Vintage Car Life Review: 1966 Oldsmobile 4-4-2 L69 Tri-Carb – “Out-GTOs the Pontiac GTO”

Never as popular or familiar as its Pontiac rival, the Oldsmobile 4-4-2 was a highly competent player in the midsize muscle car field, with above-average handling for its class. For 1966, Oldsmobile beefed up the 4-4-2’s straight-line performance with the optional L69 Tri-Carb engine, with three two-barrel carburetors and a GTO-rivaling 360 hp. Car Life tested an L69 4-4-2 in August 1966 and found that it “more or less out-GTOs the Pontiac GTO after which it obviously was patterned.”

Although the term “muscle car” did pop up occasionally in ’60s car magazines (often in a derisive sense, like calling someone a musclehead), big-engined domestic performance cars of this kind were more commonly called “Supercars,” a term the editors of Car Life took credit for coining in 1965.

Car Life went on to say:

Among these [midsize Supercars], the Oldsmobile F-85 has been represented during the past two seasons by the 4-4-2 model having an exclusive 400-cu. in. engine. There have been fewer 4-4-2s on the road, however, than the other GM Supercars as a result in part of somewhat lower keyed promotion and merchandising.

The sad part of this situation is that the car offers everything that its compatriots do; the brighter side is that the 4-4-2 owner achieves more “In” status because it is a less commonplace car. Sales and production figures vividly portray the difference between the 4-4-2 and its leading rival, Pontiac’s GTO. Throughout the 1966 model year, F-85s have been somewhat more available than have short-supply Tempests, although this is primarily a reflection of the alternate plant capacities as much as anything else. But among the Tempests, the GTO models have been nudging upward to an annual production total of nearly 100,000 units. That represents almost one-third of the total Tempest production. On the other hand, F-85s are running at about 250,000 annual production with only 10% of the total being the sportiest 4-4-2s. An industry report said that 15,000 4-4-2s had been produced by mid-spring.

Although this article was written during the middle of the 1966 model year, before final sales and production tallies were in, their estimates were broadly accurate: Oldsmobile’s official figures give total 1966 F-85/Cutlass production (including Vista Cruiser wagons) as 229,573 cars, including 21,997 with the 4-4-2 option, while Pontiac A-body production totaled 359,098 for 1966, of which 96,946 were GTOs. So, the GTO played a much bigger role in the sales (and sales success) of the Pontiac A-body cars, while the 4-4-2 was at best a sideline for Olds, doing only a little better than the slow-selling six-cylinder F-85.

The 4-4-2 had plenty of virtues, but it just wasn’t as aggressively marketed as its Pontiac rival, which cost Oldsmobile where it counted: in sales and profits. This lack of effective promotion also made almost invisible the hottest engine option Olds had yet offered for the 4-4-2:

What most buyers are unaware of, as was CL, is that a triple 2-barrel carburetor option also is available for this engine. This higher performance intake system adds $114 to the regular 4-4-2 package (consisting of the 400-cu. in. engine, dual exhausts, 7.75-14 high-speed tires, heavy-duty suspension and stabilizer bars for $152 extra) and more brute power. Replacing the Quadrajet and its manifold with the Tri-Power system raises rated bhp to 360 at 5000.

One reason for the obscurity of the triple carburetor option is that it apparently wasn’t introduced until after the normal start of the 1966 model year: Motor Trend‘s 1966 buyer’s guide doesn’t mention it at all, and it’s not listed in the September 1965 Oldsmobile Product Selling Information data book or the October 1965 dealer SPECS price guide, although it had been added by the January 1966 edition of SPECS. It’s hard to sell an option if even dealers don’t know it exists.

Since Oldsmobile still treated the 4-4-2 as an option package in 1966, the triple carburetor engine was not a stand-alone option. Rather, you could order the 4-4-2 Performance Package on any two-door two-door F-85 or Cutlass in either L78 form, with a single Quadrajet carburetor, or L69 form, with three two-barrel carburetors. The L78 package was $185.07 on an F-85 and $151.61 on a Cutlass, while the L69 package was $298.00 on an F-85 and $264.54 on a Cutlass.

Incidentally, Oldsmobile actually called the L69 engine “Tri-Carb,” but people inevitably called it “Tri-Power” anyway. Car Life noted:

While this may sound like Oldsmobile has been borrowing from Pontiac’s parts bins, the opposite would be the more accurate. Almost 10 years ago, Olds introduced the J-2 “power pack” for its then 371-cu. in. Rocket engine. It was during the height of the much-maligned “horsepower race” of the mid-Fifties and Olds 88s were still formidable contenders.

I previously wrote about the 1957–1958 Oldsmobile J-2 engine, which was developed before the Pontiac Tri-Power engine and essentially poached by Pontiac when engineer E.M. (Pete) Estes became Pontiac chief engineer in 1956. (I do want to note that Car Life‘s description of it implies that all 312 hp J-2 engines had solid-lifter cams, which the RPO engines did not — the 1958 J-2 claimed 312 hp from 371 cubic inches, with hydraulic lifters.)

The L69 Tri-Carb engine was a bit different than the old J-2 engine, although it still used three Rochester 2GC carburetors. On the J-2 engine, the front and rear carburetors were vacuum-operated, using fuel pump vacuum to open the throttle valves when the accelerator was pressed most of the way to the floor. The L69 engine had a progressive linkage, which opened the front and rear throttle valves mechanically beginning at 40 degrees of throttle opening. (Interestingly, the carburetor lever also had a second mounting hole so that you could easily adjust the carburetor to open the secondaries sooner, at only 30 degrees of throttle opening.) Still, as Car Life noted:

The reasoning for it all remains as it always has been, to provide the required maximum venturi area for ultimate performance while maintaining a most desirable docility and tractability in the engine for normal traffic and day-to-day driving situations. … It was interesting to note the efficiency in this arrangement, because fuel mileage figures during the high performance test period were not drastically reduced from mileage figures for normal operation.

Their data panel showed a test average of only 11.6 mpg, which was pretty grim. However, as long as you stayed out of the secondaries — which was fairly easy to do, since you could feel the engagement point through the accelerator pedal like a detent — cruising economy was probably not bad.

Even if you didn’t care about gas mileage, learning to avoid opening the front and rear carburetors until you needed them was an important skill with the L69, especially when starting a cold engine. On the old J-2 engine, there was a mechanical interlock that prevented the secondaries from opening until the choke was fully disengaged, but that wasn’t possible with the L69 because all three carbs were mechanically connected. Since the front and rear carburetors were unchoked, you had to use a very light foot on the accelerator until the engine was warmed up.

With the L69 Tri-Carb engine, Oldsmobile seemed to be much more concerned with drag strip performance than with cold starts. Car Life neglected to mention one of the more interesting features of the L69 engine: The manifold incorporated two adjustable valves to shut off the heat riser for more power with a warm engine. (With carburetors or throttle body injection, the intake manifold needs to be heated during a cold start or in cooler weather to make sure the mixture stays vaporized until it reaches the intake valves, but this costs power by reducing mixture density.) The famous Royal Pontiac Bobcat kit also offered provision for blocking off the heat riser, but with special head gaskets, making it much harder to turn the heat back on for normal driving. Oldsmobile’s approach wasn’t quite as convenient as the dashboard carburetor heat control found on some prewar cars, but the cutoff valves could be easily adjusted after arriving at the strip and then again before heading home.

Car Life continued:

Aside from the engine, it was a distinct pleasure to renew acquaintance with the 4-4-2. It is a high performance car that manages to keep some of the civility of the less powerful F-85s. It is, or can be, completely competitive amidst the Supercars and the Tri-Power setup makes that a bit more easy. Yet the car lacks, or perhaps one should say masks, the brutal nature which is apparent in some of the others. As observed in previous road tests (CL, Aug. ’64), the 4-4-2 is the easiest handling of the GM A-body cars, which counts for a great deal in our estimation.

The photo caption at the top of the page reads “THE CIVILIZED Supercar is a sleeper among high-performance vehicles, an ideal car for the practitioner of oneupmanship. Muscular and manageable, the 4-4-2 more or less out-GTOs the Pontiac GTO after which it obviously was patterned.”

At some points, Oldsmobile took pains to emphasize that the 4-4-2 package had a complete heavy-duty chassis, not just a heavy-duty suspension. However, the 4-4-2 did have a stiffer suspension than the regular F-85 V-8 or Cutlass. Car Life noted:

A significant part of that determination was the decision to install an anti-roll bar linking the two rear axle support arms. Every 4-4-2 built has had this addition and CL has recommended it for all the A-body cars; it was picked up last year by the Chevelle SS [and then discarded for 1966], although Pontiac has steadfastly rejected it because it does what it does.

What it does, in conjunction with a stiffer front anti-roll bar, is to reduce excessive body roll and outside wheel loading in cornering—particularly in the A-body chassis with its steeply inclined front-to-rear roll axis. The effect of this is quicker steering response and a more balanced traction at both ends of the car. It tries to—but in actual fact doesn’t—reduce the degree of the dreaded understeer which is so inherent in the A-body design. The driver is more completely in control of his car simply because it provides him with a better feel of what is happening, or about to happen.

The CL editors were splitting hairs here: Adding a rear anti-roll bar (in the case of the 4-4-2, 0.875 inches in diameter) increases the slip angles of the rear tires, which does reduce understeer. However, reducing understeer is by no means the same thing as eliminating understeer, and in this case, Oldsmobile also increased the stiffness of the front bar by about 30 percent, in addition to the added roll stiffness resulting from the stiffer front coil springs.

The photo captions read “BUCKET SEAT with headrest tilts back for comfort and well-padded glove box lid looks protective. TRIO OF SMALL air cleaners perches atop three 2-barrel carburetors having progressive linkage.”

Car Life continued:

Riding qualities are hardly impaired at all from those of a less sporting F-85. While stiffer springs and shock absorbers are fitted, they are not all that much stiffer than stock; the softness was a bit more than CL drivers like for hard driving although it didn’t actually detract from handling qualities. It was, as mentioned, an acceptable compromise which suited the Oldsmobile scheme of passenger comfort.

Compared to a regular V-8 F-85 or Cutlass, the 4-4-2 suspension was about 30 percent stiffer in front and 19 percent stiffer in the rear, although the wheel rate in back was still a relatively modest 130 lb/inch. I think one of the reasons Oldsmobile adopted the rear anti-roll bar for the civilian 4-4-2 suspension (which, as most Oldsmobile fans know, was an offshoot of the “Police Apprehender” package) was that it improved handling balance without making the ride dramatically stiffer. As Car Life said, it was a good real-world compromise, although some other magazine testers wished for stiffer rear springs, complaining that the 4-4-2 would still bottom too easily.

The “heavy-duty chassis items” included with the 4-4-2 package didn’t extend to the brakes — Car Life‘s contention that the 4-4-2 came with “heavy-duty organic linings” isn’t borne out by Oldsmobile factory literature (which make no such claim that I can see) or the 1966 AMA specs. GM didn’t offer front discs on the A-body cars until 1967, and even these 350+ hp versions made do with the same 9.5-inch drums as a six-cylinder F-85 or Tempest. Car Life recorded a maximum deceleration rate of 23 feet/sec./sec., which was better than quite a few domestic cars of this time could manage, but fade was “definite” and it was hard to keep the wheels rolling:

Brakes on the test car cannot be called exceptional … As is so often the case, much of the problem can be laid to an overly sensitive vacuum power booster which doesn’t permit much modulation in pedal pressures. A panic stop meant virtual automatic wheel lock-up and brake fade was quickly apparent during the normal stopping test.

Here are some performance highlights from the data panel:

• 0 to 30 mph: 2.5 sec.
• 0 to 60 mph: 6.3 sec.
• 0 to 100 mph: 15.8 sec.
• Standing quarter mile: 14.8 secs. at 97 mph

The question you probably want to know is, “Was the Tri-Carb 4-4-2 faster than a GTO?” The answer is, “Maybe?” It appears the only Car Life test of a 1966 GTO was of a four-barrel car with air conditioning and a 3.08 axle, which managed 0 to 60 in 6.8 seconds and the quarter mile in 15.4 seconds at 92 mph. The Tri-Carb Olds was definitely faster than that GTO, but it wasn’t quite a match for the 1965 Tri-Power GTO Car Life had tested a year earlier, which had a close-ratio four-speed and 4.11 gears, and which ran the quarter in 14.5 seconds at 100 mph. (The deepest ratio you could get from the factory on the 4-4-2 in 1966 was 3.90, but 4.11 and 4.33 gears were now available for dealer installation.)

All else being equal, it would probably have been a close race, which was the whole point.

The photo caption reads, “HURST SHIFTER has fine precision, good heft for flawless changes.”

One area where the 4-4-2 still lagged behind the GTO was in instrumentation. The GTO could be ordered with the Rally Gauge Cluster, which included full instrumentation and an in-dash tachometer. Oldsmobile still hadn’t gotten over its dread of actual gauges, so the 4-4-2 made do with the same warning lights and tiny fuel gauge as a six-cylinder F-85:

You could order a tachometer for $62.28, and the $67.96 Sports Console included a console-mounted manifold vacuum gauge, but neither was particularly well-situated, and the tach was tiny:

Car Life wasn’t happy about that, but they appreciated the Hurst shifter:

The vacuum gauge mounted atop the console was a welcome instrument, but the tachometer—a wrist-watch sized pod attached to the far left comer of the instrument panel hood—was too small, too unexpectedly placed, and too poorly calibrated to be of much value. The heavy, chromed steel Hurst shifter and linkage supplied with the transmission made gear changing faultless and pure joy.

It’s worth noting that the standard transmission on the 4-4-2 was a column-shifted three-speed, a heavy-duty all-synchro unit quietly purchased from Ford. If you wanted the shifter on the floor, it would cost you $41.82, which also got you the Hurst shifter. The more desirable four-speed manual, which also included the Hurst shifter, was $182.98. Many buyers still preferred the two-speed Jetaway, which cost $203.89.

In all, Car Life was fond of the 4-4-2, which they dubbed a “Civilized Supercar” that “boasts a high order of handling to complement its overly generous engine power … providing creature comfort even in a car for rough-and-ready tiger hunters.” (The “tiger” in this case was of course the GTO, which Pontiac still advertised as the “GTO Tiger.”)

The L69 option didn’t do much for 4-4-2 sales. Only 2,129 cars were ordered with the Tri-Carb engine in 1966, about 10 percent of 4-4-2 production, and corporate policy changes then forced Oldsmobile (and Pontiac) to drop the multi-carburetor option for 1967. There was still the W30 Force-Air Induction package, which first became available on a very limited basis in 1966 (only 54 cars were sold with it that year), but this was even more obscure, and 1967 Olds literature still listed it as a dealer-installed add-on rather than a factory option.

These hotter engine options weren’t necessarily big sellers in general — only about 20 percent of 1966 GTOs (19,045 cars) had Tri-Power, and even that was unusually high for this sort of thing — but they helped to boost the image of these performance-oriented models, and to some extent their manufacturers. Pontiac reaped the benefits of that, but, sadly for Olds fans, Oldsmobile never quite did.

Related Reading

1957–1958 Oldsmobile J-2 Engine: Similar To Pontiac Tri-Power, It Was Developed First (by me)

Vintage Car Life Review: 1965 Pontiac Tempest GTO – The Special-Order Supercar (by me)

Vintage Ad: 1966 Oldsmobile 4-4-2 — Why Hadn’t Olds Changed Ad Agencies Yet? (by Paul N)

Vintage Car & Driver Road Test: 1967 Oldsmobile 4-4-2 — “It’s The Best handling Car Of Its Type We’ve Ever Tested” (by Paul N)

Vintage Motor Trend Comparison: 1967 Oldsmobile Cutlass Turnpike Cruiser And 4-4-2 — Performance And Economy (by Rich Baron)

Automotive History: The 20 MPG 400 Cubic Inch 1967 Olds Cutlass Turnpike Cruiser (by Paul N)