What is the ultimate production sleeper? - Page 2

wedgemotor · 02-11-2005, 04:38 PM

Mr Pbody, The 66 W-30 was a 400 3x2. It had the air intakes under the front like the 68. The 66 was probably the fastest W-30 car.

4speedsupreme · 02-11-2005, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wedgemotor

Mr Pbody, The 66 W-30 was a 400 3x2. It had the air intakes under the front like the 68. The 66 was probably the fastest W-30 car.

And by far the rarest with only 54 being built at the factory. You could also order a kit to build your own through an Olds dealer, but I don't know how many were made. They also made a 400 3x2 with out the W30 option in 1966. I think the order code was L69. I bought a Hurst Olds off a guy in New York years ago that had a W30 car he was restoring. I also saw one at Dick Miller Olds Nationals in Norwalk last year.

wedgemotor · 02-12-2005, 08:09 PM

Good Stuff. I think Oldsmobiles were the most under-estimated of all the musclecars out there. If more people had a ride in one of these cars, I think they would have been converted. I have a Mopar now but I have always been a closet Olds fan. Ever since I was in high school, and my buddies and I built up a 74 442, for a Japanese (imagine that) foreign exchange student.

matt 69 scrambler · 02-13-2005, 05:06 PM

i would say it was the 1969 Hurst SC/rambler ! ! !
i know it had the big scoop and R.W.B. paint scheme but alot of people took the scoop off and repainted the cars when they were new.
know one would had ever thought twice about about messing with a RAMBLER that sold for less then $3,000 ,but at low 14s in the 1/4 mile stock and low 12s with a few simple bolt ons they did alot of EGO DAMAGE reather they won or not.
see my SC,
http://www.joiesjeeps.com/1512_membe...attwilson.html

history of Hurst SC/ramblers,
http://www.joiesjeeps.com/scrambler.html
thanks,
matt
FREEDOM = AMC

MrPbody · 02-14-2005, 12:01 PM

Relax, Matt. The Scrambler could hardly be considered a "sleeper" unless you found someone that had never heard of or seen one run. The only one that ever got me, got me by surprise only because the paint job was removed, and the car had gray primer on it. Had I noticed the red, white and blue headrests, I would have expected exactly what I got!

matt 69 scrambler · 02-14-2005, 05:47 PM

i'm relaxed. as you say with the r.w.b. paint schemes they were not sleepers but alot of people did just what you talked about. they had removed the paint and some other stuff and caught them off gaurd. i'm sure when they first came out their were alot of people who didn't know about them.
all i know is what fun those days would have been with any muscle car. i'm 40 , so i was getting these cars when they wer 10 + years old. i think we had almost as much fun as the original owners.
i always thought the late 60s early 70s 429 T-Birds ran great.
thanks,
matt
thanks for reply,it's not everyday i get to talk to someone about the SC/ramblers as they are rare.

MrPbody · 02-16-2005, 08:05 AM

Built a Rambler or three... A couple years ago, we did a 401 for a local racer with a '69 AMX. The car runs consistently in the high 9s. Making that kind of power was NOT trivial, though. He (the customer) actually came up with an old set of Crane "super stock" heads from one of the factory SS teams in the early '70s. With a little more massaging and a bit larger valves, the thing really came alive! Comp roller, Ross pistons, modified Torker (for a 4500), and so on. Good stuff, Maynard...

Fleet 472 · 03-24-2005, 11:30 PM

For ultimate production sleeper...

Hard to choose one, but:

1969 Dodge Dart GTS 440
Drag Racing magazine tested one (in their June, 1969 issue), with a 3-speed auto and 3.55 gears went 12.7 sec @ 112 in the 1/4 mile with only a change to wider tires. (The stock E-70/14s were ridiculously skinny.)

Also:
'63 Mopar Max-Wedge 426... low 12/high 11s right from the factory.
'64 Ford Thunderbolt... low 12s/high 11s again.
'62 Pontiac Catalina 421/405 hp... 13.9 @ 107.
'67 Chevy Biscayne 427/425, 4.56 gears... 13.40s.

murry52 · 04-02-2005, 06:33 PM

Buick Grand National would run low 12,s (Stock)

Fleet 472 · 04-05-2005, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by murry52

Buick Grand National would run low 12,s (Stock)

No, they wouldn't.
From the factory, with no modifications, and on stock tires, they ran high 13s. I have several tests of those when they were new.
The GNX was capable of low 13s, but not many of those were sold.

DPelletier · 04-14-2005, 11:59 PM

The '66 442 W-30 was an awesome car and with the steel wheels and "dog dish" hubcaps, it would qualify as a sleeper. I know a BC Olds club member who has a red '66 W-30 (one of 54). Nice. NHRA record holder in '66 too, I believe.

I think the a car that would qualify for the term "ultimate sleeper" ie. no one expects them to be fast would be a '68 Chevrolet Biscayne with a 427 L-72 425hp solid lifter rectangular port motor, M-22 "rockcrusher" 4spd and 4:10 geared 12 bolt posi. Steel wheels, hubcaps and blackwalls complete the sleeper look.

Dave

BleedDodge · 04-15-2005, 12:23 AM

The Biscayne one is good. I gotta second that.

miltystu · 04-15-2005, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wedgemotor

IMO the 63 Sport Fury Max Wedge. Check out John Comstock's Copper stick shift on the net. I saw this car at the Norwalk Chrysler Classic a few years back and heard it driving around the track with the cutouts off, what a sound!

1969 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 YENKO
http://www.oldride.com/displayAd.htm...&ViewItem=3632

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD