Talk:Oldsmobile Toronado
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
I took out the metric measurement added to the Olds 442, as this was a model number and did not indicate engine size.
- But you left in the 7 L engine size! ): Moriori 03:56, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see the point of changing CID to the odd notation with a superscripted 3 on the end, but I'm assuming this is a Wikipedia quirk that I haven't grasped yet, so I've left it alone. RivGuySC 03:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Oops, clicked save before I intended to. Re your second point, I'm not sure of the convention. I'd prefer "cu in". Moriori 03:59, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
I just heard somewhere recently that the Toronado was the first front-wheel-drive car with an automatic transmission. This seems significant enough to include if true, but I'm not confident enough yet to put it in. Can anybody confirm? RivGuySC 04:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Not the first...
No, it wasn't the first FWD automatic. The "UPP" was an unusual application, though, with the split torque converter. ArgentLA 18:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stats (0-60, etc.)
I've never seen a source that claimed the Toronado could hit 60 in less than 8 seconds. In fact, while Car and Driver reported 8.6, Road and Track reported 9.9 in their testing. OhnoitsJamieTalk 21:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I have... I have several articles for the first gen Toros, but I need to go home to verify what magazine did the road test. A 1968 W-34 Toronado was tested with a 7.2 second 0-60. This was done with the then standard of having two people onboard and the old fashioned slippery tires they used back in those days (I know Toronados will burn rubber at elevations up to at least 4,500 ft with modern rubber when properly tuned to factory specs). I too have seen the all-over the-board 0-60 times for the '66... some from 8.2 all the way up to 12.9 seconds! Many of these tests weren't even done at sea level. Very innaccurate. - MWB
It would be safe to assume that because the '66 had the same performance camshaft as the later W-34 455, weighed less than the '68 and had a lower gear ratio (3.21 vs. 3.07 for '68), that the '66 could do 7 seconds 0-60. Especially with a single occupant, better tires, and more accurate timing. - MWB
- Didn't the W-34 package give the 455 about 400 HP @ 4800 RPM versus 375? I have three sources at home (the two magazines I cited plus a classic car book). Two of them give a range of 8.6-8.8, so I figured that was safe. OhnoitsJamieTalk 22:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I find the 7-second time hard to believe. The Toronado's rated power -- SAE gross, remember -- was wildly overrated compared to installed, net power: when GM started quoting net ratings in 1971 and 1972 (sometimes side-by-side), they were more like 230 hp than 375-400. The drop in compression ratio and some changes for emissions controls cost some horsepower, but it was more like 20-30, not 135+. My guess would be that the '66 Toro engine probably had somewhere in the vicinity of 250 net horsepower, which is supported by a lot of the quarter mile trap speeds (probably the best way of judging the overall power-to-weight ratio. The 0-60 test results from Car & Driver, Motor Trend, and Car Life were all in the mid eight-second range, which sounds right. ArgentLA 18:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
You couldn't be more wrong ArgentLA. I am tired of hearing about the gross and net horsepower ratings propaganda. GM's 'gross' hp power ratings were actually quite conservative, and in '71 and '72 the smog era was coming about and these engines not only got a considerable compression ratio loss, but also wimpy 'smogger' camshafts and other emission control junk. Their power was considerably reduced. Simply put, these engines were beginning to get emasculated. 250 hp in a '66 Toro... that is pure nonsense. If you DO consider the Toro's weight and the fact that it only has a 3-speed automatic transmission and a relatively high axle ratio, there is no question that it has 385+ hp when you look at the acceleration times. There are other things to factor in as well, such as how modern cars have 4, 5 and 6 speed transmissions, and have more efficient accessories like electric fans, where the old ones made do with big, engine driven metal fans. It probably makes more hp than than 385. I'd bet it put out 325 hp AT THE WHEELS! Performance tests are very arbitrary, and I have been putting together a very revealing data collection that will show and prove the Toronado's true performance figures. By the way... do you actually own a first generation Toronado? It doesn't seem like you are very knowledgable about automobiles, and you are just a wiseacre. - MWB
Something to note for fun... my stock '66 Toro has won stoplight races against modern cars with official magazine tests claiming 0-60 in 7 seconds or better, although I can't prove this to you. I have to say it is fun to see certain people's reactions when they see clouds of tire smoke coming from the front wheel wells instead of the back on a car they assume is RWD! - MWB
- My '66 won't be ready for any stoplight racing until I have Sparky rebuild the carb. I do have meatier tires on it (255/70 vs. the stock 235/75) so that could help grip a bit. Cheers, OhnoitsJamieTalk 22:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I definitely believe you, but stoplight racing is different than dragstrip timing. Car & Driver does a "street start" timing as part of their acceleration runs, and that's very revealing: some modern cars, especially ones with more power than torque, are a lot slower in the street start than on the drag strip. Reason: obtaining the sub-7 second time requires things like 7000-rpm clutch drops, which most people don't do on the street unless they think replacing their own clutch is a fun Saturday afternoon activity. ArgentLA 18:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Again... you are wrong. They do not do "street start" times, but "standing start" times, such as "s/s" 1/4 mile time. This means all acceleration times are done from a standstill, unless it is noted, such as a 5-60 mph rolling start time. I do not understand your "7000-rpm clutch drop" theory. It makes no sense in this argument. The data for the '66 is extremely arbitrary and all over the board. The true performance for the '66 was not recorded in history, and I will provide the justification for this claim. - MWB
- Comment why do you say that the "true performance was never recorded"? I have copies of two different road tests, one claiming an 8.6 0-60 and another claiming about 9.7. I'll scan the test results pages tomorrow and post them. I can't imagine why two different magazines would both fail to record the "true" performance. If you look look at modern road tests, it's not unusual to see similar discrepancies (1 to 1.5 seconds difference is 0-60 tests between different sources using different techniques). In 1966, an 8.6 0-60 was pretty respectable, especially for a car that heavy, and I think that's a fair number to go by. I've noticed a tendency for some fans of 60s muscle cars to overestimate their speed and power; the truth is, a stock 2005 Honda Accord V6 will easily beat a stock 66 Toronado in a 0-60 or quarter mile. I have two v8 American cars from the mid sixties (65 Impala 327) and two 90s Japanese cars (98 Nissan Maxima and 93 Nissan 300zx) and appreciate them all for different reasons. IMO, the 60s cars have a presense and style that is lacking in the modern Japanese cars (or most modern cars, for that matter). OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I am working on my data collection right now... I will try to post the information as soon as possible. There were many more road tests performed on the Toronado besides the ones you mention. I will give you a sneak peak at my findings now... I have official tests showing the '66 Toronado with a 7.3 and 8.2 second 0-60, and one showing the '68 with a 7.5 second 0-60. Just be patient. My information will make all Toronado fans proud... and vindicated. Both of the Japanese cars you mentioned are fast 0-60. I believe they would beat the Toronado and certain other muscle cars, but not all 0-60. 1/4 mile times are debatable except for the Z. However, the Accord would lose and many muscle car owners are showing their cars to be faster than what history has recorded. They learn this when they put modern rubber on their cars and test them with accurate methods. I'm not here to prove old is better and faster, but to finally give the Toronado the correct and more realistic numbers it deserves. Thank you and please be patient with me as I compile my information. And yes, even modern cars suffer from arbitrary test results. Remember, you said it yourself... the road test magazines "claim" their numbers. It does not mean they are accurate. 1.5 seconds is a huge difference for the same car. Sometimes that difference is with the same publication! Doesn't it make you scratch your head and question their results? Or should you just accept "their numbers" as gospel? This is why I am working to provide the "true performance" numbers. - MWB
- Comment I don't think there is such a thing as a single "correct" number. Factors such as testing conditions (ambient temp, elevation, as you mentioned) as well as the particular test vehicle can make big differences, as well as the driver and the testing methodology. I usually lean toward the fastest number reported, and I've never seen a 66 Toronado reported at less than 8.5. The 2003 Honda Accord V6 automatic (240 hp) hit 0-60 in 6.6 seconds. The current Nissan Altima v6 can pull off similar times. The Toronado was intended to be more of a powerful GT cruiser...a modern equivalent would be a Lexus SC400 or a 90s Buick Riviera....not 0-60 monsters, but long-legged highway cruisers with plenty of power for passing and effortless cruising. I am interested in seeing the reports you're talking about; I like to collect any articles I can find on the Toronado. Motortrend has a few available online: [1]. Cheers, OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. Are you still running points on yours? I'm thinking about doing a Petronix system if it will fit under the air cleaner. That could even shave a little bit off the times...
Yes, there is not a single correct number... this is my point entirely. And also yes, the Toronado was not made to be an acceleration monster, but it is capable of better than what the old mags show. This is true for most cars of the day. True, it wouldn't be able to beat vehicles purposely built for speed, like the Corvette, GTO, 442 etc.. Rememember the '68 and '69 Hurst/Olds? It had a Toronado 455 V8 between it's fenders. Toronado V8s were different and better than the regular Olds 425/455. Premium. The Hurst/Olds was capable of 12 second 1/4 mile times. Of course, it was considerably lighter than the Toronado and had a lower gear ratio, but it still utilized an automatic transmission. Check out Car & Driver, April '68. The Toronado has a 7.5 second 0-60 time and a 15.7 @ 89.8 mph 1/4 mile. I prefer to take the best numbers as well. This is a normal expectation. I didn't really want to get much into the comparisons to other completely different vehicles, but rather focus on the Toronado, and what it is capable of as an autombile by itself. But if the Accord was tested back in the 60's, it would have 2 people aboard, and they wouldn't be using the highly accurate digital measuring devices that they use today. It would also have to do with skinny, bias ply tires. According to Road & Track, if you look at the numbers they collected in January '66, a '76 Toronado, complete with the low compression, wimpy cam, smogger 215 hp 455, 2.73:1 axle ratio and 5040 lb. (400 more lbs.) curb weight, will beat the '66 in the 1/4 mile and is only 1/2 second slower to 60! I do not believe this at all. Of course there is no consistency in these tests! I believe the data I have for the smogger years was beginning to get more accurate and realistic though, and reflected a more accurate time for the '76. So, this leaves the question of where does the '66-'70 Toro really stand. Just wait...
I am currently still using points, but I have been thinking about a heavy-duty Mallory Uni-lite distributor for quite a few years now. - MWB
The W-34 455 did have 400 hp... the 425 had 385 hp. The stock 455 had 375 hp. The stock 455 had a milder cam than the 425. I'm pretty sure the 425 used the same camshaft as the W-34 455. The W-34 cars did have a recalibrated trans though, for higher and firmer RPM shift points, but one can always 'manually control' the trans in a '66. Plus the 425 likes to rev more (with the shorter stroke, and is safe doing so, as all Olds 425 V8s had forged steel crankshafts. - MWB
I like to stay with the 235 tires because they provide good traction, but are lighter in weight. Plus the 255 is little bit too wide for the 6" rim and tend to bulge a bit much. I'll have to go home tonight and check my source on the times... I'll update tomorrow on my findings.
Thanks. - MWB
[edit] 1966 Oldsmobile Toronado Performance
Here is the information you have been waiting for. --Toronado Man 13:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:True_Toro_performance.pdf True Toro Performance] (MWB) Toronado Man 07:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's an interesting article, but much of it relies on conjecture versus empirical evidence. It does not authoritatively verify that the 7.5 sec 0-60 time you've added to the Wikipedia. The "true performance" article admits that it "extrapolates" the 0-60 time from a British test that cited a 0-50 and a 0-80 time. I think the 0-60 of 7.5 should be qualified in the article as "extrapolated." OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to read my report... however I believe that it is the complete opposite of what you have stated. It relies on empirical evidence over conjecture. The acceleration curve does indeed authoritatively verify the data. This is why I took the time to make the graphs. An acceleration curve should be nice and smooth, and the graph depicts that. Of course it is extrapolated data, but it is data BETWEEN two known points. If I were trying to extrapolate data beyond the 110 mph point... then it would start to be more conjectural. The curve is not going to depict a big dent or waiver to displace the 60 mph time. There WILL NOT be a momentary speeding up of time itself, the graph cannot lie. Take any acceleration vs. time data, and you can make a graph depicting a nice smooth curve if the data is accurate. I made that graph using a computer program. I used Motor Sport's test data because it is the best official performance data I know of for the '66. Sure, the 60 mph time could have fallen on 7.4 or even 7.6 seconds in the real-life test performed by Motor Sport, but since their editors mistakenly printed up the test result with the typo, we may never know their exact time. The 7.5 second time has 98-99% accuracy. I do not think it has to show it was extrapolated in the article, since the link is available for everyone to see if they question it. --Toronado Man 22:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fuggly car
What an ugly car! --79.67.86.234 (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
