Heres the deal-My buddy just got a sweet 71 Cutlass with the 350 Rocket block. Now I know that my old Formula would have beat him pretty good, but he thinks its probly faster than my new car-the 99 Crown Vic Police Interceptor. Both cars are stock and in pretty good tune. Ok, just to make it 3rd gen, I know my ford runs about the same as, oh, an lo3 or maybe even a crappy lb9. So who do yall think'll take this one? Well probly be racin from a stop to about 80 or so. Any predictions before I run em?

 

No predictions....im surprised....Anywayz i raced him. It was ugly. My ugly a## ford raped teh siht of the cutty. turns out he's only got the POS 2 barrel rocket...It was a pretty close run but I shut him down...we only ran to bout 70 and I had bout 2 cars.
anyone know bout those....I thought those were supposed to run 14s or somethin fast...input?

 

I had a 2V 1970 Cutlass, only mod was duals from the manifolds. Let me tell you, even in good tune it was slow. IIRC the 2V only flows ~390cfm, the valves were 1.875/1.50 int/exh., crappy log manifolds, a TH350, and an open rear with gearing in the low 2.XX:1. They aren't light either. I think the'71's already had lower compression too. I'll bet a mostly stock one would have a hard time with an LG4 car. I loved mine but was never deluded into thinking it was fast as it was. I would bet the quickest completely stock '71 Cutlass would not break 15.0 in the quarter mile.

I'd say beware what I call the "Corvette syndrome." Nothing against Corvettes (or Cutlasses for that matter, I love both), but not all members of a car line live up to the name's reputation.

 

I doubt that it has the "rocket" engine in it. More like the overly ****ty and underpowered sedan 350 engine.

 

it should of been "an LB9 or maybe even a crappy L03" you had it backwards buddy...

Too bad it wasnt a W-30 car....THAT would of been fugly

 

If it was a completely stock '71 W30, I don't think you'd be too impressed. Look at 5.0 Mustangs, they are the perfect modern example. Like it or not, its a car that is responsive to mods and can be made to run pretty quick (to a point) cheaply and easily, but take one as it rolled off the showroom floor and it doesn't really stand out. Despite these facts I'll bet everybody knows someone who thinks 5.0's are unbeatable because they either 1)don't remember the actual numbers they ran when new and stock, 2) do remember when they were new but concentrate strictly on the fact that they were one of the fastest cars of their day, and ignore that most of the clean ones now aren't totally stock.

Its all about the legend of the name, really. Alot of those turbo Dodges from the '80's could be made quick for cheap too, but the image isn't there because they were still pretty nerdy so the mainstream won't remember them as legends. I recall an ad for the Daytona from '83 or so showing the Daytona, Trans Am and Z28, and the Daytona was the quickest.

Any stock '71 350-455 Cutlass has potential, but stock they weren't so hot by today's standards.

 

yeah i remember that add it said it would beat the trans am and iroc to 50 mph. Does anyone know how much horse the '71 cutlass had stock just curious.

 

I dont know what a cutlass with a 350 runs but my friends cutlass 442 with a 455 ran mid 14's so I wouldnt imagine a 350 running better than high 15's especially with the crappy gears those cutlass's had.

 

1971 Cutlass:
(All gross hp numbers - from the an olds book)

455W30 - 350 hp@ 4600, 460 ft/lbs@ 3200
455 - 340 hp@ 4600, 460 ft/lbs@ 3200

350 - 4bbl - 260 hp@ 4600, 360 ft/lbs@ 3200
350 - 2bbl - 240 hp@ 4600, 460 ft/lbs@ 3200

For the 455 versions 1/4 mile is anywhere from 15.2 - 14.5 (1970 version with 25 more horse showed a 13.98 in one test).

I used to own a 72 Cutlass with a 2 bbl..dog slow.
I also used to own (cry!) a 71 442 with a built 455..never track tested it -- but beat just about everything out there off the line.

As for gearings..there were differnet options 2.56 - 3.73 depending on tranny and engines....

 

I think you have the torque wrong on the 350/2bbl

 

Thats funny because one of my other friends looked it up in the olds book and told me that it had 155hp/4000. Was there 2 different 2bbl 350s in '71?
Oh and F-CRAZY when I said:
You said:
Hows that backwards? last time I checked (correct me if Im wrong) the lb9s could run 15s in good tune, probly 16s for some old crapy one. Think the lo3 ran about 16s and h*ll if its old and crappy it'll probly run in the 17's. Now my Crown Vic is supposed to run high 15's to low 16s. Think your a little backwards thar buddy...

 

Sorry TQ was a typo 260.

Its 240 hp (gross) at 4200, it lists SAE net at 175@4000 (dual exhaust)..single was 160 hp. There is probably some differences esp with the SAE net vs. Gross they changed the way the reported horsepower in 71 I think....

This is from Oldsmobile 442 & W-machines Restoration Guide.

 

Yeah, 71's when the hp/torque ratings went way down from the switch to net ratings.

 

My dad has a 71 Cutlass 4bbl 350 Rocket. Its pretty fast. Even thats when performance rates started to go down the toilet... Well he rebuilt the whole engine and tranny and the whole car... So maybe i shouldnt talkimg

 

All 350 Olds motors are "rocket" motors. 2 of 4 barrel. Also, I had a 65 Cutlass with a 8.0:1 350 all stock with a quad and 2.73 gears a couple years back and was running 15.10 with it. I took the 350 out and put in a 455 with the same 8.0:1 compression, stock cam, and carb and was running 13.70's on street tires at sea level...everything else the same. Calling it a "rocket" dosent mean anything. But dont underestimate and Olds.

 

All olds motors are not technically rockets.

 

15.10 in a 65 olds with a stock 8 to 1 350. gotta call that . Gonna have to see some timeslips to prove that one. My brothers 67 with a very well running 403 could barely muster a high 14. The 350 couldnt touch that.

 

All olds engines starting being referred to as rockets in the late 60's. Originally the rocket engine was the first with overhead valvetrain, a higher compression ratio, and better induction system. The J2 rocket engine followed with even greater improvements. Once the name caught on, olds started to put "rocket" on almost anything with a resemblence of performance. Most olds guys would tell you though, the rocket wasnt the lowly sedan motor. The Rocket motors had higher compression, better cams, and better induction. Calling all olds engines Rockets is like referring to all Firebirds and Trans-ams as ponchos.

 

You can call it whatever you want. A 65 Cutlass is a 3100lb car in 2dht form. I get a kick out you bringing up the 403. Those are junk. Ever drive a TA with a 403? We can start an arguement if you want. Figure out what youre talking about before you say it.

Ljnowell=

 

Just a heads up on Oldsmobile engine sizes in stock vehicles. 330 cubic inch was the small block Oldsmobile size from 1964 until 1968 when the 350 Olds engine appeared.
jms

 

You know, that is kind of funny. This is the first chevrolet that I have ever owned. Every other car I've owned in my life has been an oldsmobile. What do you know. YOu had one of the ugliest olds, with one of the crappiest motors, and now you are the expert. OK, no sense in staying in this argument any longer. You know it all. You are the supreme. Excuse anyone for arguing with you. You should spend more time building engines than trolling threads, you may learn something.

 

i am ljnowells brother that owned the 67 cutlass with the 403 and yes it was quick and not alot done to it i dont see where you get off saying they are junk??

and to jms it was a 330 originally but my uncle put the 403 in it before i got it from him and ive been a chevy guy my whole life

 

dont worry about it general, I'm not gonna argue this thread out, its pointless. Our 30 years of combined experience with oldsmobiles isnt nearly as good as his, because after all, he owned a 65 w/ a 350 once. What a joke. Guess we just arent informed enough. I'm sure his 65 w/ a 350 would have smoked my 78 w/ a 455 or your 78 huh? *** help us all, I cant believe we ever put together an olds engine without this guy around! .

 

Jesus you guys are idiots. Ive been messing with this stuff longer than you think. You are the ones who are misinformed.

 

:werd: ljnowell is just a punk know-it-all. He calls the BS flag on anything that is/was: faster, quicker,better, bigger, nicer, and cleaner. It is just sheer jealousy or envy. Dont let it get to you 1989t-topGTA. Youre the better person here let it go.

 

My info comes strait from GM, Where does yours come from, your hillbilly cousins garage? As for 89305RS, dude you are such a liar about every thing,

This is for everyone reading this thread to know: 80305rs is one of the biggest liars here. Ask him what he does for a living. On his profile it says he is a paint guy, but in another thread when someone called him out, he made a bunch of crap up about being a Dyno tuning specialist, and fabrications expert who builds and designs twin turbo units, what a loser. If you cant stand it man, thats cool, but dont come to other threads looking for crap with someone who knows. You are pretty pathetic. Thats ok though, i see people like you every day, of course they are usually driving a honda.

YOu can be uninformed, and you can blame other people, and call names. At the end of the day, you are still the one that is wrong. With that I will leave this thread, everyone here have a nice day.

Just to show there are no hard feelings:

 

LET ME START BY SAYING... NEVER DID I SAY THAT I WAS A DYNO TUNING SPECIALIST!!! I HELP OUT AT A LOCAL SPEEDSHOP ON SOME WEEKENDS TUNING CARS AND MAKING CUSTOM BRACKETS TO MOUNT ACCESSORIES IN DIFFERENT PLACES.. AND NEVER DID I SAY THAT I CUSTOM BUILD TWIN TURBO SETUPS! I HAVE DONE 3 JUNKYARD TURBO SETUPS ON CARS. NOT BY MYSELF BUT WITH FRIENDS ON F BODYS. SURE THEY MIGHT NOT BE TOP LINE BUT THEY WORK JUST FINE. BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT. IT DOSENT MATTER TO ME!!!

 

And yes i am a paint tech for my 40 full time job. Get it straight.

 

For one thing, youre the hillbilly. For another, you dont have the slightest clue what youre talking about. I happen to work at a GM dealership out here as a driveablilty tech, but I "dont know what im talking about". You sure do like to talk a lot when youre not face to face with someone. Im curious to know what YOU do for a living. Or dont you have the guts to tell everybody? Your info comes from GM? So GM told you that a 65 Cutlass with a 350 wouldnt run low 15's? I didnt think so. Grow up and shut your mouth.....HILLBILLY!!!

 

why am i an idiot ???? i have owned a number of oldsmobiles and chevys ,fords,dodges,amc, you name it ive owned it in my 31years of age and never once taken anything to a shop except for an alignment i suggest you quit with the name calling i never once called you anything and i dont appreciate you calling me out .......good day

 

I am not calling you an idiot. I am calling LJNOWELL an idioit. I too have owned vehicles from pretty much every american car manufacturer. I do all my own reparis and mods to all my cars. As I said, I know what I am talking about. I race every weekend with a car that runs deep into the 10's, so I must know something right? As far as I am concerned, this argument is over...that is unless LJNOWELL wants to continue it.

1989t-topGTA--> <--Ljnowell

 

Liar

 

but remember..... He is "done" with this thread. But im sure that hell chime in again.

 

I will respond because you have directly asked me a question. I am a computer network administrator. I run a 5,000 PC network that contains over 500 routers, and spans two states. It takes a real hillbilly to do that. Course I guess you could do better, because we all know how smart the dealership tech are. . You think that a 65 cutlass with a stock 350 is gonna run that? Ok, man, thats why you work at a dealership and not in a speed shop.

 

Let me tell you something you bastard. You wouldnt last an hour in a place like mine. You think because you sit on your fat *** all day long in front of a computer, that makes you an expert on what youre talking about? You dont have any idea what kind of training or knowledge it takes to do what I do. Keep that in mind moron. Have fun driving your hillbilly 15 sec. Camaro, ya moron. Now...you wanna keep this up?

 

well now why dont we just knock it off this thread has strayed a little too far from the question at hand here and the name calling is getting silly.....LMAO.....but seriosly we know what it takes to do your job our uncle has been a gm tech for 20+ years and im sure hes got a little bit more experience than you do but we can sit here and tell each other we have fat asses and dont know how to build cars and call each others cars slow all damn day and thats not going to get anyone anywhere so just relax and take a zanex and cool it ...LOL...and if you think we dont know how to build cars ill have to dig up some of my slips from my 73 split bumper we built that ran mid 10s at gateway and i have every receipt to prove what was in the engine for that matter ........anyway the engine we built for his car that he has now is very strongly built and would run circles around alot of cars around our area....now with that said i say good day ......

 

this post has gone to War

 

YUP some guys with some knowledge get too much confidence and think they know everything about every thing ....such as "1989t-topGTA,89305RS" and when someone else pops in with some info they dont know about or agree with then they get all damn defensive and think calling names is what makes them look smarter such as hillbillies or bastard or idiot...LOL....

 

Too much bickering.