For the February of 1967 issue, Motor Trend tested two versions of the Cutlass Supreme. While these A-Body Olds were reaching their final year of production, MT wanted to try a new and exciting package that had appeared for ’67, one that yielded both performance and economy as well good handling.
We’re referring to the Turnpike Cruising package, or TC, available for the Cutlass Supreme Holiday Coupe. It consisted of a high-compression 400in. engine with a 2-barrel carburetor and special cam, providing a lower torque peak achieved thanks to a 2.41 rear axle. To make matters interesting, MT’s TC came with the high-performance suspension found in the 4-4-2. In short, MT basically considered the thus-equipped TC the equivalent of a 4-4-2, with a different engine and final drive ratio.
With the TC Cutlass Supreme so furnished, it was only obvious to test it against the real 4-4-2. And so, the test’s 4-4-2 arrived with an almost identical list of accessories. That said, tires and brakes did differ between the TC and the 4-4-2.
With the 4-4-2 coming with the standard-for-automatic 3.08 rear axle, MT found the TC package as the better all-around model. At 65MPH, the 4-4-2’s engine sounded comparatively busy at 3000RPM, against the TC, which churned at a relaxed 2200RPM. In general, the TC gave away little in performance against the 4-4-2. With both models sharing identical suspensions, handling was basically equal, and in straight-line acceleration, the TC reached 0-60 in less than 9 seconds; just 1.6 seconds more than the 4-4-2.
Braking distances, however, seriously differed between the two models; with the 4-4-2 performing better thanks to optional front discs.
Another novelty on the TC was Olds’ Climatic Combustion Control or CCC: ‘… what it does is pipe heat from the right exhaust manifold to a special air cleaner box atop the carburetor… where a vacuum-powered, temperature-sensor-controlled door regulates the mix.’ It was meant to improve performance, cold starts, fuel consumption, and emissions. How well this worked in the real world was hard to tell, as Olds engineers declined to state any hard numbers.
In the eyes of MT, the real clincher for the TC package was ‘the excellent gas mileage it gives, which favorably compares with that of smaller, less powerful V-8s and 6s.’ For the 4-4-2 that meant 12-15 MPG. For the TC it was 15.7-18 MPG.
To sum it up, MT found much compelling on both Supremes. Many Americans would soon agree; the age of the Supreme was about to start in full swing.
A More detailed look at the Turnpike Cruiser:
Automotive History: The 20 MPG 400 Cubic Inch 1967 Olds Cutlass Turnpike Cruiser
And more on the ’67 Cutlass:
CCCCC Part 3 (1966-1967): 1967 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme – America’s Love Supreme Starts Here
With the 2.41 gears, and the listed shift points, the TC was still in 2nd gear at the end of the 0-60 run. 8.7 seconds seems remarkably quick for a car with maybe 225 net HP and 2.41 gears.
The big 400 inch motor had 425 (gross) ft.lbs. of torque, which is relatively more important than its peak hp number in the 0-60 test. The 0-60 test is pretty limited in terms of a picture of true performance. A lot of PG equipped Chevys did very well in it. The degree of torque multiplication at stall speed of the torque converter is a key element, among others.
HP shows up in the trap speeds in the 1/4 mile: 91 mph for the 4-4-2; 85 mph for the TC. And if there had been a measured top speed, the additional hp of the 442 would have been apparent.
A thermostatically controlled air cleaner snorkel was incorporated later on many GM engines. There was a vacuum powered flap that directed warm air from the exhaust manifold into the air cleaner. As the engine warmed up the flap would close, allowing the snorkel to admit cooler air. This device worked with the choke to improve drivability and reduce the chance of the engine stalling before it was completely warmed up.
When I first got my ’71 Riviera it ran well, but the throttle had to be “feathered” during this transitional period, or the engine would stall. The alternative was to let the engine warm up for several minutes. I replaced the inoperative vacuum solenoid and that solved the problem.
So many car enthusiasts can’t wait to dump the stock air cleaner housing and duct work for an open element filter. This can lead to all kinds of driveability issues when starting cold. Then they wonder how people put up with carburetors for so many years! The stock systems were designed to make the engine run as smoothly as possible after starting. There were all kinds of things like throttle controls that only allowed the throttle to close gradually, preventing a sudden opening and closing, which would produce higher emissions. The OEMs worked hard, but sometimes their best efforts still fell short, at least until the catalytic converter was adopted.
Our ’73 Century never failed to stall after a cold start. My (used) ’74 Fleetwood didn’t have that problem, but it shook so badly when cold it broke the exhaust manifold bolts on the back cylinder, so you could see and hear the exhaust until it warmed up and sealed the gap.
I owned several well-used 70s GM cars and they all started and ran well cold, for the most part. IiRC they all had the thermostatically controlled air cleaner. They also used the TC formula of a lower output large displacement engine with very tall rear axle.
The similar 0-30 times are surprising. We don’t get that kind of low end torque on modern dinky NA engines. I had to sell a 3.6, 6 spd Cadillac because it would default to a gutless 1200 rpm, and I hate waiting for a downshift or two just to maintain speed.
When did GM finally add an overdrive gear to the Turbo Hydramatic? Early 80s? By then, axle ratios were nearly all under 3.0 to 1 anyway.
I remember when BMW tried something similar to the TC with the 528e. Did not catch on, but I believe gas prices had already plummeted by the time it got here.
I’d like to know how simulated wire wheel covers does the “best job of cooling” the disc brakes.
As opposed to other hub caps available wires should allow more airflow/dissipation through the spokes of the steel wheel underneath. Magnum 500s or poverty caps seem like they’d be just as effective though.
Neat article, thanks! I find it interesting that the 442 has the wire wheel covers, while the Turnpike Cruiser had the Rally wheels commonly seen on 1967 442s today. Bizarro. I suppose wire wheel covers weren’t yet associated exclusively with cars projecting a luxury image as they would be about 10 years later.
what struck me was how the wheels (2nd pic especially) were so inset – the body looked like it was put on a smaller series chassis or akin a Cheviac
the 1967 Wide-Track Pontiac GTO looked so much better
It must be the camera angle, because the Pontiac GTO had the exact same front and rear track (58″/59″) as the Cutlass and all the GM A Bodies. The Pontiac “Wide Track” thing did not apply to the compacts/mid-size cars.
you are probably right but I did look before I wrote:
1967 Pontiac Tempest GTO Specifications/Olds Cutlass
Conceptcarz
https://www.conceptcarz.com › pontiac-tempest-gto
1967 gto track width from http://www.conceptcarz.com
Dimensions ; Width : 75.0 in | 1905 mm. ; Wheelbase : 112.0 in | 2845 mm. ; Front Track : 60.0 in | 1524 mm. ; Rear Track : 60.0 in | 1524 mm.
1967 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Specifications
https://www.conceptcarz.com › oldsmobile-cutlass-sup…
1967 gto cutlass track width from http://www.conceptcarz.com
Dimensions ; Length : 204.2 in | 5187 mm. ; Wheelbase : 115.0 in | 2921 mm. ; Front Track : 58.0 in | 1473 mm. ; Rear Track : 59.0 in | 1499 mm.
Hmm. I just went to Conceptcarz, and the specs I see there for the ’67 GTO are 59/59 F/R. (see attached screenshot)
Keep in mind that small variations like this are usually dependent on wheel rim width and offset. I’m 99.9% sure that all these A Bodies used the same suspension.
Supercars.net says the ’67 GTO has 58/59 F/R track.
Conceptcarz is wrong. I found the specs in the ’67 Pontiac brochure: 58/59″ F/R.
That was the style back then, and it sure looks weird now. It allowed them to partly hide the tire (in profile) without fender skirts and still make it removable and steerable.
While the ’66-’67 GM ‘tunnelback’ intermediates were all generally okay, my preference is easily for the Chevy and Pontiac versions. The Cutlass and Skylark? Not so much.
Of course, the absolute best interpretation of the tunnelback roof is the ’68-’70 Charger. Not too great for NASCAR aerodynamics but, man, does the Dodge look good.
The next year, my Dad got a car with his first radial tires…on his new ’68 Renault R10. We owned a ’65 Olds F85 wagon with the 330, but it had bias ply tires. Seems Olds was starting to offer radials with the Uniroyal tires mentioned in the article.
Not bad mileage for a V8…I’m not used to those figures for such a large displacement engine back then.