Introduced in mid-1964, the Oldsmobile 4-4-2 was the Olds response to the popular Pontiac GTO, an option package for the A-body F-85/Cutlass with a souped-up 330-cid V-8 and 4-speed manual transmission. Although its impressive straight-line performance couldn’t match the more powerful GTO, the 4-4-2 had a police package suspension that made it one of the best-handling American cars of its time. Here’s what Car Life and Motor Trend had to say about the original Olds 4-4-2 in 1964.
This first short take appeared in the August 1964 Car Life, where it ran just two pages.
Car Life immediately cut through the marketing spin to zero in on the real object of the 4-4-2 option: giving Oldsmobile something comparable to the new Pontiac GTO in the “growing performance-minded segment of the marketplace” while also addressing the limitations of the new A-body intermediate, which the editors had found disappointingly bland compared to the wilder Y-body “senior compacts” the A-bodies had replaced. They said:
Now, Oldsmobile had done something about it, although company spokesmen are quick to point out that the Cutlass “isn’t a racing car.” Ever mindful of that corporate ban on promoting high performance, the introduction and subsequent publicizing of the 442 models have been relatively low key.
Nevertheless, the 442 is a most interesting vehicle in that it shows another direction which can be taken to save the uninspired A-body design from its own banality. Whereas Pontiac designers were brutally straightforward in producing their factory hot rod. Olds engineers did more than merely install their biggest engine (which is 394 cu. in.) under the hood and stronger springs at each wheel.
The one important detail they missed was that Oldsmobile, unlike Pontiac, was assiduously obeying a GM corporate policy that had limited the intermediate models to engines of no more than 330 cid. Pontiac had flaunted that policy with the GTO and gotten away with it (subsequently inspiring corporate management to extend the limit to 400 cid), but Olds general manager Jack Wolfram was much too conservative for that kind of chicanery, so Oldsmobile’s initial GTO-fighter had a hopped-up version of the Cutlass 330-cid V-8 rather than the bigger Rocket V-8. (Oldsmobile was also preparing to replace the 394-cid Rocket with a tall-deck derivative of the new 330 engine, but that wasn’t ready until the 1965 model year.)
The $285.14 4-4-2 option was officially called the B09 Police Apprehender Package, since parts of it were borrowed from the heavy-duty equipment packages Oldsmobile had developed for police fleets. Even after the 4-4-2 became a big-engine muscle car for 1965, Olds continued offering various “Police Apprehender” packages, both for the A-bodies and the bigger B-body line.
Oldsmobile’s 330-cid V-8 had been new for 1964, replacing the previous aluminum 215-cid engine used in the Y-body F-85 and Cutlass. For 4-4-2 duty, the 330 got a dual-snorkel air cleaner and a new camshaft with greater duration and more lift; displacement, 10.25 to 1 compression, and valve sizes were all unchanged from the 290 hp Cutlass V-8. The new cam was good for an extra 20 gross horsepower, giving a total of 310 hp at 5,200 rpm. The actual difference was more than this, as I’ll explain shortly.
The 1964 4-4-2 package included the Muncie M20 all-synchro 4-speed manual transmission, which was available on other F-85 and Cutlass models for $188.30. This was a wide-ratio gearbox, with a 2.56 low gear. Unfortunately, it suffered from what Car Life called “a linkage hang-up that seems to be characteristic” and had an awkwardly positioned lever that made it hard to reach 3rd gear without leaning forward.
The most impressive feature of the 4-4-2 was its heavy-duty chassis. With wheel rates of 120 lb/inch in front and 144 lb/inch in back, the springs were quite a bit stiffer than the standard Cutlass — which Car Life had found much too floppy “for the enthusiast-type driver” — and actually about one-third stiffer than the Pontiac GTO. “While such figures seem too high …, the fact is that extremely good riding and handling qualities result,” the editors noted. “Shock absorber valving has 50% greater restriction and there is no question but the 442 is well sprung and adequately damped.”
Just as importantly, the 4-4-2 had an 0.875-inch rear anti-roll bar, an item not commonly found on American cars of the ’60s. This provided flatter cornering and helped to mitigate the heavy understeer of the standard A-body. Car Life recommended that owners of other GM A-body model (Buick Special/Skylark, Chevrolet Chevelle/Malibu, and Pontiac Tempest/Le Mans/GTO) consider installing the same bar. “It attaches quite simply, by two bolts through the trailing arm on each side, and the improvement in handling is startling,” they said. “Although the car still basically understeers, it is within much more reasonable bounds.”
The editors were somewhat astonished by the results:
It is safe to say the 442 has a ride unlike any Oldsmobile which has gone before—firm yet far from bone-jarring or stiff. The company has a long tradition of ever-softening, ever more isolating riding qualities, but the 442 certainly demonstrates just how good a ride can be even when the springs have been stiffened up for road-holding.
So set up, our Cutlass was the best handling of any GM car we’ve been exposed to (except the Sting Ray) and far superior to its identical cousins from the other divisions. There is, in our judgment, hardly a better handling passenger sedan produced in this country.
It might have been even better with different tires; the 7.50-14 redline bias-ply rubber left much to be desired. So did the brakes: Car Life was troubled that “while Olds engineers did a highly commendable job of upgrading performance and handling, they completely neglected the brakes. … The standard linings and 9.5-in. drums just aren’t up to the demands of congested freeways and hard usage.”
Still, they were impressed, calling the 4-4-2 “a car which at long last lives up to the claims of the company’s advertising copywriters and top-level spokesmen.” Here are the highlights of their performance tests:
- 0 to 30 mph: 3.0 sec.
- 0 to 60 mph: 7.4 sec.
- 0 to 100 mph: 20.7 sec.
- Standing ¼ mile: 15.6 sec. at 89 mph
- Top speed: 120 mph at 5,000 rpm
For comparison, their table included the acceleration times they’d taken with the 290 hp Cutlass they’d tested in December 1963. The 4-4-2 was 2 full seconds quicker to 60 mph, 1.3 seconds quicker through the quarter mile, and crossed the quarter mile line with a trap speed 8 mph high. The earlier car had the 2-speed Jetaway automatic rather than the 4-speed stick, which accounted for part of the difference, but an advantage of that magnitude nonetheless required more than 20 extra horsepower. However, as quick as it was, the 4-4-2 was still no match for the 1964 Tri-Power GTO Car Life had tested two months earlier, which did 0 to 60 mph in 6.6 seconds and the standing quarter mile in 14.8 seconds at a sizzling 99 mph.
This second test appeared a month later, in the September 1964 Motor Trend. Unlike Car Life, Motor Trend made no mention of the GTO in their review of the 4-4-2, although they were certainly aware of it by the time this road test was conducted — their own GTO road test had appeared eight months earlier. M/T instead parroted the Oldsmobile marketing tagline for the B09 option (“Police needed it—Olds built it—pursuit proved it”), noting, “The factory engineered all this for police pursuit work, but the 442 is now available to the public at large.”
Technical editor Bob McVay offered a quick rundown of their performance figures, which were very similar to Car Life‘s. I had initially thought perhaps they tested the same car (not uncommon, since both magazines’ editorial offices were in Los Angeles, and they probably got most of their test cars from the same Oldsmobile press pool), but the Motor Trend car was apparently more heavily optioned, and had a 3.55 axle ratio, where the Car Life car had a 3.23. Both ratios were incorrect — the 4-4-2 was supposed to have a 3.36 axle, which was the only ratio listed in the AMA specs — but such discrepancies were also fairly common on press cars.
McVay was impressed with the 4-4-2’s acceleration and “outstanding” highway passing power, remarking that the engine was “much stronger than you’d expect from a mere 20-hp increase.” A likely explanation was that the 4-4-2 option included a full dual exhaust system (which was a $21.52 option on the standard Cutlass V-8). As Paul has often noted, dual exhaust could really give the output of these smaller V-8s a shot in the arm. This was not reflected at all in the SAE gross ratings, which were measured without the stock exhaust system and muffler, but duals were often good for 20 to 30 additional net horsepower. So, added to its hotter cam, the 4-4-2 probably had an advantage of 40 to 50 hp over the single-exhaust Cutlass.
The caption notes, “F-85’s heavy-duty suspension would bottom, but only when thrown through high-speed dips like this at 65+ mph. Special rear anti-roll bar hangs down under full suspension travel. It made big contribution to car’s extra-good handling over rough back roads.”
Motor Trend had some complaints about the 4-4-2: They felt it would have benefited from a limited-slip differential to help put the power to the ground, and they found the power steering overly light and too slow, requiring more than four turns lock-to-lock. (It could have been worse — the white and red car pictured in the color photos has manual steering, which was light, but even slower than power.)
Like Car Life, Motor Trend complained about the balky 4-speed shift linkage and the long reach to 3rd gear. With the 4-speed gearbox, they also thought the 4-4-2 could really have used a tachometer, which wasn’t available. (For that matter, the 4-4-2 didn’t have any instruments except the ribbon speedometer and fuel gauge, and no gauge package was offered.)
McVay diplomatically allowed that the 9.5-inch drums were “the strongest stock brakes the F-85 has had,” but Motor Trend needed 176 feet to stop from 60 mph, a very poor showing for a car with so much power. Both Motor Trend and Car Life insisted that metallic brake linings were optional on the F-85 and Cutlass, but the 1964 dealer price list makes no mention of them. A 3,500 lb, 120 mph car like this really needed discs, but even front discs wouldn’t be available on the 4-4-2 until 1967, probably the biggest lapse in a generally well-rounded package.
Nonetheless, McVay was just as impressed as Car Life with the ride and handling of the 4-4-2 chassis, remarking:
As we said before, the heavy-duty suspension components are a big improvement over the F-85‘s usually soft ride. Hard cornering brought out a minimum of body lean. The car felt stable and controllable and could be cornered fast with confidence. The combination of the Red-Line tires and stiffer suspension gave the car a good grip on the pavement. The 442 showed far less understeer than the standard Cutlass coupe and could be taken through a bend (and out of it) much faster. It just goes to show that, with the proper options, a five-passenger car can have good handling characteristics and still keep its comfortable ride. Comfort was enhanced by vinyl-covered, foam-padded buckets in front and a bench seat in the rear. Bound and rebound control was good at any speed on all highway surfaces. We found only one dip that would bottom the suspension—our lead picture shows this graphically.
Motor Trend also got surprisingly good gas mileage: 14 to 15 mpg in the city and 19.8 mpg at legal 65 to 70 mph highway speeds, albeit on premium fuel.
The captions on the above page read (clockwise from top right):
“Cutlass’ left rear wheel always locked up first and was tough to unlock, yet stopping power was consistently strong and swerve-free, giving us a number of stops before fading.”
“Regular 9.5-inch, cast-iron drums with riveted linings are standard, with metallic linings optional. We strongly recommend the metallics for anything but regular duty.”
“Well arranged, easy-to-read dashboard should have full complement of gauges, without all the warning lights of standard 442. Third gear takes long stretch for most drivers.”
“Under full throttle, the 442 would burn off the line fiercely. But feathering the gas pedal gave us strong, consistent good times.”
More captions:
“Although it looks just like the 290-hp Cutlass engine, the 442 has a wilder cam, precision bearings, and 20 more horsepower.”
“One unusual feature is glove compartment door. It swings upward. Electric deck-lid release proved a handy, useful item.”
“Cutlass’ trunk is wide and deep, with a flat floor. Anyone who can’t find enough space here should consider an El Camino.”
“Underneath F-85’s rattle-free body is Guard-Beam perimeter frame. Four-link, coil-spring suspension is used at rear.”
“Improperly installed seat belts have been a constant problem in test cars. Here they would pull directly against bolt heads. Proper use of belts (crisscrossed) puts pressures where they belong for maximum strength and safety in event of an accident.”
“Even without limited-slip, Cutlass 442 can match acceleration times with anything in its class — and finish ahead of most.”
Despite the lack of instruments, the poor brakes, and the slow steering, Motor Trend found the 4-4-2 “a car that can cover ground quickly with a high degree of safety and comfortable riding qualities,” with a strong engine that was also impressively flexible. “No automobile can be all things to all people, but the 442 comes a lot closer than most,” McVay concluded. “Why did they wait so long?”
Motor Trend‘s key performance figures were:
- 0 to 30 mph: 3.1 sec.
- 0 to 45 mph: 5.1 sec.
- 0 to 60 mph: 7.5 sec.
- Standing ¼ mile: 15.5 sec. at 90 mph
- Top speed: 116 mph at 5,400 rpm
The M/T car was 0.1 seconds slower to 60 mph than Car Life‘s test car, but 0.1 seconds quicker through the quarter mile with a 1 mph higher trap speed — pretty nominal. The only area where the shorter-than-normal 3.55 axle seemed to matter was in a lower observed top speed, but with these brakes, venturing above 100 mph was foolhardy either way.
Despite the critical praise, the 4-4-2 was not a big sales success in 1964, handicapped by its late introduction, weak marketing push, and lack of raw horsepower compared to the GTO. First-year production totaled only 2,999 cars, most of them Cutlasses. (The B09 package was also ordered on 158 F-85 and F-85 Deluxe cars, including 10 four-door sedans that might conceivably have become actual cop cars.) The GTO outsold the 4-4-2 by more than 10 to 1 this year, and Oldsmobile went back to the drawing board for 1965, replacing the 330 with its new 400-cid cousin.
What Oldsmobile had created with this initial 4-4-2 wasn’t the most exciting concept for mid-’60s America, an era of cheap gas and cheap horsepower, and the package wasn’t yet well-rounded enough to be the “European-style GT” with which the buff books eventually became obsessed. However, with its flexible small-block engine and competent chassis, the 1964 4-4-2 was essentially a preview of the sporty cars of the ’70s and early ’80s. Perhaps that was why the 4-4-2 eventually outlived its flashier, faster, better-marketed Pontiac rival.
Related Reading
Vintage Car Life Review: 1967 Pontiac GTO Ram Air – “King Of The Supercars” (by me)
Vintage Car Life Review: 1966 Oldsmobile 4-4-2 L69 Tri-Carb – “Out-GTOs the Pontiac GTO” (by me)
Vintage Motor Trend Comparison: 1967 Oldsmobile Cutlass Turnpike Cruiser And 4-4-2 — Performance And Economy (by Paul N)
My uncle bought a new ’64 Cutlass Holiday Coupe with bucket seats and console and 330 V8. It was a light metallic called surf green. Really handsome car. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a ’64 442 in the flesh. The ’65s are far more plentiful and also very handsome.
All the BOP mid size ’64 and ’65s were good looking. The Chevelle however was very plain jane.
Just to clarify a little, Olds had two Police Apprehender packages for the 1964 A-body cars, the RPO B01 City Apprehender and the B07 Highway apprehender. Both of these packages were HD suspension and other police-specific equipment, but did not include the engine or trans, which could be ordered from the list of available Olds engines (including the V6). The B09 package for 1964, though called the Police Apprehender Pursuit Group, was specifically the civilian 442 and used the B07 suspension (including the front and rear anti-sway bars, springs, and shocks) but paired that with a specific 310 HP version of the 330 motor. The police vehicles were limited to the 290 HP version. The difference was the cam used in the B09 motors. And while the four speed was mandatory with RPO B09, it was also an available option on the B01 and B07 cars.
Like BlueOvalDave, I don’t believe I have ever seen one of these in actual life. And I would have noticed, because I grew up in a 64 Holiday hardtop and have paid attention to these forever.
Actually, I wish I had appreciated ours more, which my mother kept until 1972. Ours was the single exhaust version, but even those were “Ultra High Compression” (as it said on the air cleaner) and required premium gas. I never once heard Mom complain about a lack of power. Or “pickup”, as she would say.
I still consider the hardtops one of the most attractive designs of the 60s. It’s not as sexy as the Tempest, but was as lithe and clean as anything built, with virtually perfect proportions.
I’ve always liked ’60s 4-4-2s.
A buddy had a brutally fast ’67 (I always suspected someone replaced the 400 with a 455…) and his mom had a very clean ’68 convertible that was a pleasure to drive. An orange ’70 W-30 was part of our street scene and certainly a car to be reckoned with. I only recall seeing one ’64 at a show years ago, but ’65 and later were once fairly common. I suspect these cars sold to a slightly older base when new and weren’t the first choice of hot rodders 10 years later so there were some nice survivors around.
The rear sway bar really worked and by ca. 1980 when I was playing with various A-bodys they were an almost universal addition. But those brakes…yikes. Between inadequate size, bad balance and overly touchy booster they were outright dangerous for a performance car. Even with front discs it was worthwhile to plumb in an adjustable proportioning valve (oddly enough, the best one I found was a Direct Connection part from the Mopar dealer). You had to experiment a bit to get the balance right.
We had a lot of fun with my buddy’s ’67, and by the time it was sorted out there wasn’t much that could keep up if the road was anything but straight. Frame rust finally condemned it, and I’ve always thought it would be fun to build another but I aint payin’ what these cars go for today!
Thanks for posting these articles.
I was 13 when these cars came out, and a car nut… A guy in my neighborhood bought a 64 gto, 4sp, 3 deuces maroon convertible with a tan top.. I detailed it for him.once.. A neighbors farmer friend bought a new 64 442 convertible that always stuck in my mind.. Assume this would have been a super rare car then and even more so now…. Ahh, the good old days
What a pretty car .
I’m sure it’d be a simple thing to upgrade the brakes to power assisted discs .
I well remember a neighbor in the late 1970’s getting a ’64 F85 sedan as his first car, I thought it a good looker, it certainly ran well and was quiet as we flogged it over the (then empty on a Sunday morning) Mulholland Drive .
-Nate
You are right about the quiet part. Within a few years, Oldsmobile would open up its stock exhaust systems to unleash one of the most muscular showroom exhaust notes in the industry. But our 64 was always whisper quiet.
Am I reading this correctly? The Motor Trend guy says that for proper safety the driver should use half of the passenger’s seat belt and vice versa?
I have been using seat belts since my Dad installed them himself in a 1958 Ambassador, and I have never once heard this idea.
No, they were suggesting that the lower portions of the front belts should cross. I’m dubious about that, but standards for automotive seat belts at this point were lax, and the risk of the belt just shearing off the mounting bolt was not zero; the federal seat belt standard (FMVSS 209) was badly overdue.
This takes me back to the summer of 1972. While attending AIT at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, I and another soldier decided to travel off base for something to eat. As I walked up to his car (a white 1964 Olds A body 4 door) I noticed a 442 emblem on the right side. Thinking a fender must have been replaced I opened the door to get in and what do I see? Bucket seats, a floor shifter along with the third pedal and a 442 badge on the dash near the glove box door.
I remember saying to him that someone went to a lot of trouble to make a 442 4 door. He didn’t say one way or the other. It’s likely he didn’t know any history on the car other than he had picked it up recently for something to drive. And I had no idea that the 442 equipment was available on a 4 door.
I recall that about 20 years ago I learned of the police package and according to that article 13 4 door cars were so equipped. That car was probably the rarest car I’ve ever encountered.