You really wonder what these magazines were testing back then. Was it really a W-31? How would they know? I've got several articles from the era for 1970 W-30 tests (Note: this is now not only an Olds hijack but also a big-block hijack :Brow: ). Most of these tests (all? I can't remember) were for an automatic W-30, which, for those of you who are non-Olds, is not nearly as radical as the manual W-30. Did the magazines know that back then? Olds didn't advertise it. Also, in several of the photos you can clearly see the engine-code tag on the oil fill tube -- and it is a tag for just a plain-ol' 442, not W-30 (automatic or manual). We hear about how the factory supplied special, "tuned" cars for the magazines. But I often wonder if they were all that special at all. Was Engineering supplying the cars? Or was it Marketing?
Since the PHR magazine tested vehicles, not the actual engines on a dyno the horsepower numbers are Road Horsepower numbers, in other words they used an accelerometer to measure output. Road horsepower always occurs at a lower RPM vs. peak HP RPM measured on a engine dyno. Typically about 300 to 600 RPM below the engine dyno peak HP RPM. So it is no suprise to me that the HP peak in the car was measured at 5300 RPM. If you were to measure it on an engine dyno it would be closer to 6000 RPM. Also you can somewhat derive the net and gross power figures from Road HP. I would estimate a W-31 that made 280 Road HP, makes about 310 net HP or abour 365 Gross HP. :Smarty:
They had the Pontiac info so messed up with '68 info I wonder what car they were driving. Pontiac never made a small valve '69 350 HO let alone for possible change over to a big valve later in the year. They were all big valve so they clearly were not driving any '69 model year Pontiac. And being that the article was as late as it was Pontiac surely was not handing out '68's still. Plus what trans' were used and was the loss hp for auto equiped cars accounted for? If the Pontiac was a '68 model and an auto it would have been an ST300 two speed car, that would explian some power output issues also. Black Gold I will do the latest hijack to Olds, big block again no less :beer I have seven or eight original tests and model year luanch articles from that era on W30 cars. Some do mention the 308 degree stick cam. I have always felt that the stick cam could potentially hurt the car in PS trim as it might be to big in comparison to the head/exh. manifold flow of these cars. What do you Olds guys think (giving all Olds guy's a reason for further high jacks)? Maybe I will have to steel Dan's or my brother's W30 motor and dyno both cams. High Jack Over :TU: Mark
Please do! And then you could test the stick cam (328 adv dur) with a good set of headers, too. DaveH has been saying for years that the Olds engineers developed this cam to be used with headers. We could find out once and for all if he's blowin' smoke. As for me, I prefer manifolds. :grin: But it's not the 308 cam that you should test. The automatic W-30s used the 285/287 cam -- exact same as ALL automatic 442s. Big difference from the 328. The 308 was used for some Hurst/Olds and the W-31 -- which allows us to segue back into ......... We now return to our regularly-scheduled small-block shoot-out!
Problem with the 308 cam for Pure Stock W31's is no bottom end, and choked off by the exhaust manifolds at the top end. You have to launch them at 4000+ and can't do that on these tires. With headers and tires, the factory W31 cam is a killer. It works great in a big block (like a non A/C 68/69 Hurst) since they have better exhaust manifolds for the top end (especially the 69's :Brow: ) and lots of low end torque to overcome the low RPM bog. Lunati BMII works even better. 68/69 400's are very lame no matter what you do, but work OK in Pure Stock limitations. W31's eat them alive when tires and headers are allowed like they were developed to do in the first place. PERIOD. Now a 68/69 400 with a 66/67 E block...... :bglasses: :bglasses:
