porsche 911SC did -0-60 in 6 sec, faster than most of these muscle cars
So...? how much of a $$ difference. This Olds can pull a boat, or even a Cadillac on a trailer.. Can your 4banger Porsche or even a 12banger Jaguar do that..?
Oddly enough my 2013 Malibu out preforms that Olds with a 2.0 turbo motor.
On what planet? Stock your car runs a 15 second quarter mile. Car Craft also ran low 13's and even a high 12 with this car back in '68. If your car is modified there's nothing "odd" about it... Nor is there anything odd about 45 years of progress...
Ted Roberts your Malibu is devaluating as we speak.
ted i would just love to see your 2013 malibu out perform the '68 hurst olds
+Ted Roberts
Oddly enough, you're lying.
No one looks at your car though. People notice this car.
What award did the shifter win? Lmao