I was born in 1988. I can't speak on 'owning a g-body back in the day' because I wasn't there. If anything, lets be realistic. CAFE requirements are an attack from borderline socialist commie reds spurned on American auto companies in the 4th quarter of the game in order to 'level the playing field' to keep the (global) auto market competitive and these regulations are not actually about pollution control at all but a playing card dealt by kin of the UN. Point: the Cutlass could not have nor ever would have been released with anything but the 305/307 because it couldn't be (due to said socialist commies etc etc) & plus GM wasn't in it's finest hour so it's not like they could have said "lets just start a whole new production line of (insert engine here)'s with the new emissions equipment on it" and it's pretty obvious to me GM knew that a lot of cutlass buyers would BRB at the service counter buying a 350 Goodwrench anyway so why would they break their back to get it into a car which was already inexpensive. Wait a minute, inexpensive* ? What if my ideal Cutlass looked different than all of yours? My ideal Cutlass would have been expensive. It would have had everything HD and an option to add real pushbars like a 9c1 - but chrome - or choose black as an option for the fr/rear bumper that would look cool too. Vinyl roof? I think not - real leather! Leather interior optional - ty. Real wooden dash, real wooden steering wheel, suede ceiling, 3.42-3.73 HD hopefully 8.5" but GM probably couldn't afford to do that @ the time lets just be honest, right? What GM could afford to do: they probably could have made a variation of the 5 speed from the just released Jimmy/Blazer platform an option! It would look a little out of place in my luxo-yacht Cutlass right but it would be cool as hell to at least have the OPTION of opting out of console shifter - & with a nice little european style shifter grip with some wood/ leather on it? What if the manual version of my luxury Cutlass had a nice functional console and a variation on those recaro bucket seats from the GTA? Wouldn't that have been something? & while we're talking luxury, the Cutlass should have done something to distinguish itself from the other g-bodys in the crowd; how about boxing the frame & some better suspension components? My 'ideal Cutlass' would have took aim at stealing sales from bmw / jaguar (ford) of the time. The Cutlass was supposed to be the luxury version of the car and imo it missed by miles. Old guys probably walked away from the Cutlass all the time muttering "**** this I'm buying a Cadillac"
what should the olds cutlass line should been your ideas
- Thread starter 90hurst/oldsguy
- Start date
- Status
pencero said:
So the G body cutlass was a Commie plot?. How many moons does the planet you live on have?.
Btw your ideal Cutlass was available at the time, only problem being it was called a BMW.....
Roger.
I get that Detroit was behind the ball when it came to improving engine power, fuel economy, and emissions in the 1970s...
I remember reading an article about how, in the late 1970s, Detroit told Washington DC that improving fuel-economy and cleaning up emissions to the standard that the government was requesting was absolutely, positively impossible.
Then Volvo (or was it Saab? I think Volvo), in the same year that Detroit was making these pronouncements of "impossible" improved one of their motors to produce better power, better fuel economy, and cleaner emissions. So, obviously, Volvo was using supernatural powers, if Detroit was to be believed.
Detroit was being lazy, or shortsighted, in some aspects, obviously.
That rant over . . . once they did get the ball rolling, and they did it well, they should've embraced their improvements more wholeheartedly.
For example - on the Buick V6, they developed SEFI. The 1984/1985 version of the FWD injected 3.8 used a distributor, and I'm not clear if it was batch fire or sequential, but by 1986, they switched to DIS and most definitely were SEFI.
Naturally, the turbo Buicks all used DIS SEFI from 1984 onward....
So, why wasn't the 3.8 V6 available as RWD in the G-body cars with the same roller cam and SEFI system as was available in the FWD C/H bodies of the 1980s (also available in the FWD A-bodies)? They should've done this - put say a 3.08 rear and 2004R trans. Better power, better fuel economy.
Now lets move onto the Olds V8s. GM was working with fuel injection on their Chevy V8s, and had throttle body injection on Cadillac V8s before that. Why not for Olds?
Given that, typically, Olds V8s tended to produce better fuel economy, cleaner emissions, and more bottom end torque than the equivalent displacement V8s from other GM marques, why not TBI on the 307? Heck, the Olds 350 might've gotten about the same fuel economy with an overdrive trans and FI that the carbed 307 did....
I know there was a prototype TBI 2-bbl intake for the 307.. a few people have them.
Port injection might not have exactly been out of the realm of possibility, either. Didn't have to use a funky-runner TPI style intake, given Olds's torque advantage already . . a "simple" intake similar to the SEFI Buick V6 in design/style would've done the job.
These should've been available on the Olds Cutlass.
I will admit that the Olds V8 does have something of a disadvantage compar
I remember reading an article about how, in the late 1970s, Detroit told Washington DC that improving fuel-economy and cleaning up emissions to the standard that the government was requesting was absolutely, positively impossible.
Then Volvo (or was it Saab? I think Volvo), in the same year that Detroit was making these pronouncements of "impossible" improved one of their motors to produce better power, better fuel economy, and cleaner emissions. So, obviously, Volvo was using supernatural powers, if Detroit was to be believed.
Detroit was being lazy, or shortsighted, in some aspects, obviously.
That rant over . . . once they did get the ball rolling, and they did it well, they should've embraced their improvements more wholeheartedly.
For example - on the Buick V6, they developed SEFI. The 1984/1985 version of the FWD injected 3.8 used a distributor, and I'm not clear if it was batch fire or sequential, but by 1986, they switched to DIS and most definitely were SEFI.
Naturally, the turbo Buicks all used DIS SEFI from 1984 onward....
So, why wasn't the 3.8 V6 available as RWD in the G-body cars with the same roller cam and SEFI system as was available in the FWD C/H bodies of the 1980s (also available in the FWD A-bodies)? They should've done this - put say a 3.08 rear and 2004R trans. Better power, better fuel economy.
Now lets move onto the Olds V8s. GM was working with fuel injection on their Chevy V8s, and had throttle body injection on Cadillac V8s before that. Why not for Olds?
Given that, typically, Olds V8s tended to produce better fuel economy, cleaner emissions, and more bottom end torque than the equivalent displacement V8s from other GM marques, why not TBI on the 307? Heck, the Olds 350 might've gotten about the same fuel economy with an overdrive trans and FI that the carbed 307 did....
I know there was a prototype TBI 2-bbl intake for the 307.. a few people have them.
Port injection might not have exactly been out of the realm of possibility, either. Didn't have to use a funky-runner TPI style intake, given Olds's torque advantage already . . a "simple" intake similar to the SEFI Buick V6 in design/style would've done the job.
These should've been available on the Olds Cutlass.
I will admit that the Olds V8 does have something of a disadvantage compar
I said 'CAFE standards' are a commie plot to even the odds for foreign cars on the American market - which shouldn't concern you anyway b/c euro market is a different story. Why try to discredit my post by misquoting me? Typical reaction from a progressive socialist. If you want to further the cause of socialism why don't you come pick up piers morgan before something happens to him 
King_V said:
I've been saying this for 2 decades. It was obvious then, GM was strangling Olds and Pontiac. Yet the new LS has more features of the other GM motors than of the original SBC.
The G-body should have evolved into a world class touring car. Not that FWD crap they put out. A part of GM was doing just that. Holden used similar body lines 90 and up, and kept them RWD. Those cars were what we would have lusted over. V8 power, manual transmission options, 2 door, 4 door, pickup (Elcamino style), and wagon. IMO, GM America had their heads up their asses from the mid 80s all through the 90s. Starting in the mid 90s, the Commorore was and still is a world class car. It's a shame, you had leave the country to get a good performing GM car.
There are a few who converted the W-body to RWD and have a kick-*ss car. One of them even has a GN turbo V6.
But I like my G-body and multitude of options that can be done to it.
pencero said:I said 'CAFE standards' are a commie plot to even the odds for foreign cars on the American market - which shouldn't concern you anyway b/c euro market is a different story. Why try to discredit my post by misquoting me? Typical reaction from a progressive socialist. If you want to further the cause of socialism why don't you come pick up piers morgan before something happens to him
Tell you what, I'll start believing Fox News etc so long as you promise to keep Piers Morgan
.CAFE was a response to the forecast problems with oil supplies alongside a growing realisation that pollution would have to be addressed.
Why shouldn't I care about the rest of the world?, you have my political viewpoint completely wrong btw.
Roger.
- Status
Similar threads
