Page 1 of 2
Olds Vista Cruiser 455 Road Test
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:56 pm
by Bob
This is awesome. The funny thing is the weight doesn't seem that obscene by today's standards. I think it is funny how complimentary they were of the handling. With the 3.42:1 axle and 3 speed auto it has a redline limited top speed!
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/old ... ved-review
Re: Olds Vista Cruiser 455 Road Test
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:47 pm
by kevm14
Oh man, Ed is gonna be all over this. 14.7 @ 93.6! That's faster than an LT1 B-body wagon (or any stock B-body for that matter). But not by much. With similar weight, you can see how that "390 hp" is not on the same scale as today's (gross vs net).
Re: Olds Vista Cruiser 455 Road Test
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:52 pm
by kevm14
Holy shit, they tested a 1966 Fury wagon for 50k miles? Did anyone keep a car for 50k? That was like the entire lifecycle, haha.
Re: Olds Vista Cruiser 455 Road Test
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:55 pm
by kevm14
Ohhh....it was a one-off high performance special. Well, ok. But it's still cool to see what engineering was capable of back then.
It sounds like it had similar driving characteristics of an LT1, but with even more torque. And probably a more responsive transmission than the non-9C1/SS calibrations.
Re: Olds Vista Cruiser 455 Road Test
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 5:01 pm
by kevm14
This sort of reminds me of that old article with the 1983 Caprice w/ F41 suspension being compared to the MB 300E or some other. I remember similar "balanced performance" references. The thing is, it wasn't that these cars couldn't be built. It's that no one wanted them. Only the auto mags want an F41 Caprice. Regular folks want FE1. Because big cars aren't supposed to handle well. I want good handling (I use this term with some license) but I don't want an F-body. Is that so hard to understand?
Re: Olds Vista Cruiser 455 Road Test
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:42 pm
by kevm14
A few days after the wagon appeared, Olds sent us another speedometer that proved to be dead on.
I like how some people would insist speedo accuracy is some modern invention. Nope, totally feasible in the 60s.
Re: Olds Vista Cruiser 455 Road Test
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:50 pm
by kevm14
kevm14 wrote:Oh man, Ed is gonna be all over this. 14.7 @ 93.6! That's faster than an LT1 B-body wagon (or any stock B-body for that matter). But not by much. With similar weight, you can see how that "390 hp" is not on the same scale as today's (gross vs net).
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/201 ... est-review
Same weight. 556 hp vs this 390. But the CTS-V runs 12.3 @ 119 (which is almost faster than I'd believe it should be, more like 116 mph trap). Light years difference performance levels. Though if you believe 1 mph trap for every 10 hp, then for the extra 166 hp, you would expect 109 mph. Instead, it traps 119. So that's roughly 100 hp extra being delivered from the net rating, if you believe this "math."
Re: Olds Vista Cruiser 455 Road Test
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:52 pm
by Fast_Ed
Wow, all of this reminds me of the LT1 B-Body wagons...
Faster than you'd expect them to be.
Smaller on the inside than they should be..
Your wife drives it on the week days, then you hammer it around on the weekends (hmmmm....)
Re: Olds Vista Cruiser 455 Road Test
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:53 pm
by Fast_Ed
Also, this person is stupid:
This Acura MDX is faster than this MODIFIED 455 Olds, even though the Acura is production line stock, powered by a little 212 CID V6, and is virtually identical in curb weight.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/201 ... est-review
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/201 ... sh-awd.pdf
And "skinny tires from the 60s" isn't the Old's excuse. The Olds actually got out of the hole (0-30 MPH) quicker than the MDX (2.0 sec. vs. 2.4 seconds). It couldn't have done that if traction were an issue.
But the Olds starts to fall behind from there on up. It's massive but horribly inefficient 455 - even in its modified form discussed in the article - simply couldn't deliver the goods.
He should be forced to drive that acura forever.
Re: Olds Vista Cruiser 455 Road Test
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:59 pm
by Adam
Fast_Ed wrote:Also, this person is stupid:
This Acura MDX is faster than this MODIFIED 455 Olds, even though the Acura is production line stock, powered by a little 212 CID V6, and is virtually identical in curb weight.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/201 ... est-review
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/201 ... sh-awd.pdf
And "skinny tires from the 60s" isn't the Old's excuse. The Olds actually got out of the hole (0-30 MPH) quicker than the MDX (2.0 sec. vs. 2.4 seconds). It couldn't have done that if traction were an issue.
But the Olds starts to fall behind from there on up. It's massive but horribly inefficient 455 - even in its modified form discussed in the article - simply couldn't deliver the goods.
He should be forced to drive that acura forever.
News flash, stock new car is faster than slightly modified car from 45 years ago. More at 11.