(first posted 5/31/2017) My good friend Jason White was at a Cars and Coffee event out in Saddlebrook, NJ, surrounded by the Porsches and McLarens and supercars that he loves. But when he saw this little red coupe, he had a feeling it would fascinate me more than any of those cars. It’s a 442… An Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais Quad 442 W41, that is.
Really? A GM N-Body catching someone’s eye more than a Lamborghini? Well, like many Curbivores, I have eclectic tastes. And the Quad 442 was quite a rare bird and a surprisingly powerful machine for its time.
The controversially-named 442 was the final sporty Calais derivative, following the International Series and the Quad 4 appearance package. The evolving 442 designation now stood for 4 cylinders, 4 valves per cylinder, and 2 camshafts. This is a 1991 W41 model, making it the wildest of them all as well as one of the rarest: just 241 examples were produced.
Calais International Series
But just how wild can a boxy, 1980s-vintage GM compact be? Well, consider this: the Quad 442 and International-Series used the most powerful version of the Quad 4, GM’s then-new, high-revving, naturally-aspirated, modern DOHC. In High Output LG0 form, introduced in 1989 and offered in sport compacts like the Chevrolet Beretta GTZ, the 2.3 four-cylinder produced a stout 180 hp at 6200 rpm and 160 ft-lbs at 5200 rpm and was mated exclusively to a five-speed manual. The LG0-equipped models were good for a 0-60 time of around 7.5 seconds, thanks also to a 2500-pound curb weight almost identical to that of the Mazda MX-6 and Honda Prelude. Those horsepower and torque figures were also quite similar to the US market BMW M3’s…
Engine and cabin photos courtesy of CarDomain user 3point8tta
The W41 option used an even more powerful version of the HO Quad 4, exclusive to Oldsmobile, with larger camshafts, a modified transmission and the same torque figures but more horsepower (190 hp at 6800 rpm), knocking the 0-60 time down to 7 seconds. Motor Trend also recorded a Camaro Z28-rivalling quarter-mile time of 14.7 seconds at 95.7 mph. The W41 was a homologation special so Oldsmobile could use this particular Quad 4 variant in showroom stock racing, thus explaining the low production numbers.
The HO Quad 4 engines had some pretty impressive horsepower figures for a naturally-aspirated four in the 1980s. After all, a four-cylinder ’89 Accord or ’89 Cavalier produced around 100 hp and 110 ft-lbs, so the Quad 4 engines were a big leap in power and torque and even out-performed most V6 engines (not to mention surpassing some V8s in horsepower, if not torque). But these sporty Quad 4 cars, like the Quad 442, were priced against plenty of other rapid machines.
In 1991, the MSRP of a Quad 442 was just over $13k. That was right up against the Mustang LX 5.0 which had more power and torque and weighed scarcely more. Perhaps it seems unfair to compare such conceptually dissimilar cars. Then again, would a prospective Quad 442 buyer have cross-shopped a turbocharged Eagle Talon/Plymouth Laser/Mitsubishi Eclipse (which cost around $14k) or the less powerful but more refined $15k Honda Prelude?
You could get cheaper Quad 4-equipped cars, as the engine was made available in other N-Bodies like the Pontiac Grand Am. But most of those Quad 4 models used a detuned version with a [still competitive] 150 hp and 160 ft-lbs. You therefore had all the flaws of the Quad 4 – patchy reliability, high levels of NVH, weak low-end performance – with less power and torque.
Motor Trend tested a HO Quad 4-equipped Grand Am and Calais 442 for their 1990 Bang For Your Buck special. The sporty N-Bodies tackled the slalom at a higher speed than the Mustang, Camaro, Talon AWD and Toyota MR-2 and scooted to 60 mph quicker than the turbocharged Ford Probe GT. But the reviewers found these cars simply weren’t as fun-to-drive as they could have been, with safe, predictable handling, a tendency towards understeer and pronounced body roll in turns. Unsurprisingly, these sporty N-Bodies – with their FE3 suspension tune – rode quite stiffly, although this was a common complaint for sporty compacts.
There’s no doubt Oldsmobile’s Quad 4 engine was impressively powerful for its size. But it lacked refinement, the ageing N-Body platform lacked polish, and, perhaps most disastrously for the reinvented 442, the car lacked style. In a fashion-conscious segment, the Quad 442’s boxy, generic 1980s GM styling was a killer. This was borne out in sales figures, which show the more youthful-looking, HO Quad 4-equipped Grand Ams and Berettas sold considerably better.
The real sin here isn’t the use of the 442 name on a FWD, four-banger compact. To Oldsmobile’s credit, they were trying to make their performance heritage relevant in a new era of sport compacts and intense competition from the Japanese. And to GM’s credit, they produced a modern four-cylinder after years of Tech IVs and Iron Dukes, and it was an extremely powerful unit. But GM never sent the Quad 442 – or the other N-Body compacts – to finishing school, leaving it a car in search of greater refinement, more engaging handling, and a more attractive body.
Then there was also the thorny issue of Oldsmobile’s brand identity and cratering sales figures. What was Oldsmobile, again? Was it a purveyor of bargain basement yester-tech like the Cutlass Ciera? Was it the home of upscale full-size sedans like the 88 LSS and Ninety-Eight? Of all of GM’s brands, Oldsmobile had the most jumbled messaging and positioning.
The Quad 442 was replaced in 1992 by the Achieva SCX, which retained the special W41 tune of the Quad 4 engine. The N-Body mechanicals were much the same but were now draped in more modern, if polarizing, sheetmetal. But it took a few more years for GM to refine the Quad 4 engine, by which time Oldsmobile simply gave up on selling sporty compacts.
Related Reading:
Vintage Review: 1985 Oldsmobile Calais Supreme – GM Deadly Sin #26 – Car And Driver Predicts Death
Curbside Unicorns: The Sporty FWD Oldsmobiles of the 1980s
Top 10 Obscure Special Editions and Forgotten Limited-Run Models: Oldsmobile Edition, Part I
The Quad 4 was typical GM of that era. Get to 75-80% and call it good. “Lets make a large displacement high-revving 4-cylinder but leave out balance shafts so anybody driving one loses several fillings.”
Oh and the “Tech 4” *was* the Iron Duke. Car and Driver used to derisively refer to it as the “Lo-Tech 4.”
FWIW, the original version of the Q4 was rather raw and crude which was a huge drawback in an era of increasingly powerful and smooth powerplants. The oh-so-80’s styling of the Calais really was out of step by 1991, the Achieva couldn’t come quickly enough. And it didn’t.
I think GM had realized that Oldsmobile was in trouble as far back as the early 90’s. GM was trying to use the same old formula of introducing a sporty model in hopes to sell the pedestrian models, but if those models were awful, what was the point? Remember, GM had a financial crisis of it’s own in the early 90’s, along with a palace coup, too. It really could have come crashing down back then, but amazingly didn’t.
In reality, the N bodies of the early 90’s were winners on the track. They dominated their divisions in SCCA and IMSA racing, routinely beating the big name imports they competed against. While an International Series with the W-41 would be nice, my early-thirties dream was to replace the Lancer with an Achieva SCX. But where to put the kids’ car seats?
I think by the announced end of Oldsmobile, they were focused on a nice tight line-up, (kind of like Pontiac before the Automotive Task Force compelled GM to shut them down) too little too late, I’m afraid. As an Olds fan, it was a rather ignominous end for one of the pioneers of automobile history…
Remarkable find, William, and a rare bird, indeed. I would also have spent more time looking at this car than the ubiquitous 69 Camaros and fake SS’s that litter car shows.
Also, the Quad 4 had developed a bad reputation for head gasket failures. Was that ever addressed later in the engine’s life? If power, durability and pleasant to drive are the three main hallmarks of an engine, the Quad 4 scored on only one of them.
Also there was the Calais itself. It seemed to be an indistinguishable part of a generic blob of mid to small sized GM cars. I will admit that I wasn’t paying much attention by then, but I found it hard to keep the lineup straight.
But this one? I do love some things just for their rarity. It is hard to imagine one of these being prized and preserved once it got beyond 7 years old, so bravo to someone.
US-made cars in the 80s and 90s and head gaskets…an incredibly foolish example of losing your kingdom “for want of a nail”. All the big three cheaped out on a little more finish work and a 50¢ more on a better gasket…and all paid big in losses, from the Neon to the Deville.
How many still only buy Toyotas because of this one cheaply cut corner that lead to $1000+ repairs?
(looks at the Sienna in the drive…remembers a Windstar)
That’s why I refuse to even look at Subaru now. It’s my understanding they still haven’t resolved their head gasket issue. Sure it’s after 100,000 miles…which for me would be just shy of 6 years, and if I drop the coin for an Imprezza, I want 300,000 out of it
It’s my conviction that it was the switch to a cheaper open-deck block that created the problem. How many FJ20s out there with HG issues?
Everyday I’m on the road I see numerous, old Camry’s from the late 80s and 90s still looking good and running strong. I also see a lot of old Accord’s zipping about as well. Considering how well cars like the Ford Taurus sold and certain GM and Chrysler models sold back in the day, it’s an extremely rare sight to see them still in operation today. It’s the aged Toyota’s and Honda’s that are the energizer bunnies that just keep on going and going and going……..
Here in my area, there are a lot of pre 1998 Accords still on the road but there are not many 98-02 Accords around. I guess this is due to the crappy auto transmission that Honda put in these cars which failed and then when Honda replaced them on their dime, the replacements failed also. In fact 98-07 were dark years for transmissions in Honda products.
Of course Honda also had problems with the engine block cracking in their 2006-2009 Civic.
However unlike Toyota, Honda tried to make the transmission and block cracking issues right by repairing or replacing them on their dime and I have a lot of respect for Honda because of that. I would have no problem buying a new Honda if I needed a new car.
The problematic Honda automatic transmissions were installed in 1999 through 2004 V-6 models.
We just traded a 2003 Honda Accord EX four-cylinder sedan automatic with 269,000 miles on the odometer. It never had any transmission trouble, and the transmission was fine when we traded it.
Odysseys had some transmission issues through 2007 that could be solved with a simple software update.
Still many, many 98-02 Accords on the road here too. Daily sight at least (not counting the two owned by co-workers). I think the 4-cylinder probably outsold the V6 as well, meaning there are more still around.
A mate of mine worked in Toyota parts during the 70s they could hardly keep head gaskets on the shelf, Corollas in particular. The lesson was learned back in Japan and the problem solve, same with the rapid rusting eventually galvanising was introduced on NZ assembled Toyotas and a local market suspension tune.
Toyota had their fair share of head gasket issues
But I think Toyota did a much better job at keeping their head gasket issues on the down low.
Take the Toyota 7M engine found in the Supra and Cressida. All of them suffered from head gasket issues due to the wrong torque specs being implemented at the factory. However Toyota somehow got away with not being forced into issuing a recall on these.
Later on Toyota had another head gasket issue with their 2.4l engine (which was in the Camry, Matrix, XB, Rav4 and other Toyota products). In this case the HG issue was the fact that the rear head bolt holes in the block stripped out even without any over heating. Toyota pretended not to know of it and would not recall or repair it on their own dime. They would be more then happy to sell you a new short block. The way to fix this issue were using time serts that were created for the Northstar engine.
Of course Toyota/Scion USA customer care sucks. I had a 2012 Scion XB that had less then 20,000 miles on it that i bought new and had nothing but issues with Toyota about it. I finally dumped it (happily losing $1000 in the process) and that will be my last Toyota product ever.
I suspect it may have been improved quite a bit, in the later years, after the shift to the 2.4L. I’m driving a 98 Grand Am right now with the 2.4L, and I had a coolant problem in it when I first got it, didn’t realize it.. cooked the motor so hot it cooked the oil. No evidence of a gasket failure (maybe I cooked the gasket back into place, considering that I haven’t had a single overheat since then) since, and that was almost a year ago now. Daily driver, with 224k on it.
I cooked the head gasket on my 442 that I had in the late 90s and early 2000s, twice. Without any major overheats like that.
Oh, the contrast with this being parked next to a ’70ish 442.
While the flaws in this era of 442 are not hard to pinpoint, Oldsmobile does deserve some credit for trying to regain some vitality, dignity, and actual performance to go with the name. We cannot forget they used the 442 name in the late ’70s for the ghastly hunchback A-body 442.
*This.*
My friends and I used to joke about the hunchbacked ’78 that by then, “4-4-2” might as well have stood for “four wheels, four seats, two doors”.
I sometimes think I’m the only one who likes the fastback A-bodies. Delightfully odd.
Though they shouldn’t have put the 442 name on if they weren’t going to give it an engine at least slightly worthy of the name, and the only A-body that got the Olds 350 (that I know of) was the W30 Hurst/Olds.
No, Chris, I like them too. But it seems to me they just didn’t fit with the Olds image. Or the Buick brand either. Would they have been any good as Chevrolets or Pontiacs, I wonder? The style looks to nice (to me) to consign to the dustbin.
I’ll go one further and suggest should have had the 403 that was being used in Trans Ams.
I kind of share your odd attraction to the aerobacks, or at least I’ve learned to appreciate them. It’s not uncharacteristic for an Oldsmobile intermediate to be a fastback, the 68-72 Cutlasses were just that.
Those 1968-72 Cutlass fastback coupes were very handsome cars. The 1978-80 cars were simply awkward from day one. It didn’t help that buyers of intermediates tended to be very style-conscious in the late 1970s.
GM should have made them hatchbacks, which would have at least given the buyer greater utility in exchange for the off-putting looks.
Awkward yes, impractical, yes, I agree. I only disagree with Pete’s point about them not fitting the Olds image, as Olds had plenty of fastbacks in their time, including the non-supreme Collonades, and these were no exception.
They look good even if they werent a very good car but Ive only seen one live, very few got here but there were at least two, the one I saw on the Hauraki plains and another a different colour for sale on Trademe
I don’t ever need to hear “Quad 4” again.
My first brand new car was a 1990 Pontiac Grand Am sedan with a base Q4.
Nothing but trouble from day one. There was an electric drain on the battery which resulted in a no-crank situation after sitting for awhile (hours).
FOUR trips to the dealer (whatever happened to the Lemon Law? Three strikes for the same issue and it’s out?) and it was fixed after an arbitration hearing.
Never again.
“The real sin here isn’t the use of the ‘442’ name on a FWD, four-banger compact.” A very good point.
Great piece, Will.
True, and I agree, but GM was in the grip of an ‘everything’s gotta go FWD’ mindset, and seemingly didn’t look up to see what the rest of the world was doing. I was an avid reader of Car and Driver in those days, and couldn’t help noticing GM seemed to be going out on a limb, both stylistically and mechanically. Then they started sawing off that limb with quality…
God knows what they were thinking. How about “4 cylinder 4 2 much money”
I can’t help but wonder how much ill will directed at the 442 was GM’s inexplicable failure to fit slush boxes that were tuned to it’s higher revving nature. The poor shift points really hurt the engine’s performance.
I test drove a Beretta GTZ back in the day that had a 5-speed and found the engine pretty zippy when shifted properly. Sadly, I couldn’t say that about the rest of the car and ended up getting a W-body Olds.
I’ve seen a “twin” to this 442 several times in the last couple of years. I couldn’t believe it when I first saw it. What was more surprising was the driver and his wife: a very late, middle-aged couple got out of the car at the grocery store I was in front of. And it must have been their “daily driver” as I would see them several more times at the same store.
They probably bought that car new.
That ugly, formal roof and a rough, noisy engine. The perfect combination to woo Honda and Toyota buyers!
Happy Motoring, Mark
Just the looks would have me going to the Toyota store
Yeah, these were noisy and the early cars ate head gaskets (so did my Hondas), but I’d love to run one up to get on the freeway. I don’t want to own one, just run through the gears. They were audibly dramatic, but scooted right along. And don’t ask me to replace the water pump.
My first car was a Beretta with the standard 4-cyl. After that got wrecked, I graduated to the 1990 442. On my test drive, i hit a straightway downhill highway entrance ramp, and was exceeding the speed limit well before i got to the end of the entrance ramp. The Beretta would just barely make the then-60mph speed limit by the end of the same ramp. I could’ve easily caught 80 on that ramp (hell i can get 75 on it in my Grand Am right now .. my Prius gets to 65.) and probably farther.
I hit the next exit, came back around, and told the dealer that there was nothing in this world that would stop me from owning that car.
//speed demon 4 life 🙂
Kind of cool viewed through a retro lens, among other things for the mix of upright, formal styling cues and a sporty coupe image. And the Quad 4 could do some impressive things performance-wise. Too many cut corners, but I would have stopped and stared at this one too!
Also, Saddle Brook, NJ (two words) is my Dad’s hometown. Mom grew up in nearby Fair Lawn.
I had a red Grand AM GT with the 180 HP / 5 Speed combo back in the 90’s (I think it was a ’93?) – it was a rare car at the time, was turned in hours before I drove on the used car lot by a GM exec who ordered it.. I scooped it up that day.
A friend of mine had the Beretta GTZ in blue, same drive train – they were of course the exact same car, but I always liked his better – I thought the styling on my Pontiac was a little too absurd (this was during the body cladding fad that was rampant at GM)..
The engine was fine, but yes, it rattled fillings at higher RPM’s but I never had any issues with it. It wasn’t refined at all, but at my younger age I thought it was better that way.
Good mam .. ahem.. memories in that car..
I like what Olds tried to do here, obviously the execution failed starting with the over-hyped and half-baked Quad Four.
It is easy to be dismissive of the N body, but in typical GM fashion during their Baskin-Robbins days, there was usually a flavor that sold. In this case it was Pontiac’s turn with Grand-Am. A reversal of the days when Olds sold every Cutlass it could build and Pontiac’s LeMans gathered dust on dealer lots.
I have no problem with 442 being trotted out again for this car. As Vince’s recent treatise on the Chevelle / Malibu / SS demonstrated, the meaning behind names such as SS and 442 change with the times and the N body 442 is no different.
Having just bought a Dodge Dart for my daughter, I couldn’t help but think it unfortunate that such a great name for a small Dodge has been retired again. Thinking about Dodge’s decimated current line-up, the Charger flagship works well in its modern context as a sporty sedan. Slapping the Monaco name on the big Dodge sedan might be truer to history, but wouldn’t serve the car at all well in 2017. Times and context change.
We had a ’91 Calais with the Tech IV in 1992 until it got t Boned in 1995 ish. I don’t recall the engine being offensively unpleasant. Some years got balance shafts. The interior of the car was quite plush, refined, and roomy for the exterior size and composed of high quality materials and nicely put together. The instruments were backlit, the formal roofline gave it a very large trunk opening, it was a very nice little car for the price. With GM/Olds discounts it went out the door for under 10K and you’d be looking at a pretty bare bones Civic at that price.
The Integras and Talon-Eclipse-Laser and Probe sport coupes of the day were allegedly more refined and drove better, but I remember Consumer Reports stating the the N Cars drove and handled quite well and the only reasons they were not recommended was reliability. This wasn’t a clunky GM platform of yore.
Like the Grand National, GM far outpowered the competition but wrapped the engine in a fairly conservative suit of clothes. Like the Sentra SE-R and various Lexus sporty cars, apparently there’s not much of a market for a runner in wingtips and a three piece navy blue suit.
By the way, I also liked the aeroback cars as a kid. I thought they were very cool looking.
It looks awfully narrow for its length. Is this an artefact of the styling, or were they narrower than the competition?
My sister almost got one of these. I tried to push her into it but she went with a Cougar. I was in the market too however so I went right out and got a …..Lumina z34.
I remember a friend’s dad bought one of the first one of these with the quad four. This was a man who was on his third Olds and had bought a 60’s 442 as a toy.
It was gone within two years, replaced by a Pontiac and you would get a positively evil stare if you breathed the word Oldsmobile in presence. I remember him every time I read about how Oldsmobile failed.
Ah…. the lovely 80’s and 90’s. The two decades that routed Generalized Motors down a gloomy path of despair and near obliteration. Oldsmobile is another example of a once proud, prosperous division defficated on by bean counters, clueless product planners and substantially substandard automobiles that virtually nobody wanted when they were new.
This would grab my attention too. I know without a shred of doubt that I’ll be able to see Porsches and McLarens any time in the future, I cannot say the same about a Calais 442. That may be the only time I’d ever see one, it’s hard to find even pictures this nice detailed online for such a car. The 442 package was IMO done justice with these, this truly was the closest thing to the 442 formula in the $5 a gallon gas 80s future GM envisioned but never happened. These are also refreshing to look at from today’s vantage where sporty compacts invariably are pigeon holed into the “hot hatch” formula.
I actually find the styling of these attractive, formal rooflines work just fine on the right cars, and in the case of these the styling just doesn’t take itself seriously. It’s almost a parody of formal American car styling tropes in an otherwise sporty car, that no matter how it looked, would have been considered by everyone as an also ran noncompetitive Roger Smith era GM POS. It’s a more unique package than it otherwise would be, and the Beretta and Achieva successor is case in point.
The problem with GM and this styling direction was that there was zero substance to it, apart from low production oddball instances such as the 442, or the Grand national for that matter(it was also a formal roofline car lest anyone forget, looks badass though doesn’t it? Because it established itself as such – wouldn’t be considered that way if only the base Regal ever existed). If GM could have made their cars dynamically competititive in a non-limited edition sort of way, and not spread the design language so thin on what became a truly redundant product line it all could have worked out for them in the 80s
I liked the styling of the Achieva coupe, and still do today. If only the build and materials quality, and overall refinement, had matched the looks.
A whole lot of them are to be seen here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/quad4forums/
The Grand National was amazing to me, a young teen when it was around. One of the kids at my high school’s parents had one, it was a beeeeeeeeeeeast. If I had the choice of getting a W41 442 or a Grand National, it’d be a hard choice to me. Those are my two car loves.
Was there a turbo version of the Quad4 with an output of 200+ hp. Was it a regular production car or just a show car?
Does anyone remember the Quad four powered Olds Aerotech? AJ Foyt drove one to a record of over 257 mph. in 1987. Not your Father’s Oldsmobile indeed!
Oh yes. Big news at the time.
I had the Matchbox version of the Aerotech. Very cool car, then or now.
ah.. the Calais W41 Quad 442! one of my dream cars! I love the Cutlass Calais, it’s my favorite of all the N-bodies… I wish I could have the Quad 442, but I had to settle for a 1988 Calais International Series….. with a automatic..
I quite like the Quad 4, it’s quite a peppy and moves! yeah, it’s noisy, but I find it’s part of its charm and uniqueness… and yes, head gaskets are definitely an issue.. iron block/aluminum head… otherwise I’m happy with my Calais International and the only thing I’d be happier with is the Quad 442 with the high output Quad 4 and getrag 5-speed!
You are not going to believe this — I just drove by your car, yesterday! My daughter pointed at it as we turned the corner there, and said “wow, nice looking car!” and I realized what it was, and I stopped, got out, took a picture, and posted it to the Quad 4 group on Facebook! Then I got back in the car, and started gushing about it, and she was like “It’s just a car, Dad, calm down.”
It’s not just a car. 🙂
So, if you saw a red Grand Am GT drive by and the driver took your cars pic, that was me. Unreal, I just did a google search for the I Series to find some pics to show someone else, and I landed in this post.
Come join the Quad 4 group! 🙂 https://www.facebook.com/groups/quad4forums/permalink/10159027196625106/
I have a soft spot for the Cutlass Calais/Buick Somerset.
I always liked how they looked. One of my friends a Buick Somerset (85 or 86 I think) and while it was a dog, it was comfortable and looked neat.
In 1991, when I decided to trade in my 1988 323, I test drove a bunch of cars (CRX, Calais 442, Dodge Daytona, Integra, Prelude, Camaro, Mustang, MR2).
I bought a CRX DX because it was the most fun for the money (poor college student working full time).
From memory, the Calais 442 w/manual was OK to drive, but the painful engine noise from the Quad4 was very tiring after a quick 20 minute test drive.
The engine was loud and very coarse. The manual transmission was notchy as all heck. I hated the clutch.
The car handled decently, was very comfortable and I thought that it would be a good cruiser…with an automatic. Truthfully, I thought that this car would be better with a less powerful engine and an automatic (lets face it, GM made crappy manuals in the 80’s-90’s).
This chassis was better as a cruiser than a ‘sporty’ car.
The Calais 442 compared well to the Dodge Daytona (which could be surprisingly fun to drive), but could not compare to the Japanese manufacturers in terms of interior/exterior quality and ‘feel’ of the car.
Still, I would like to have one of these (in a manual) for nostalgic reasons.
I had a Q4 equipped 1995 Pontiac Sunfire GT with the Isuzu 5 speed. The engine was fine, I never had any real issues with the engine in the six years that I owned it.
The trans, was a different story. If there ever was a “glass” manual trans, this was it. By the time the first one gave up the ghost, they were hard to find. By the time I sold the car, transmissions were near impossible to find.
Some other (older) Q4 equipped cars came with Getrags and decent shifters on them, they were much more fun to drive. I can recall driving a Beretta GTU (or GTZ) with that setup, it was a sweet drive.
You definitely hit the nail on the head, about the marketing and results of the Quad 4. Even the Quad OHC variant(an anemic 115hp/140 lbs-ft SOHC used in 1992-1994 N-Body chassis) had reliability issues, ranging from cracked heads, bad ignition control modules/coil pack assemblies, and the #3 connecting rod loved to take vacations outside the block from time-to-time.
They were a radically advanced engine, for their time, and the Oldsmobile W41 option Quad engine STILL remains as the MOST POWERFUL naturally-aspirated engjne GM has ever produced out of an inline 4 cylinder.
I have had both a Quad OHC and the “low-output” DOHC version. My SOHC w/5 speed got around 33-35mpg combined city/highway(minus the catalyst), routinely averaged over 500 miles per tank, AND could very easily keep up with and sometimes even rival 3.8L V-6 Ford Mustangs as well as 3.1/3.4L F-Bodies
The DOHC had no problems with even given some lower output V-8s a decent run, despite being mated to the crappy THM-125C 3-speed autotragic.
Sadly, both of those cars went to the wrecking yards with blown engines…….
Water pump failure in one, and a melted piston/burnt valve in the other.
I do miss both of those cars though. The performance and gas mileage has only ever been matched by latest addition to the family: My 1995 Saturn SC2
Ok…. I had an 88 Grand Am with the Quad4/5-speed, combo. A friend had an 89 with the “Tech” motor and auto-that car was WAY noisier and “agricultural” feeling compared to my car. I still don’t understand all the noise complaints with the Quad engines. Before my Grand Am I had two different Sunbirds with the “Iron Duke” engine, and compared to those (and all the people I knew with Grand Ams, Celebrities and other GM cars with the ID/Tech4) the Quad motor felt light-years more refined, and significantly more powerful. My GA routinely got 30mpg even with me winding it out to redline every shift, it never lost a head gasket in its first 120k. I replaced the GA with an Achieva SC, again with the Quad4/5speed. I tested one with the V6/auto and it felt slow and nose heavy in comparison (sales guy told me no sticks with the V6) I got a great deal on the Quad Achieva and put 140K trouble free miles on it. So again, I have a lot of seat time in Quad cars, and don’t know where all the noise and trouble complaints are from.
I think it’s more comparing them to the competition they were trying to compete against at the time, rather than comparing them to the older tech.
I would agree with this. Both my Quads idled smoother than my 2.5L Iron Dukes have ever idled(Had a Fiero, and currently a 1991 Grand Am base model). Even my Saturn 1.9L Twin Cam idles and runs smoother through the rpm range, despite the many complaints about NVH levels of that engine as well. I loved my Quad 4 gas mileage and performance. I hated their water pumps and reliability issues.
And the Head Gasket issue got worse with the 2.4L, because of the GM Death-Kill Orange. Water pumps leaking were more likely to cause oil/coolant to mix, than the head gaskets on Quads. Many mechanics misdiagnose those engines, because you never physically see the water pump leaking, due to the heat of the exhaust manifold causing it to steam off. Green coolant doesn’t eat head gasket material, like the orange does.
M friend had a 2000 Cavalier Z24. She couldn’t find the source of the coolant loss, when she bought it. I shined a light under the car and noticed water marks on the catalytic converter. I told her she needed a water pump, but I refused to help her change it and told her she needed to take it to a reputable mechanic.
She never did. Car lasted 2 months, before the engine blew.
The ’91 Q 442 W 41 featured in this post is mine! This is the second one that I’ve owned. The first was bought new off the dealer’s lot in April ’91. After 2 years and 32,000 miles, I was forced to sell it due to losing garage space. After the sale, I immediately suffered from seller’s remorse and promised myself that I would replace it someday. Well, this current one was bought off it’s original owner with 40K miles on it with it’s all original paint, interior and drivetrain. It even was wearing period correct Goodyear GT +4’s!
All I can say to the haters out there, if you’ve never driven one, you have no clue as to what this super rare beast (1 of 204 built in the month of March ’91) is capable of! M/T Magazine’s March ’91 issue tested one and it ran 14.6 in the qtr! That is faster than ANY other 442 that preceded it (except for the 1970 model).
It’s always great to hear from an owner! Welcome to CC, KingQuad. I hope I’ve done your car justice.
My buddy Jason typically gravitates towards McLarens and supercars but he saw this 442 and knew I’d get a kick out of it. I’ve always wanted to test drive one of these…
These truly had impressive performance for their day. How has the reliability been for your Quad 4s?
Thanks for the props! I really enyoyed the read. Reliabilty on it’s original 47K mill has been solid! Annual oil changes and topping off the fluids are the only things that’s been required.
It’s equipped with the very rare dealer installed torsen limited slip diff (w/3.:94 gears) and it has no problem leaving 150+ foot double black stripes on the pavement!!
I stand by my opinion, that these engines were BEAST and would damn near beat anything on the road, from V6s and even some 8s in 1991. However, there are well-known, well-documented tomes of information on the reliability issues of the Quad 4 engine. I don’t care about the NVH, because you are buying a sports car, not a Cadillac or Mercedes.
I always hate when I hear about reviewers, that seem to think a $14,000 automobile should have no quirks with NVH. One: It is a $14,000 automobile. Why did you get a brand new car, for $14,000? Because corners were cut to make the car competitively priced.
Two: It is a FOUR CYLINDER. This means there are 180° of crankshaft rotation, between each power stroke(as opposed to 90° on a V8). Unless you properly weigh EACH INDIVIDUAL piston, bearing, and connecting rod, and then professionally balance each individual crank to match the other components(kinda like balancing tires, but more precise and time consuming), you are going to have NVH. Balance shafts reduced rpm redline from 7,200 back to 6,500 or even 6,200. And balance shafts do nothing, to offest NVH, at idle. Once again, it is a $14,000 car. Engine blueprinting to balance a crank can add a thousand or two to the engine production costs, alone.
Just make sure you change the water pump, every 75,000 miles, and you should be fine(until the cylinder head cracks in half).
Do you still have your w41 442?
Drew
Unless you properly weigh EACH INDIVIDUAL piston, bearing, and connecting rod, and then professionally balance each individual crank to match the other components(kinda like balancing tires, but more precise and time consuming), you are going to have NVH.
No. A four cylinder vibrates not because of imbalance of the components. It’s inherent to the design. Modern engines have their parts very well matched. There’s no way to not make a big inline four not shake except with balance shafts.
Balance shafts reduced rpm redline from 7,200 back to 6,500 or even 6,200.
Tell that to the balance-shafted 2.4 four in my Acura TSX that redlines (happily) to 7000rpm. And it’s smooth from idle all the way through to 7000.
You trying to justify the lack of balance shafts on that Quad 4 paint shaker is utterly pointless. But that’s what you specialize in, sadly. Why do you keep trying to white wash GM’s mistakes?
One question: Have you ever had the opportunity to drive the exact car fthat is featured in this post?
I own one of these rare (1 of 204 built) beasts and it effortlessly hit’s 7,800 RPM, and will do a 150+ ft. burnout leaving two perfectly straight black stripes on the pavement.. Oh, and It also runs a 14.6 sec qrtr mile. Sure the Q4 W41 motor has a lumpy idle but it’s due to it’s special W41 specific hi lift dual cams.- and I love it!
Can’t say I have driven the LG0 or the W41, as all of them in my area have long been crushed away with cracked heads. I have seen a few in the area, over the last 25 years. And I agreed they are fast.
I just don’t see the validity of the NVH complaint, which is one of the things this engine is commonly referenced as a negative point. It was a $14,000 car, not a $40,000 car.
I didn’t make any apology, for GM’s mistake. I am merely pointing out the unrealistic expectations, that reviewers will have over a $14,000 car.
It would be stupid to expect a bottom-priced car to have EVERY possible form of comfort of some luxury models from that time. Your Acura is an “apples-to-oranges” comparison, at best.
Stroke Length, crank balancing, piston diameter, camshaft lift/duration/overlap, compression, and valvetrain all attribute to NVH, as well as engine powerband and rev limit.
A lopey idle is caused by poor vacuum signal at lower rpms, due to improper cylinder compression because both air volume and air velocity are too low. Balance shafts do nothing to counteract this, at idle speeds, as balance shafts will typically not begin counteracting such forces until they hit certain speeds themselves. My Iron Duke has a balance shaft, as it is a 1991 production year. It idles like crap, until I hit the gas and engine rpms get over about 1,200.
Since balance shafts increase the amount of mechanical components, they CAN(and in the case of the LG0/W41 designs DID) reduce rpm redline. When you are trying to build a cheaper way to beat out a top-of-line manufacturer’s performance and price, you don’t do the exact opposite to your engine design.
GM targeted BMW, in their ad campaign. Of course, I don’t see any of those 1990s BMWs left running around much, either.
Knocking a base-level model for NVH, despite all its other positives, is merely grasping at straws. If you want comfort, buy a more expensive car. If you want performance, expect to sacrifice a little bit of comfort.
It would be like me making a review on a Mustang GT or Corvette, and knocking them for having stiff suspension on bumpy terrain, or bagging on a Mercedes that is still pulling a 16-second ¼-mile and terrible g’s on the skid pad because it weighs 4,200 lbs and has sluggish, soft suspension.
“Knocking a base-level model for NVH, despite all its other positives, is merely grasping at straws. If you want comfort, buy a more expensive car. ”
Or you could just buy a Honda. Lots of people did.
Too bad the Hondas didn’t come with 175-190 SAE net HP, while still being U.S. EPA fuel economy rated for 22mpg city/29 Highway(which can easily be pushed to being over 200HP and 35mpg by removing the catalytic converter and installing the induction system off a 1993 Quad 4 setup from 2nd Gen N-Body vehicles).
I don’t recall 1991 Hondas running 14-15s in the ¼-mile, either.
See, once you understand engine physics, you understand that such an engine will produce quite a bit of NVH. The Quad 4’s design was similar to that of the Offenhauser race engine. Race engines have NVH and very poor idle.
The most restrictive design were the exhaust ports of the cylinder heads(even on low-output DOHCs). You could free up at least 12-15hp from removing the catalyst. The over square design is why the vehicle had such a large throttle body, as compared to other engines of similar displacement. Over square engines benefit the most from modifications allowing for greater volume for properly filling the cylinders.
It is easier to squeeze out ponies from an over square engine, than an under square one. The sacrifice is in your low-rpm torque, drivability, and idle quality. This is why a Chevy 350 V8 will gain impressive power from a large, free-flowing exhaust and large valves, whereas a Chevy 267 V8 will only make marginal gains from the exact same parts installed on it.
And this is also why the redesigned 2.4L Twin Cam still only had 150HP, despite having narrowed ports(for low-rpm torque), smaller valves(once again, low-rpm torque), but a larger crankshaft throw(reduced maximum engine speed/increase low-rpm torque), and doesn’t respond as well to the same type of modification as a 2.3L Quad 4 will. But, because of these modifications to the design, the idle quality is much better than even the low-output Quad 4 and even Quad OHCs.
Meaning, it would be an accurate review to state the engine is not suitable as a street engine(because it actually isn’t, hence why most of them split the cylinders heads in half or destroyed the hearing from leaking water pumps). To complain about its NVH is nothing more than a reflection of reviewer ignorance to the physics of how naturally aspirated engines operate.
Last weekend I was at the Oldsmobile Homecoming in Lansing. I saw many of these cars in different forms. Some daily driver. Some award winning clean. Some actually built as racing cars. This one may very well have been at that show.
I talked to the owner of one of the W41 cars. He said the 190 HP rating was more than likely for insurance purposes. And that the car would actually get more like up to 220.
I also went through the Oldsmobile museum. They had an Aerotech. And a couple Quad 4s cut away to show the internals. And of course a ton of other stuff.
I remember these from Motorweek as a kid. They put the camera right down by the front wheel to show how much power it had at launch.
I think the 442 as a small FWD car was just a progression of the times. Not really any different than the Shelby versions of cheap econoboxes like the 80s Charger and Omni.
I was interested in buying a Quad Four in ’91. Had to have an automatic transmission because the wife was the primary driver. Most of the various GM products still were using a 3 speed auto, ended up buying a Ford Probe V6 4 speed auto. Got 18 years out of the Probe without much drama, was a very fun car to drive. The other car in the running was a 2 door Toyota Celica 4 cyl automatic. Nice car, fun car but just to much money over the Probe. The Mitsubishi triplet’s didn’t make the first cut.