Low Mileage Muscle? 1987 Oldsmobile 442
“If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the 442” opined Oldsmobile’s 1987 442 sales brochure. Well, 1987 was a far cry from the 442’s glory years (’64-’70) a time before emission controls, safety regulations, and CAFE fuel economy standards started running things. Of course, Oldsmobile should be congratulated for trying to keep the performance vibe alive so many years after it had mostly faded away. That being the case, let’s celebrate their endeavor by reviewing this 1987, low-mileage example. It’s located in Denison, Texas and is available, here on eBay for a BIN price of $22,900.
So, 1987 was just about the end of the line for GM’s G-body rear-wheel drive cars. Only Chevy’s Monte Carlo and Oldsmobile’s Cutlass Supreme made the RWD cut for ’88 and then it was front-wheel drive, mid-size platforms only. Besides Oldsmobile’s 442, Chevrolet offered a hopped-up Monte Carlo SS but it was Buick with its big man on campus Grand National that set the pace in ’87. As for Oldsmobile, they peddled a Cutlass Supreme Brougham, a Cutlass Supreme, a Cutlass Salon, and of course, the 442. What did 442 actually send for in ’87? Well, I suppose a four-speed overdrive automatic transmission, a four-barrel carburetor, and a sorta (2) dual exhaust system. Popular? Not overly, according to Hemmings, 4,208 442s found new garages in ’87 while the Cutlass, regardless of trim level, put up about 125K copies.
There’s nothing wrong with this Olds that I can detect. The 442’s distinctive two-tone finish shines and the Super Stock wheels perfectly complement this car’s bearing. Clearly, this Olds has been well kept and gently driven – the 46K mile mileage claim is easy to believe. Here’s a walkaround video for your review. I can’t suggest a single thing that the next owner will need to consider.
Performance ala 442, in 1987, meant a 170 net HP, 307 CI Oldsmobile V8 engine, tethered to a four-speed automatic overdrive transmission. A couple of other 442 features include rear air shocks, a 3.73 rear gear, performance-tuned suspension, and a two-into-one-into-two exhaust system – it’s a kinda dual exhaust system that utilizes a single catalytic converter. The seller adds, “Runs excellent and everything works. This is a very dependable car that can be driven daily or would be a perfect weekend cruiser or take it to some car shows“.
The interior is upholstered in a light gray woven fabric that was very typical for ’80s GM cars. It’s amazingly clean and shows no sign of in-and-out wear, ground-in dirt, splits, discoloration, etc. Angular the environment is and it’s very representative of the ’80s. The instrument panel is simple but functional and the dashpad shows as sound. I must admit that I like the boxy, low-slung console – it reminds me of one that would have been found in a ’67 model more so than an ’87. The seller mentions that the A/C system has been converted to R134a refrigerant.
There you have it, Oldsmobile’s version of a mid-size muscle car, many years after mid-size muscle cars fizzled out. I imagine the performance of the 442, with only 140 net HP on tap, is rather middling but there’s no denying this Oldsmobile’s looks, it’s certainly holding up the visual end of the bargain. As stated earlier, it’s priced at $22,900; what do you think, priced right or not quite?
Auctions Ending Soon
2006 Ford Mustang Saleen S281 SCBid Now15 hours$15,000
2002 Subaru Impreza WRXBid Now3 days$333
1975 Chevrolet Corvette ConvertibleBid Now3 days$3,000
1964 Ford F-100 Camper CustomBid Now3 days$2,000
2006 Jeep Wrangler SportBid Now5 days$10,500
Comments
The shocks on this one aren’t air shocks. They appear to be rather high-end Bilsteins.
They are as the seller states in the listing. But the 442 originally came equipped with air shocks, as I stated in the post, “A couple of other 442 features include rear air shocks, a 3.73 rear gear, performance-tuned suspension, and a two-into-one-into-two exhaust system”.
Someone tell ole Bick Banter that he doesn’t know his Fords. No performance car ever came with a 255. 255s were supposed to be economy engines only. Never used in a Cobra, regardless of how pathetic those Cobras were
Nothing kicking in that 4bbl and listening to the sound of power being unleashed!😂😂😂😂
Yup, all 170 of them! These were looked down on by car guys back in the day because they were the slowest of the three GM muscle intermediates. Well, not counting the Grand Prix 2+2 with the LG4 of course. They were also the most difficult to modify for more power, with fewer available speed parts.
On the plus side. I always did like the looks of these with the 2 tone paint and what not. Sharp car looks wise.
Bad years for American “muscle ” cars ! Upgrade the motor / transmission and it would be more desirable. The there’s the plastic everywhere / velour interior. I’ll pass thanks .
I would respectfully disagree. You have to put it in context, not in hindsight. We had just gotten out of the malaise era, a dark time when you had 255 cid Mustang Cobras, 301 Trans Ams, and Volare Road Runners with smog choked slant sixes. So cars like the this and the Monte Carlo SS, even with their 180-190 HP, were really cool, and signified that America was coming back.
Just an FYI for the gentleman who thought that the Hurst/Olds was made in 85 I hate to tell you this but it only ran from 68-84 !!
After 1984 442 was the best muscle-sport type package in the line-up for Oldsmobile !!
Cause I sure miss the 84 Hurst/Olds I had!!
There was no 442 Olds engine as stated here. What the heck is going on here ?
Actually Max, this used an “H.O.” version of the 307, with H.O. used in a very relative sense. It was not available on any Olds but the 442. So I suppose technically, this does have a 442 engine.
By the way, these had 180hp — not 140.
The standard 307 engine was rated at 140. The 442, thanks to its exhaust system, was officially rated at 170 (per Automobile-Catalogue – though 30 net HP from a factory exhaust system seems skeptical). Anyway, I edited the post to read 170.
JO
You are correct. ’83-’85 had 180. The H.O. did have a somewhat hotter camshaft than the standard 307 and I think richer secondary metering rods in addition to the exhaust. However the ’86 and up heads were swirl-port design which prioritized torque and fuel efficiency over peak power.
Was there a 442 variant in ’83 and ’84? My research stated that it was terminated in ’80 and then reintroduced in ’85, continuing in production through ’87.
JO
Having been a big fan of the G bodies when they started perking up in the 80s i can confidently say the 442 was rated at 180hp the same way the Hurst Olds was in this generation of Cutlasses. Never 170. That was the 79 Hurst rating w the 350
https://www.gbodyolds.com/forum/oldsmobile-technical-performance/-307-specific/95-307-vin-y-to-a-vin-9
If you’re a G-body fan you probably know of this source (above) which claims 170. What source are you using?
JO
Think the HP listed is gross at the flywheel, and the exhaust on an engine dyno should be free flowing.
The difference in the HP numbers is the roller cam and swirl port heads (doing most of the performance increase).
Where you will see an improvement in HP and torque with an exhaust upgrade is on a chassis dyno tuner at the rear wheels, before/after.
There’s quite a bit of parasitic loss through the torque converter, trans, and rear end. Little more than a standard transmission. As an example, my modern muscle car factory listed 400 HP and 410 ft/lbs at the crank, that stock vehicle with auto transmission has 320 HP and 330 torque at the rear wheels. Approximately 80 HP and torque lost, or 20%. After intake, exhaust, and a tune, car went to 365 HP and 385 torque. Definite difference driving.
Have heard many things about parasitic loss: use 10% standard transmission, 20% auto, or a straight 100 less. Honestly don’t know, but the numbers given for the example legit. Also dynos are different, to make things worse.
In ’87, all domestic auto manufactures all used SAE net, or “as installed” ratings (SAE Standard J1349) which are, in fact, measured at the flywheel/flexplate attached to the dynamometer – there’s no torque converter that enters the equation. The power was measured with the air cleaner, exhaust manifolds/exhaust system, water pump, and alternator attached. Various different exhaust systems, in particular, will have an impact on the rating – maybe as much as 20-25 HP single to dual. But I’m not concerned about the mechanics of the process, just the absolute answer, and as I mentioned, my source claims 170 net. Regardless, 170 or 180, we’re splitting hairs and it really isn’t going to matter.
I believe it is basically the same standard used today though there is a “certified” version which came into existence in around 2004.
JO
Not trying to split hairs, just understand the numbers properly. Perhaps it’s my misunderstanding of “net”. My prior thinking was at the flywheel is “gross” (good to know the factory exhaust system used on the engine dyno for numbers) and “net” would be at the rear wheels, after all of the parasitic loss, with a note for the significant difference auto trans vs standard. This will be more noticable lower power vehicles, changing driving experience.
If the error is on my part concerning “net” apologies/pardon. However the information I’m sharing isn’t to split hairs thank you, just to inform accurately hopelessly.
Should be a good reference Sir
https://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/
Yes, I’m familiar with that one, thank you.
JO
Jim, the ‘83-‘85 Hurst Olds had the 180 hp version. After 1985 it dropped.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_V8_engine#:~:text=The%20307%20%22Y%22%20produced%20148,m)%20in%201985%2D1990s.
Got it, thx!
JO
307 170 horsepower, I had one
Same color. I called it the lead shed, then I traded for 87 grand
National, 😁😁😎
@Jim O’Donnell – Your research is correct. There was no 1981-84 442. It returned for 1985 and was cancelled after 1987, only to return for one final gasp in 1990-91 as an N-body Calais.
The 1980, FWIW, was the same car as the 1979 Hurst Olds, only with 442 badging. I believe they only produced the ’80 because they had leftover parts from the ’79 H/O.
Replace the cat with an X pipe imo – 3.73 gears might be the proper choice here for a little power, considering engine HP. Be sure to see your friendly chassis dyno tuner after performance mods if need be, a good one can’t be beat.
This 442 and muscle do not go together.
It already has 3.73 gears…that was standard with the 442.
Very nice example of a low mileage 442. By 87 these were no longer muscle cars in the true sense of the term. For a true example of a muscle 442 you will have to get back into the way back machine and go back much farther. A 307 not much you can do with that in terms of gatting a lot more horsepower. A bin of 22,900.00 yikes. This would be a nice original reliable cruiser if that’s what your after. GLWTS
I bought an 87 442 in dark blue when it was 4 years old, it had 45k miles on it. I put new tires on it, polished the chrome rims, and it was beautiful. It was stolen 7 days after I bought it, never saw it again. These were beautiful and very popular in their day, still popular among collectors, but only for their appearance. The weak engines and transmissions were pathetic. Having a really clean one with low mileage in original condition, the seller may just get his price.
I’m sorry that happened to you.
Sounds like you really liked that car…
Back in that time, was a cool car to have.
My first car in the early 90s was an ’81 Delta 88 that I liked a lot. When I would see these around I wanted to upgrade so bad, but I was 14-16yo so…not really able to do so. I think this car is beautiful. Is it 23k pretty? Ahhhhh no, but it is pretty 😍.
Can’t disagree with any of the above opinions. I grew up in Lansing and witnessed the rise and demise of our beloved 442. By 1987 GM had finally learned to integrate the 5mph bumpers and create some attractive cars. I wished at the time (and still do) that they could have come up with a 400ci V8/4-speed package to make this car live up to its heritage.
The LS swap/5-speed Tremec refrain sounds in my brain but somehow I think that would be sacrilege.
Not at all, these cars beg for an LS swap.
If i had extra cash I would buy it. I always liked this style gm ..
I was 17 when this 442 was built. During that time period Cutlasses were really popular when I was in high school. I know I sure wanted one. If someone handed me the keys to this Olds, I would’ve been a happy happy kid. And if someone handed me the keys to this Olds right now…. I’d be a happy happy happy older kid.
Amazing. These cars sold for what, around $15-$18 g brand new? Now they’ll probably get $22g for it, pretty good ROI until you figure how much less the dollar is worth now.
Beautiful car, I always wanted one, but were above my pay grade when new with the other obligations I had at the time. Looked for a decent G body a few years back, most have been run into the ground by now. I’m frugal, I don’t pay that much for my daily drivers. I’d rather have 4-5 older vehicles than a couple of payments every month.
I might be interested in this car. How can I get ahold of the owner?
Click the e-Bay link and contact the seller.
JO
I like this car. I liked the Pontiac Brogham, you had on here better better.
I just appreciate this car for what it is.
It’s a great looking car and would be comfortable nostalgic cruiser.
I had, I think, it was an 86 Cutlass that I had bought just as a used car to drive back and forth to work. It had the the six…ugh ..not much in the power department, but it was a very comfortable car that got me back and forth to work .. solid…
I was a GM Service and parts manager when these cars were new.. Coming off the truck was a big event for us and if we had a chance to take one out for a test drive, we took it.. They were smooth, solid, quiet and the exhaust sounded great…Miss those days..
Gorgeous Cutlass. Even 36-years later it’s easy to see why these were so popular. Great color well preserved and easy to care for. Not as fast as its predecessor but a pure smile generator today.
We like the trim looks of the exterior, but as usual we are disappointed when we open the door; The GM-’80’s de-contented plastic modular interior turns us off the whole car. Also, we’re glad you put a question mark after the word muscle.
Nice car. Gross horsepower is at the flywheel with all the engine power going to the dyno; no alternator, no fan, often no water pump (cooling provided by the dyno equipment), no air filter, and open exhausts. Net was as installed; driving all accessories, an air filter, usually mufflers. It was still measured at the flywheel. Still this is a far cry from my 70 with the turbo 400; 50 feet of rubber in first and a 20 foot second gear chirp.
Nice car, but I have never seen so many guys arguing over 10HP on a car that “couldn’t pull a bum out of bed with a long rope” when compared with muscle car from 1970 and earlier. Maybe that is why all of the G-bodies in California can drive down the road on 3 wheels.
This 442 the “last stylish” of Old’s high end muscle cars ; along w the likes of Buick’s G N (X) This car suffered w a low? H P 307 but can still be pulled out & throw in a older Rocket 350 in it s place & still pass emissions when modified the right way ?! This car to me is the last of the stylish Old’s classic cool looking under powered muscle No thanks to the oil crisis !! but still a good sound investment ?$ these cars will rise in value eventually ?$ after maybe 40+ years of age