Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
Olds Toronado

in Oldsmobile
the old RWD toronados(up to '71-'72) were great cars, especially when equipped with an olds 350rocket engine or somethin a little larger. in the late 80's and early 90's the toronado was still a nice RWD luxury car with decent power from it's small v-8.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
What they DID have though was a very raw and exciting kind of HP, which makes them brutal and fun to drive. And they make swell noises, too.
As for inflating the HP figures, I remember reading an old magazine (maybe Popular Mechanics or something?) that tested 3 engines to find their true HP. I remember they tested a Mopar 340, and Oldsmobile 4-something, and some big Ford engine. I think the 340 put out something like 92% of its advertised hp, while the Olds was only good for about 60%. The Ford was somewhere in between.
Also, while the earlier Toro's were FWD, they used some kind of chain-drive system instead of CV joints like most modern FWD cars. So they were still very rugged. Check out www.toronado.org for more info on them. Also, the Toronado served as the basis for the GMC motorhome, which was also FWD, and because of it, was able to have a lower floor height and lower overall height.
Here's a few excerpts:
'64 Olds 442 330/310 advertised hp (240 estimated net hp)
'65 Olds 442 400/345 (250 net)
'66 Buick Gran Sport 401/325 (240)
'66 Fairlane/Mustang 390/335 (230)
'66 GTO 389/335 (270)
'68 Olds 442 400/350 (280)
'68 Plymouth GTX 440/375 (330)
'69 Ford Torino Corbra 428/335 (310)
'70 Chevelle SS 396/350 (280)
These net ratings make a lot of sense. They explain why late-'50s engines like the 390 and 401 were so uncompetitive. The base GTO 389 is from the same era but surprisingly strong, I guess because it had updated heads. The '65 Olds 400 was a new engine but doesn't have a clear edge until the heads were redesigned in '68. The 440 four-barrel is a torque engine. By '69 Ford had learned to under-rate their engines for class racing which is why the 428 CJ's net hp is so close to advertised hp.
As a general rule of thumb we use 15 to 20% (A4 vs 6 sp) drive train loss from the crank HP numbers on our LS1 346 CI engines. Now, old THM 400 Trany's were said to take a full 28 hp away from RWH numbers. THM 350's were considerably less parasitic.
In order to get true HP numbers on the older cars, I think you need to find out how much HP is eaten up before it puts the rubber down.
Bushone would one of those "bang shift" Turbos that GM used behind high-performance engines have less parasitic loss?
as released in 1966 was first conceptualized by Oldsmobile in 1954. The intake manifold on the '66 model 425 was a weirdo in that the base of the carb sat lower than the intake ports of the heads. Seems like that would really screw things up, but you haven't seen a burnout until you see one of those monsters light up the front wheels. Both wheels, as the '66 and '67 I know had a locker style FWD system. You had to let up, 'cause all that smoke from the front tires would block your view. BTW, as a young man, I was asked to ride with a lady to her house and bring
her '66 Toro back to the shop. On the way, I saw a large block of cement in the highway. When I realized she intended to stradle it, I nearly fainted. Dead centered the cross-member and ripped a hole in the transmission pan. When I finally could breathe again, I explained to her that the '66 Toro only had about 5" of ground clearance on a GOOD day. We towed the car back to the shop, replaced the pan and noted that the crossmember was barely scarred. Those were the days when frames had a LOT of steel in them.
Jim
I fell in love with the new '66 Toronado from the pictures in that magazine. And McCahill's description of the dirt, stones, and bits of rubber exploding from the front of the car when he stomped on the gas wass captivating for a 9 year old.
I later found an engineering dissertation on its development in the library at UCSD when I should have been studying. Since this was the first modern front drive V8, GM/Olds put a lot of design effort into the transmission. It had a chain drive all right, but not to the wheels. Because of the longitudinal placement of the engine, the transmission/transaxle sits beneath the block and the chain transfers the power from the crankshaft down to the transmission input shaft below. I remember the chain was more of a belt, about 4-5 inches wide looking like multiple chains fastened together. Common drive shafts linked the front wheels to the transaxle. I think I remember the front drive outputs actually passed through the sides of the oil pan - or similar - the detail escapes me at the moment. (But I'm fired up enough to research and confirm this point.)
I also considered buying one in the late 70's, but common sense prevailed and I decided to stay in my Corvair (or was that really common sense?).
But the memory of that photo in Mechanics Illustrated of the Toronado accelerating in a cloud of dirt, stones, and tire debris from the front wheels is still sharp!
Thanks for the discussion.
Steve
Just out of curiousity, how hard would those early Toro's be on tires nowadays? Have they improved tires enough so that maybe it could skip a few meals?
I have owned a number of fairly powerful FWD cars ( 3 Saab Turbos, Alfa 164LS) and they all ate tires. I'd go through a Michelin in about 8,000 miles, with my aggressive driving style, and I'd expect on a Toronado it would be much worse than that.
But your results may vary. If you drive sanely (boring) and rotate and inflate your tires faithfully, you might have a lot better luck than I did.
I wonder what all that weight would do to the front brakes when you had to stop, as well. I know the weight shifts to the front anyway, so normally front brakes wear out earlier anyway. But then add all that additional weight, plus having to slow down a torquey 430 (or was it a 425? memory getting rusty) or 455 V-8, I'd guess the car must've supplemented those tires with a steady diet of brakes, as well!
A friend of mine had a 77 and just complained about the tire wear, otherwise he loved it. Great in snow.
GM's attempts at downsizing in the mid 80's weren't nearly as successful as they were in the late 70's. They wisely kept the Monte, Grand Prix, etc around and launched the N-body coupes on their own, but then they downsized the Eldorado/Toro/Riv for 1986, and they ended up being not much bigger than the N-cars! I think the Riviera suffered the most, as the Somerset Regal had most of its styling cues, but the Toronado, Seville, and Eldorado all took a serious sales hit, and never recovered.
They did try to make the Toronado more massive around 1990 or '91, by tacking about 9 inches to the trunk, but it was too little, too late by that time.
While you may think of the enlarged trunk as a styling element, it does make for lots of cargo room.
I remember reading somewhere that these last Toros shared just one body panel with their immediate predecessors, the hood.