- 1,397
GTP Cool Wall: 1991 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais Quad 442 W-41
- Thread starter TheBook
- 114 comments
- 17,171 views
- 676
- GTP_TrievelA7X
That car is NOT 2800 lbs, says the owner's manual, and the sticker inside the door.
And feel free to find some faster stock 1991 Z28, Trans-Am, or Mustang GT 1/4 times.
To lazy?
1991 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 7.3 Quarter mile 15.6
http://www.mustangcult.com/2009/05/ford-mustang-0-60-and-14-mile-times/
1992 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 6.7 15.2
1991 Pontiac Firebird Formula 6.5 14.8
1991 Pontiac Trans Am Conv. 7.0 15.4
1991 Ford Mustang GT 7.3 15.6
These are the best times I can find for standard T/A's, Z28's, and GT's.
There was an SLP GTA Trans Am that ran faster, and I'm not sure about the IROC-Z's, or Cobra's, but like I said, and you quoted - It'll dust a stock Trans-Am, Z28, or Mustang GT from the same year.
And then you realized you were owned and felt like the ass that you were being.
Just to add insult to your ignorance, the Motor Trend time was 14.6 @ 95+ Which I can only assume is what they put in 20 years ago instead of decimal point readings.
Here's a W40 (180HP) running in 105 degrees running a 15.1 @ 91 with a weight of 2835 with driver.
http://www.dragtimes.com/Oldsmobile-Calais-Timeslip-15565.html
Curb weight + gas + oil + transmission fluid + coolant + PS fluid + brake fluid + windshield washer fluid + driver = 2835
By the way, curb weight is 2515.
Anything else you'd like to inform me of about this car?
Last edited:
- 676
- GTP_TrievelA7X
Holy hell, I found the listing of the one we drove to Colorado to buy.
This is the second one he owned, had a bird nest in the intake the whole 1800 miles back home.
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/548135
Never expected to find that
And that W40 ran a 15.2 @ 93 in over 100 degress on Bradenton motorsports drag strip with a fried clutch. Couldn't tell you how many people asked if it was a big block, lol.
This is the second one he owned, had a bird nest in the intake the whole 1800 miles back home.
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/548135
Never expected to find that
And that W40 ran a 15.2 @ 93 in over 100 degress on Bradenton motorsports drag strip with a fried clutch. Couldn't tell you how many people asked if it was a big block, lol.
Last edited:
- 9,473
- QLD, Down Under
- GTP_Paulie
- Paulie LDP
- 676
- GTP_TrievelA7X
Rrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
I politely disagree.
I'd agree if he said "most cars" instead of "most domestics" and from the mid 70's to mid 80's instead of mid-90's.
But it's still cool to bust on American cars, and it's definitely cool to like all the incredible cars from the 80's and early 90's with today's average performance built by any country that's not America.
- 9,473
- QLD, Down Under
- GTP_Paulie
- Paulie LDP
Am I reading your post correctly here? You said it's cool to make fun of American cars, and that American cars of today are not up to the standard of the rest of the world?
- 86,673
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
[Deep Thought]Might I interject at this point?[/Deep Thought]
Curb/Kerb weight is Dry weight plus all required consummables (fluids) for vehicle operation, a full tank of fuel and a driver. So the Curb/Kerb weight is 2,835lb and the Dry weight is 2,515. And Curb/Kerb weight is how every car on sale is measured (though typically American manufacturers don't include a driver, but EU ones do rated at 75kg, and EU manufacturers usually take middle-range fluids rather than maximum or minimum [half sump, half gas tank, half full reservoirs]).
So the car weighs ~2,800lb like it says in the opening post and you just confirmed.
- 9,473
- QLD, Down Under
- GTP_Paulie
- Paulie LDP
.
- 86,673
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
There isn't a standard "kerb weight" definition. Some places use full fluid levels, some use minimum fluid levels required to run, some use average fluid levels as you'd typically find them, some use a full fuel tank, some use a set amount of fuel, some use a half tank and some use a driver. But they all have the same basic idea - the car must be "kerb weight" for it to be driven.
Dry weight is factory fresh and empty of everything. Not one manufacturer in the world quotes vehicle weight as dry weight.
Dry weight is factory fresh and empty of everything. Not one manufacturer in the world quotes vehicle weight as dry weight.
- 5,766
- Anoka, MN
- 6,769
- Little Elm, TX
- JCE3000GT
If you are not sure about some thing you shouldn't dismiss it. And you and I can quote websites all day long but skilled driver versus skilled driver in the REAL WORLD light to light the V8 pony cars (and turbo GTA) will walk this Oldsmobile. Yes the 442 is nice and quick, but it isn't the beast that you think it is.
Resorting to childish name-calling now?
Oh, well I can assume the 5spd Z28 Camaro or 5spd Mustang GT would run 5.8 seconds flat with different drivers and rubber. Yea, assuming is bad.
http://www.albeedigital.com1990 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z 5.8 14.4
1990 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 6.5 15.0
1992 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 6.7 15.2
1990 Ford Mustang LX 5.0 6.4 14.9
1991 Ford Mustang GT 7.3 15.6 <-- automatic
1992 Ford Mustang LX 5.0 6.2 14.8
1991 Pontiac Firebird Formula 6.5 14.8
1991 Pontiac Trans Am Conv. 7.0 15.4
1991 Dodge Spirit R/T 6.5 15.0 <-- whoops how did that get in there?
1990 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais Quad 442 7.7 16.1
1991 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais Int. HO Quad 4 7.5 16.0
And looking at all these lovely statistics figures for cars from various magazines that show wildly different numbers for the same generation with the same installed equipment and drivetrain shows you the inconsistency. Fact is, this car weighs 2,800lbs and only has 180bhp with a 160tq rating it cannot hope to compete with something that has 205bhp and 275tq weighing the same 2,800lbs. And yes, that is the Mustang 5.0 LX coupe curb weight with a manual transmission.
I trust dragtimes.com as much as I trust what comes out of a politician's mouth.
No need to respond to this since Famine beat me to it. I'm finding it entertaining that someone's this serious about defending this car.
- 6,769
- Little Elm, TX
- JCE3000GT
If it makes you feel any better I ran an Si just like yours 0-80mph dead even. And my car is 2,810lbs ~170bhp ~145tq (stock rating). So that's kind of a moot point really. However, I doubt that Mustang GT automatic was in good shape or had some serious wheel spin if it beaten by your Si--unless by beaten you mean "by a nose".. And the driver of the Foxbody must of really been a terrible driver if they couldn't beat a lowly automatic '01 GT. We have loads of Mustang GT's around here and I see plenty of action and the Foxbody's even stock are a quick machine in the hands of a good driver. But this is all conjecture as I wasn't there at your races so I can only offer my opinion. 
So I guess I will just take your word for it. 👍
And the driver of the Foxbody must of really been a terrible driver if they couldn't beat a lowly automatic '01 GT. We have loads of Mustang GT's around here and I see plenty of action and the Foxbody's even stock are a quick machine in the hands of a good driver. But this is all conjecture as I wasn't there at your races so I can only offer my opinion. So I guess I will just take your word for it. 👍
- 6,769
- Little Elm, TX
- JCE3000GT
Wheel spin? That must of been one crappy Mustang to get walked that easily. OR, you are one hell of a driver. 
*edit*
Any vids of that Si of yours BTW? I have a soft spot for the saloon Si's. Not much of a fan of the bubble butt coupes. And you got the right color too.
*edit*
Any vids of that Si of yours BTW? I have a soft spot for the saloon Si's. Not much of a fan of the bubble butt coupes.
And you got the right color too.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,391
- Texas
- 6,769
- Little Elm, TX
- JCE3000GT
Seems as though my powerband is around 4000 to 7000. But at 5500 all the torque drops and it pulls hard from 5500 to redline @ 7200. A healthy launch @ 3200 RPM yields little wheel spin but maximum acceleration on good concrete.
[Yoda]Hmmm, offtopic we are. New thread me must make.[/Yoda]
[Yoda]Hmmm, offtopic we are. New thread me must make.[/Yoda]
Eric.
Premium
- 8,515
- GTP_Eric
- Ebiggs
Wheelspin? That thing can barely get wheelspin if you go WOT from a dig. You have to realize those cars did like 250hp at the crank, new. My car does 197 (we'll just say 200 since I have a catback exhaust and K&N filter). At the wheels, Si's do roughly 175hp stock. The Mustang will have higher loses because its a slushbox and RWD, so maybe 200hp at the wheels? Then go look at a dyno chart for a Mustang and you'll see that when its shifting at redline and dropping back down for the next gear, its not anywhere near peak torque. The Si's torque is pretty much flat because it picks back up in VTEC (seems like peak may hit at 6800rpm? I really don't remember for sure). So torque while in the powerband isn't that far from being comparable. Certainly not the 2x difference it seems to be when you look at peak figures. And then the Mustang is hauling no less than 3400lbs as an estimate. Maybe more. I'd say from a dig he'd have some advantage, at least until maybe 40mph I'd start gaining. The Si doesn't start doing its thing until about 25mph.
I really had no idea how that race was going to be, either I'd catch him up top or he'd be catching me up top as the torque advantage began to show.
But, agreed...we should probably end this now.
Edit: And videos of my car? www.youtube.com/ebiggs I have a couple there. Nothing too great. And then my Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/ericbiggs/sets
McLaren has an Si sedan too, but black.
That thing can barely get wheelspin if you go WOT from a dig. You have to realize those cars did like 250hp at the crank, new. My car does 197 (we'll just say 200 since I have a catback exhaust and K&N filter). At the wheels, Si's do roughly 175hp stock. The Mustang will have higher loses because its a slushbox and RWD, so maybe 200hp at the wheels? Then go look at a dyno chart for a Mustang and you'll see that when its shifting at redline and dropping back down for the next gear, its not anywhere near peak torque. The Si's torque is pretty much flat because it picks back up in VTEC (seems like peak may hit at 6800rpm? I really don't remember for sure). So torque while in the powerband isn't that far from being comparable. Certainly not the 2x difference it seems to be when you look at peak figures. And then the Mustang is hauling no less than 3400lbs as an estimate. Maybe more. I'd say from a dig he'd have some advantage, at least until maybe 40mph I'd start gaining. The Si doesn't start doing its thing until about 25mph.I really had no idea how that race was going to be, either I'd catch him up top or he'd be catching me up top as the torque advantage began to show.
But, agreed...we should probably end this now.
Edit: And videos of my car? www.youtube.com/ebiggs I have a couple there. Nothing too great. And then my Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/ericbiggs/sets
McLaren has an Si sedan too, but black.
- 676
- GTP_TrievelA7X
Light to light? How far is that? WE (this includes YOU) are talking 1/4 mile times. WE have been since the beginning. (this is an edit, so I add this next part nicely) That exactly what I'd expect, Mustang owners always try to change the game when they're losing.
Now I've driven one in, as you say "the real world".
Have you? Would you like pics of proof?
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/ind...cture&friendID=82585929&albumId=739693&page=1
Feel free to investigate who that Anthony Trievel guy is in his top friends too.
There's 2 of his in there, you'll find a silver and a white one.
Cute. insult then call insults childish. 👍Resorting to childish name-calling now?
What does that have to do with why MT said 95+ instead of 95.xx?
That is an INTERNATIONAL.
Not a 442 W41 An ahem - INTERNATIONAL
Do you know what that means? Extra everything, especially electronics, and, yup, you guessed it! Weight!
You're lovely source of Edmunds - Does not have a listing for a 442.Fail. Epic fail would be the current internet lingo.
So wrong and wrong again. I don't care what edmunds says. I'll take an owners manual and DOT required weight reading sticker on the inside door panel over your website any day.
And the W40-regular HO engine made 180. The W41 made 190. If you can't find that information, God help you.
http://www.442.com/vcs/1973_pres/smalley.html
http://www.classicoldsmobile.com/forums/442/955-1991-442-w-w41-engine.html - read orange442's response.
http://www.quad4forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4435
OH, ok, I see you're a Mustang owner.but it was the quarter-mile times that really rocked us back on your respective heels. How does 14.7 seconds at 95.7 mph grab you? That’s faster than a 5-liter Z28 Camero and close enough to bump fenders with a Corvette./QUOTE]
A W40 here, notice the slower time? > http://www.quad4forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12319&page=3
Weight listing 2500-2900 lbs.
http://wikicars.org/en/Oldsmobile_Cutlass_Calais
Oh, and did you forget my link to the one saying 2800 lbs with driver and all fluids?
And the curb weight on a 92 Mustang GT is 2775. + fluids and driver. = around 3100 lbs driving.
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1990-to-1993-ford-mustang-8.htm
You can trust whatever you want, I've shown a repeated reading over and over for this car, and it's better than any stock 91 GT's time.
Cobra's, are not stock GT's. Nor are Saleen's.
IROC's are not stock Z-28's. and hell, even though from what I've found the Olds would win anyway, GTA's are not stock Trans Am's.
Now if you can find a decent source showing a bone-stock Mustang GT, Camaro Z28, or Pontiac Trans-Am from 1991 That outruns a 14.7, feel free to post it, other than that, you're entire post is based on what you would imagine a car with a power rating you're not completely sure of might run in a quarter mile.
No need to respond to this since Famine beat me to it. I'm finding it entertaining that someone's this serious about defending this car.
It all makes sense now.
Oh, and P.S. I find it even more entertaining how upset Mustang owners in particular get when these cars tear them a new one.
Last edited:
- 1,397
Rrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
I politely disagree.
And you're fully entitled to have your own opinion. Which is WRONG!!!!!!!
While there certainly was a dearth of interesting metal from that period, there were some, quite a few actually, from Europe; Mercedes 190E, BMW 3 series, VW Golf, Citroen CX, Audi 100 etc, that made the European offerings tolerable. Especially in light of what was on offer in the marketplace at the time.
As for the American cars, quite frankly just about all of them were utter tripe. Other than the Buick GNX I can't think of a single American car from the mid 70s to the mid 90s that I would want to own. They were just cheaply made. The materials, the construction, the design, the whole thing. I look at em and the first thing that comes to my mind is "no effort was put into this." My opinion. Not gospel. But thats an opinion based on driving many different cars on 3 different continents.
To whit, the bolded part. I think it goes beyond silly, to the realm of stupid really, to compare cars from different eras. Telling is the fact that a four cylinder Civic can have as much horsepower as a Corvette from 25 years ago, and still best it in terms of performance and economy with an engine that is almost one third the size. The technology that exists today and the knowledge base that exists, wasn't available when a car from the early 80s was being designed (probably in the late 70s) and engineered. Hence the comparison just doesn't have any merit unless on is pondering the march of progress from then.
Thats like comparing even an average college basketball player with a four year old who is first starting to shoot hoops into a plastic hoop. One has had years and years to refine their craft, had coaching, and training and even has muscle memory. The other is just a kid throwing something into something else.
- 799
- Chance2012
It's an Oldmobile.
It's a early 90's American sports car.
It looks like a white brick and I'm not talking about drugs.
It's seriously uncool.👎
It's a early 90's American sports car.
It looks like a white brick and I'm not talking about drugs.
It's seriously uncool.👎
- 9,473
- QLD, Down Under
- GTP_Paulie
- Paulie LDP
And you're fully entitled to have your own opinion. Which is WRONG!!!!!!!
Oh you're one of THOSE people.
👎
- 676
- GTP_TrievelA7X
The only one of those you name I like at all is the 190E, and that annoys me because of it becoming a huge fanboy car because of GT4.
My fav. thing about them, ironically, is that their engine is essentially a beefed up Quad-4.
The Buick GNX wasn't some magical "diamond in the rough" as you imply here. Not only did it have sister cars, the Monte Carlo and for a while the Grand Prix, but there are plenty of other American cars with the same or near same level of "Quality".
But on your own criteria, you shouldn't like any cars from that generation because of the lack of "quality" compared to newer cars. You're not going to find an 83 Civic with quality that bests an 05 Cobalt either.
And on the opposite side, of all the foreign older cars I've been in or even seen, I don't like the "quality interior" everyone in these forums praises. I downright hate them, hard sticky buttons that feel like they'll shatter, hard dashboards that resemble steel in terms of feel and look, terrible radios, and if for sale, either broken, or terribly overpriced.
And it's not at all when you're talking about people acting as though an 83 Corolla offers some kind of "sporting" performance. Or when people talk of old Skylines, Supra's, and 300ZX's as though they'll rock the current car world with their stock performance in a straight line either.
The point isn't that they suck, the point is the fanboy's behind them suck, and cause one to develop a general distaste for the cars they talk about so foolishly.
See JCE's defense for specifically, a 1991 Mustang GT for example. Sitting there typing away defending it's honor against a car he can't even find specs for, and knows nothing about.
- 6,769
- Little Elm, TX
- JCE3000GT
Congrats to being only the second person on my ignore list. You're not worth my time. Good day.
Back to the discussion.
- 676
- GTP_TrievelA7X
Which is code for, "I have no idea about this car, I've posted incorrect specs and specs for an entirely different model, I'm beaten, and I know it".
Maybe I went to far showing proof of having a brother that owned them? Or was it the actual specs for the actual car? Or was it the lack of any official 91 GT time that you couldn't find to beat it? Or that I didn't let it become a guessing game of "stoplight to stoplight"?
