The Pitiful Powerplants of The Malaise Era
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2024
- Explore the dismal engine designs that defined the Malaise Era in automotive history. From underpowered V8s to struggling emissions controls, discover why these powerplants are often considered some of the worst ever produced. Join us as we dive into the technical shortcomings, regulatory challenges, and market forces that led to a decade of pitiful performance and lackluster innovation. Don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe for more in-depth automotive history! 📉🔍
Malaise Era, automotive history, worst engines, car engines, 1970s cars, 1980s cars, emission controls, car performance, automotive engineering, car reviews, classic cars, vintage cars, car technology, underpowered engines, engine failure, car design
Hashtags:
#MalaiseEra #AutomotiveHistory #WorstEngines #ClassicCars #CarEngineering
---
They should have called it the lethargic era. The manufacturers distracted consumers with padded vinyl tops, opera windows with coach lights and poofy seats to get their minds off the fact that the cars were slower than a crippled sloth.
Consumer wanted that. And the insurance companies + green environmental party killed the engines
You don't know what you're talking about. Few Caddys from the 70s had vinyl tops, that was mostly El Dorados and DeVilles, IIRC. The seats were luxurious, fine soft leather, and they had serious power, if the driver needed it, but he rarely did, as there was usually no reason to speed or accelarate rapidly, as the damn things were so comfortable.
BOTH of my cars I loved from back then had the Opera windows, and 1/2 vinyl tops..
Cadillac truly maximized displacement per horsepower.
They sure did 🤣
I loved my 1978 Ford Grenada with a V-8 And my 1976 Dodge Aspen with the 225 Slant 6. They both rode great, looked fantastic, and gave me lots of great memories.
The dodge Aspen is one of Mr. Regular's favorite cars hehe. Also, many cars that were generally regarded poorly were some people's favorite cars, bc build quality can vary, and so does maintenance, care, usage and so on
@@dankline9162 Yeah I agree. The Ford Grenada's were generally considered good cars but the Dodge Aspen's were not. The Slant 6 had a great reputation but I got lucky. Most Dodge products of this period had poor reputations.
The grenada 6cyl at least eventually turned into the Australian falcon ohc and dohc barra.
In Australia, the Falcon 4.1 of the same age gained a crossflow head and then a Mitsubishi designed alloy head to improve power while passing emissions.
It was Honda that designed & manufactured the alloy heads in Japan for the Falcon sixes.
In addition to the low HP you left out how difficult it was to keep these cars in tune so that they didn’t stall constantly.
My mistake...I'll make sure to include it if I make a part 2
And people keep saying nowadays "it's better than new cars!" Yeah right 😂
But the stalling problems were caused by all the extra crap the government forced them to use.
Yeah, I do recall my Bronco II, with the vacuum line nightmare. I do daily drive a 92 F150, but it isn't bad, as most of the lines are either replaced or removed.
@@thecaptain3773 I remember in high school having to put my heel on the break and use my toes to feather the gas to keep my car from stalling at every stop sign while my left foot engaged the clutch.
A lot of Mopar and Ford V-8s could easily have a lot of their torque and drivability restored if you knew what you were doing. I spent the 70s and much of the 80s doing just that with dirt cheap used cars. You could also improve their mileage considerably. Mopar in particular could accept the older, higher compression engines, right into the engine bays, onto the mounts of the newer cars, transforming them. Exhausts were easy to change from cat clogged single systems to duals without any restriction. Walker sold several oversized Y-pipes that bolted in right in place of the cat clogged pea shooter systems that came stock. I remember my old Dad was challenged to a 0-60 with his 86' Fifth Avenue(318) against a work buddy's 305 4bbl Olds Cutless 4 door. I swapped on an oversized catless Y-pipe spec'd for a 78' Lebaron($60 new) and put in a Mopar performance distributor($99.00) and tuned it as per the direct connection manual. Not only did he smoke that Gutless Cutless but his mileage went up almost 5mpg city and better hwy. On a lot of mid 70s Ford V-8s all you had to do was change the timing gear sets back to pre-71 and you picked up a ton of acceleration.
yes, eliminating the cat with a 'test pipe' ,rejetting the carb and recurving the distributor really made these sluggards much more driveable, clipping one wire on a 368 caddy v8-6-4 disabled the terrible eaton valve selectors, replacing the lean burn mopar electronics with junkyard 440 distributors, etc. etc. for less than a c note really helped. My personal ride was a heavily modded '70 chally rt 440, with it's bored block, oval port heads and tons of direct connection goodies it could outrun anything but my lawyers bills or a sunoco 260 gas pump...🤣 🤣 🤣
No doubt. 8.5 compression wasn't the end of the world. I had a 77 Olds 442 (cutlass with decals) back in 1979-81 and with rather inexpensive headers/duals/ a used aftermarket intake 600 cfm holley carb/ hotter cam(W31 knock off)/ 4.10 gear really woke up that smogger Olds 350. Now the MPG wasnt very impressive with a 3 speed turbo 350 trans but with some used parts, headers and a lower gear, it was actually fairly quick for the 80-81 era (14.0s in the quarter on street tires). Sounds like a snail compared to now but back then, high 13s with traction, that was really moving.
Gearing will sap mileage something fierce alright, especially with a non overdrive transmission. My buddy borrowed my little foreign mini truck in the 80s to move his girlfriend. He gave me his 78' Leb28 to drive for the day with it's posi 3.73s. I used more gas that day than I used all week with the D50(Mitsubishi). He told me it had never seen 10mpg and being a smog era 350 it wasn't fast either. Worst of both worlds I guess.
I remember that back in the day, some people and some automotive writers (Consumer's Reports for one) actually defended malaise era vehicle drivetrains as "superior" and an "improvement". The demographic actually personally attacked me for not buying into this philosophy.
Remember Pearl Harbor buy Detroit save union jobs propaganda?
I'd imagine that at that time there was a lot more resentment towards forign brands. Heck, they're doing it today with BYD already, and they haven't even sold here yet. God, we really are in the second malaise era, aren't we.
Back in 1987 I had a 1973 Firebird. I was 22 and had an attitude: bold, confident and a bit too arrogant for my own good. I drove that car like I'd stolen it and thankfully never got into an accident or got any tickets. As gutless as the engine was, that car sure felt fast. I wish I'd had the money and knowledge to tune the engine so it would perform better and get more horsepower.
What’s a little ironic is that the Pontiac section (3:15) of this video uses a Rover P6 saloon in the chase. This British car would have had either a 2 or 2.2 litre in-line 4, or, most likely as we’re in the USA, the 3.5 litre V8, derived from the Buick Skylark. And in any guise the Rover gets more power per litre than the Trans Am! Why was the detuning so severe? I find it amazing that not only did it produced less bang per CC or cubic inch, it would also have been stuffed in a power to weight ratio comparison. Surely once out the show room, any decent mechanic would have had the power values restored?
People whine about those old cars but I liked them a lot better than the mundane SUV/crossover vehicles that we have now. My old mid 70s B-body mopar with the front bench seat was the best drive-in movie date car I ever had
You lost me at MOPAR!
Much like bench seats, drive-in theaters are unfortunately a thing of the past.
@ironpanther2420 What was the last year a bench, or SOB seat was offered?
Unrealistic CAFE standards that surprised auto manufacturers had them scrambling to meet those standards.
Manufacturers had plenty of time to make changes but they spent it lobbying instead.
@@Low760 my dad would disagree. he worked as a 'mechanic' for pontiac engineering during this period. the engineers had to keep re designing engines my dad would put together then run them till they failed. take them apart, find the failure points and send it back to the engineers for a re design. he hated it because the cafe standards wrecked the quality of the engine.
I had a 75 corvette L-82. It had 205 hp. The regular engine had 195. Worst car I ever owned.
I was issued a pre-converter Ford F100 V-8, automatic company truck in 1975. It got 8 MPG, except when it was climbing Sepulveda Pass in the San Fernando Valley, when it dropped to 7. It constantly dieseled, in drive, for up to 5 minutes, with that awful smell. I took it to the company garage and asked the lead mechanic to de-smog it. Mileage went up to 14 city, 15 highway. No more dieseling.
Truly, truly a dark time! NEVER AGAIN!!
The 88 horsepower of the 77 Pinto is the same as the 80 Zephyr/Fairmont 3.3 l inline 6.
OMG... The Pinto engine's lack of power was "exacerbated" not "exasperated" by emissions controls that choked the engine's performance even more. ... ...
Well, the DRIVERS were pretty exasperated...
The Vega's and Pinto's engines were the least of these cars problems. Many people took off many of the performance robbing polution devices and catalytic coverters. This and a few other tweeks could make many of these cars plenty powerful.
1978 Dodge Magnum. 318 V8 that got maybe 140HP new, probably around 95 when I had it. Had the "Electronic Lean Burn" ignition. Drove around with a pencil down the carb half the time, and a can of ether for stop signs and lights to keep it going. Started on fire once, but I just kept cranking the engine until it inhaled all the fire. Drove like a dream though, with the torsion bar suspension.
The regulations were important and badly needed. I remember the smoggy, and the smelly haze that would linger over cities back in the day.
Cadillacs of that era, while gas guzzlers, were effing amazing! Extremely comfortable, roomy and luxurious, and powerful. Driving or riding in one felt like being on a motorboat, plowing through a glass-calm lake, and you could not hear the motor at all!
If American cars had evolved in Europe, the story might have been different. European cars started small and, for the most part, stayed small. Their engines were designed for efficiency without sacrificing much horsepower. They consistently relied on innovation to create power, experimenting with designs that were scorned in the States. Not every idea worked, but the engineers learned equally from success and failure.
Regulations were not a government whim. American automakers knew they were coming but dragged their feet. Emissions had to be cut, and efficiency had to increase. Weight, usually addressed by merely adding cubic inches, was suddenly an ogre that wouldn't go away. American car manufacturers responded with underpowered beasts that were difficult to look at in full light.
Change is usually a good thing, but only if you see it coming and prepare for it.
The biggest problem was that 4 classes of regulations, emissions, safety, bumper durability and economy, were imposed over the course of about 10 years, often working at cross-purposes with each other. U.S. bumper requirements of the 1970s (5 MPH, front and rear) were much stronger than today's (2.5 MPH front, 1.5 MPH rear) , adding weight at a time when manufacturers were trying to improve economy. While some import carmakers were in a better position to deal with them than their Detroit counterparts, U.S. versions of most European and Japanese cars were still slower, heavier and less economical than their home-market counterparts.
nah if American cars had evolved in Europe it would all be diesel.. you have to remember it was in America Dieselgate was exposed then Europe learned that their clean diesels wasn't so clean... if you notice most of Europe is following our inefficient trend of SUVs and crossovers (the main reasons why we have soo many SUVs now is because car companies could get around most gov't regulations by it not being classified as a car but a truck)
Who said emissions had to be cut? Government. Government is always the root of almost every problem.
Compression ratios were lowered between 1.5 - 2 points reducing horsepower.
The use of microcontroller to control the engine and transmission and fuel injection saved the V8 engine and performance market
It wasnt the powerplants , it was the regulations.
Yes indeed but the powerplants suffered due to the power sapping weight gaining emission control units
I'm just barely old enough to remember bad air pollution in the industrial towns up north and in Scotland.
Everything black, air tastes of metal and it made your lungs itch.
Trust me, cats on your exhaust are a much better idea.
I was born after all that but thanks for sharing 👍
@@IBR-SRT
No worries.
Now that I think about it, I have an old boomer friend who grew up in 1950s London?
Back when all the houses were coal heated and when the fog rolled in it combined with the air pollution made Smog.
And Smog?
Yeah, you didn't just get a percentage point increase in cancer and respiratory diseases, people would just go outside and _die_
Just, "where Frank?"
"He's gone to get some more bread"
And then Frank died walking home.
From Smog.
It was yellow and you couldn't see 30cm in front of you, so thick it was _claustrophobic_
Yeah, I'll take cats and EVs over that please! 😂
Maybe just the cats but as a gear head not ev's
Fuel shortage, high prices and the EPA mandating cleaner burning engines sucked the power out of the engines. The EPA requirements were tough on the Auto Industry. They wanted things done very quickly which led the Automakers to slap stopgap devices on car engines instead of giving them time to engineer newer, more efficient engines. The American Manufacturers wanted high profits, while the foreign automakers took time to improve their engines. They stayed ahead of the curve while the American automakers slapped devices onto their old engines to keep up with the EPA. Then end result were poor running engines with little power. It was a sad time for performance enthusiasts.
6:20 88HP?? Yes, for 1977, in most states, but for 1975-1975 the 4.1L six in the U.S. spec Granada put out a gasping 72 HP, giving the 3,400 pound car a 0-60 time of about 23 seconds, slower than any other 1970s American car I can name. The '75 Granada has to the the all-time champion of malaise-era agony. Consumer Reports was also unimpressed with the fuel economy of the Granada, giving the otherwise-likeable car a thumbs-down on both performance and economy. It's likely that the crass, but much more advanced 2.3 L Pinto engine would have been both faster and more economical if Ford had offered it in the Granada, especially with a 4 speed manual. The main problem with Ford's sixes (both the 3.3 L and 4.1 L) was a badly designed air-injector system in the exhaust manifold, designed to reduce hydrocarbon emissions. GM's 4.1 L six had about 100 HP all through the 1970s, so GM could offer 6 cylinder economy in their larger mid-sized cars while Ford had to put V8s in anything bigger than the Granada.
I had a 1974 Maverick with a 302, and I couldn't even spin a tire in sand on pavement. Paint peeled off in the carwash. Vinyl top blistered. All in a year.
First new car was a 79 Fairmont with the 2.3 liter four. Reliable, liked it a lot, but indeed underpowered. Had auto trans and air conditioning.
No one sane kept them stock, and fixing their ailments was VERY common. That era sold vast amounts of intakes, carbs, cams and headers. If you left them stock you were doing it wrong. The vehicles svcked except for trucks but the engines kickstarted the modern aftermarket and fixing them got many young men into wrenching, self included.
It was a bit of a comparison of "apples and oranges." Before 1972, SAE power ratings were gross outout, meaning not even a water punp was used, coolant being forced externally through the engine. One can compare the gross effect on lowering compression ratios so that engines could run on low-lead or unleaded fuel which new cars as of 1971 had to run on. For example, the massive Cadillac 500 V8, rated at 400 hp in 1970, dropped to 360 in 1971. For 1972, with the new rating, SAE Net, and also using a lower RPM, also a feature of the updated, and probably more realistic for comparison purposes, power rating, the 500 cube V8 was rated at a measly 235 ponies. In 1975, its penultimate year, the Caddy 500, along with so many in Detroit, was corked up with a single catalytic converter, which lowered the final rating to only 195 hp!
No mention of gross vs. net horsepower ratings?
I will put that in a part 2 if I make one
That happened way sooner though, maybe 71 or 72 - just a different number printed on the paper, the engine is what it is
@@IBR-SRTThem either you don't really know your subject or you're a FRAUD.
No, and THAT is responsible for the shockingly low hp ratings. Of course, the insurance mafia killed anything performance. The easiest way to de-rate after the switch to SAE Net was to quote the horsepower rating at peak torque, which was not all the power the engine could churn out.
It was combo of regulation and market. American companies saw the writing on the wall in WW2 but didn't want to believe it. Later; smaller, more efficient, and sometimes better cars from foreign companies started to creep in from every direction. And here we are.
Thank you for posting the video. Lots of work went into it, I realize. Glad it's actually narrated by a real voice, and not an AI one. Love the Granada commercial. My grandma had one, loaded!
The cause was NOT emission control laws but the industry's tendency to implement these regulations as cheaply as possible. Profit before innovation. Why would manufacturers invest in innovation, they had succesfully indoctrinated the populace that American cars were better than others.
I love this era of cars. Lots of them made great cheap muscle cars with an engine transplant.
The last car shown (75 Elite) was a hand me down car in 81. 351 2V was a dog but after headers and a hot cam. I can't remember the cam setup or headers but it woke it up a bit.
Can confirm the 351 2V was a dog! Had a 74 cougar (Beautiful car) but I had a hard time merging onto hi-ways...just made a lot of noise but wouldn't GO!
Honestly I love this era of cars. I've driven a 1970's ford LTD and I have to say it was 10x more comfortable than the mazda that I drive daily. Sure, it was as slow as a turtle, but all I really need to drive a car is highway speeds and then I'm satisified with power.
my 1975 Ford Elite objects to the thumbnail of this video.
So that's what that is I just looked up Malaise Era cars and that looked like a good thumbnail
as a smog divice retrofit you would buy 2 rubber caps and remove the vacuum to your distributor and cap it off ---- for $10 , after the test you probably didn't wait until you got home to put the hose back on.
I actually had a old Thunderbird and crown Vic best cars I ever had! Ford's 302 was my best choice, Chevrolet 305, and dodge 318, I never had a problem with them but I took really good care of them. I honestly never had any mechanical problems at all, but like I said I took care of them I didn't just get in and go all the time I always check oil and fluids and kept my spark plugs and filters changed. Toyota problems I had many, and parts are expensive and can't trust a Honda dam head gaskets always blew in all my Toyota and hondas
The 77 Pontiac Bonneville, with the throwaway combination 5 l or 301 in with the 200 metric transmission. It had 135 HP but would get 19 miles per gallon around home or a maximum of 28 miles per gallon down in Florida during the winter time. My tires would go from 33 and 34 in the back to 48 and 50 PSI. Sometimes I would let the air out but then would have a hard time finding air on my way up North again. I loved that car, with v e l o u r seats and full carpeting.😢
The best car of this time was the LINCOLN VERSAILLES, A VERY HANDSOME MACHINE, AND ALL OUT LUXURY, AND WELL BUILT. ❤❤❤😊😊
no matter how awful the car, it was rear drive. My 1200cc Datsun went sideways just the same as a Cortina 3 liter.
the 70 trans am did not have a 7.5 L it had a 6.6 L ram air
My grandfather had an 82 Granada straight 6. That was one of the most miserable cars I've ever seen. But it ran forever!
It's hard to think of a powerplant more dismal from that era than the Ford 250 six commonly fitted to the Maverick and Granada, producing a miserable 88 horsepower.
They made these big boats and nothing to power them. Thanks big government
'Big government' is responsible for the efficient, fast cars we have today. They had to start somewhere. People always blaming others for their misfortunes, lol.
Don't blame the car company's - it was the government with their gas mileage and emissions regulations. Remember - this was before computers, they couldn't do what they can do today.
The companies did not Pay enough money to the politicians, so politicuans could push through this legal idioty because they were bought by Japan.
That 2.3 liter 4 cylinder in the pinto was a good engine and made 200 hp in the mustang SVO , as much as the 302 V8 in the mustang GT
I made a point about that 2.3 in my history of turbocharging video
The “sticker price” wasn’t the only way to tell the difference between a Cadillac, Mercedes and a Ford Granada…just open your eyes 🙄
What a lame brained power train for Vega: The 140 cubic inch four cylinder engine mated to a two speed Powerglide transmission.
I remember someone writing in Popular Science magazine that the engine was like a 240 cubic one in low gear.
The powergide transmission is truly unappreciated
I learned how to drive with a '72 Pontiac Catalina. It was like an aircraft carrier with two couches inside. I don't need technology for parallel parking! I bought a '68 SS Nova in 11th grade and got into a lot of trouble in that thing! Traded it for a '76 Ford Elite for my senior year which I THOROUGHLY enjoyed the interior of. It wasn't a racer despite it's 460 cid motor! It's size, speed, and agility likely saved my life (LOL).... Now it seems the electric shavers are the quickest but I've always kept a '60s vintage road warrior around just for fun and personality.
Its sad to think that none of these jalopies lasted long enough to get crushed in cash for clunkers.
What is even more sad are the lies the government told to implement the extremely wasteful program. At the dealership, it was required that the traded-in vehicles have:
a) NO parts removed for recycling (ENTIRE VEHICLE must be crushed)
b) Run the motor with a can of "metal slurry" until it locked up, to (again) ensure it could not be recycled (longest lasting vehicle at local shop: 1979 Ford F100, which ran the better part of the day before succumbing.
c) Ship the vehicles under security to ensure they reach the salvage yard and that they were independently crushed.
d) Exponentially more resources were lost by the lack of recycling due to deliberate misinformation provided to/by Congress when the program was instituted, "allegedly" by new car manufacturers.
e) There is more, but you get the idea.
In a multiple emissions test performed in 1989, it was conclusively proven the cars currently for sale produced less than 1/10 of 1% of the average emissions of cars from the 60's. It has only improved since then. Conclusive data nullifying the arguments used has been available for years, but has been deliberately suppressed by the same industry that lies to subvert Right-to-Repair.
That's why BMW and Mercedes took over the luxury segment and the japanese cars the market for reliable and fuel saving cars.
Did you see the new M5 👀 it weighs more that a Tahoe
@@IBR-SRT Times have changed. BMW is building cars for the chinese nowadays. I don't like them anymore...
Whatever, BMW just handed better if not in a repair shop, Japanese ran good till the body eventually rusted away. Import humper and their rose colored glasses..
Compared to the Chinacrap Sold today this was a golden era!
the "culprit" is Compairing Gross VS. Net Horsepower.
That while a little fair, is more than not. Compression Dropped. Smog pumps. Early Cats, ect. Im sure say an LS6 from 70 made 360 net hp instead for 450, but it still had probably well over 400 ft-lbs to. Running low 13s on those old bias plys was pretty good!
@@Justin-ul9wo 67 318 ran no different than a 74 318. SAE 230 Gross Vs. SAE 150 Net.
@@Justin-ul9wo A 67 318 ran the same as a 74 318. 67 SAE 230 Gross, 74 150 Net.
@@Justin-ul9wo LS6? No TEL? Forget it.
Roger that. The narrator seems to be another snotty Milennial punk that proves he knows far less than he thought he did.
I'm shocked that you didn't mention the worst engine: the Olds 350 CID Diesel. They took the classic small-block 350 OHV gas engine and made it run diesel. It never run worth a damn, didn't get better economy, and all of the money saved on fuel expense went to the shop to fix the damn thing. It's my favorite malaise-era engine.
Some significant points to consider when comparing horsepower ratings.
First and foremost, pre-1972 horsepower ratings are stated as GROSS output. 1972 and newer are NET ratings. What's the difference?
Gross horsepower is the engine on a test stand, no accessories, no mufflers or even exhaust system, perfectly tuned to make its peak horsepower, run at the RPM it makes its maximum output. For most engines of the era, that would be about 4500 rpm.
NET horsepower is rated with the engine IN THE CAR, connected to the transmission, with all accessories installed, full exhaust, air cleaner assembly in place, and so on. And yes, emissions control equipment (if any) installed and operating. The engine is operated in real-world conditions. Typically WELL UNDER 4,000 rpm.
Ask any engineer and they'll tell you: Horsepower output is literally the product of engine speed and torque output. Reduce either, power ratings fall. Reduce BOTH, and power ratings fall DRASTICALLY.
General rule of thumb: If you have two identical engines, and test them for gross versus net horsepower, the net figure is typically only about two-thirds of the gross. It varies a bit from model to model, but two-thirds is a fair approximation. A Ford 302 in 1971 was rated at 210 hp; in 1972 with virtually no changes, it was about 140-145.
I'm not making excuses; the introduction of fuel economy requirements and emission standards created more problems with regard to engine power. I'm saying that it wasn't entirely the fault of these standards; nonetheless, here's a short overview.
To get the engines to be more efficient, a number of thing had to be done. One of the earliest measures was to reduce the axle ratio Most cars of the 1960s had axle ratios between 3.00 and 3.50 to one. By the mid 1970s, axle ratios were down to an average of 2.65 or so. That means the engine does not have the same mechanical advantage it did in the 1960s. Acceleration is slower because of this. Automatic transmissions were configured for lower torque converter stall and earlier shifts, further hampering acceleration and power.
Engines had to be detuned. Big thirsty carburetors had to be re-tuned to more tightly control air/fuel mixtures. Devices in the carburetor, like accelerator pumps and 'economizer' valves, had to be configured to operate only under much higher demand than previously. Ignition timing had to be more tightly controlled.
And catalytic converters had to be installed; these heavy, clunky, restrictive things sapped a great deal of power.
There's more, but this should give you an idea of what was happening. bear this in mind when people squawk about why engine power was so poor in the 1970s.
all cars were much slower back in the day young fellas...this was simply the norm even int the 60s and especially the 50s. as for quality control, modern cars are just as bad, if not worse.
I started driving in the 70s low hp engines? It didn't matter we were all trying to save gas, it was a different time and place, we still made it from A to B , the look of the cars more than made up for the low hp.😅 plus we had the 55 mph speed limit.
Doom and gloom 😮 Gas prices leveled . Air quality improved . Mpg improved. Safety increased. . I will take the malaise days over parking lots full of expensive trucks and SUVs ,that are expensive to maintain.
IN the late 1970s I worked in a dyno-tune shop doing carburetor rebuilds and tune ups on cars. We used to run cars on a dyno to see what the HP was before and after the tune up. For those that don't know, official Horsepower ratings from manufacturer are "flywheel horsepower" That is, power measured at the flywheel, which is considerably less than what gets through the transmission, differential and finally, wheels. The famous "Smokey and the Bandit" Trans Am with the 6.6 Liter engine was lucky to put 60 HP to the road at the wheels. Even the Corvette could barely get to 60HP. Most cars were lucky to see 40 HP at the wheels. As a comparison, my 2014 CTS-V Cadillac was just dyno'd at 545HP at the wheels! On the other hand, my hotrod 1964 Mercury Comet Caliente that I built myself when I worked at the tune up shop was rocking off the dyno at 100 WHP (Wheel Horsepower) when I had to shut it down. The point is, the engine wasn't really the issuer, it was all the emissions crap they stuck all over them.
Not saying you're wrong but they switched to net HP in 73 i think, and the 78 trans am was rated at 220HP net at the wheels, so i find 60 hard to believe
@@Silas-fd6yz Believe what you want but I ran all sorts of cars on a wheel dyno back then and yes, it is true. I have a Motor's Repair manual that was printed in 1978 and it states very clearly "Flywheel Horsepower" and the 73 V-8 455 varied depending on vehicle from 215 to 330 HP. I also remember there was a big flurry in the news about the Big 3 over rating their regines because the actual HP was so low that people were not buying the performance models as much. You can believe what you want but I lived it, did it and saw it firsthand and I am telling you the truth. I have no reason to make it up.
SAE net ratings started in 1972. Engine ratings were and still are at the flywheel. Typical drivetrain losses on a chassis dyno on a RWD car with an automatic transmission are around 25-30%. So not sure how you had cars putting 40 HP to the pavement. I certainly wouldn’t have had any work done at your shop. The 78-79 T/A equipped with the W72 400 was rated at 220 HP net at the flywheel but according to the NHRA it was actually somewhere around 275 HP. A properly equipped 79 T/A with a 4 speed manual would run mid to low 14 second quarter mile times off the showroom floor. That’s in a close to 3800lb car with a single exhaust plugged up by GM’s horrible pellet type catalytic converter plus all the other emissions crap piled on top of it.
@@kl0wnkiller912 I believe that's what the dyno said, but that just isn't the truth. That would be in the 25-40 second 0-60 range, and that just isn't what these car did.
@@Silas-fd6yz Ok whatever you want to think. BTW, I drove and owned several cars in those eras and 20 seconds to 60 was not uncommon. Another thing, all of us that worked there had built hotrods. every one of them could easily max out the 100 HP dyno and then some, but none of us had emission crap on them. So, yeah.
Cool video. I always thought one of the most pitiful examples was the 1976 460 cid engine in the T-Bird that made 202 hp = 0.44 hp/ci. Heck, Chevy had 1 hp/ci in 1957 (although that was gross not net).
there are so many things the government could legislate to clean up the air. I don't see why we need 1000 choices of vehicle models. I'm not sure how many differrent motor designs we need available at any one time. It's just waste start to finish. Standardizing within the company and accross the industry can reduce the cost of the product by increasing economies of scale. If you reduce the cost of replacing a motor and smog gear then people will be happy to do. The government could subsidize it in addition so without even making more cars it would keep cars on the road longer and reduce their smog emmisions at the same time. They can pay for it with the money that we waste on other things . Catalytic converters should be fazed out because of cost and risk to human life. We try to make up the difference on other things as it lowers the price of the car, new and ongoing maintenance, as well as insurance signifigantly. Even if we can't make up the difference completely, it's a safety issue. People are dying over these things--- getting rid of them is the only way to solve the problem. Motors are continuing to get more efficient. A lot of stuff can be made more modular. I can also make a case for having engines that are easy to swap and maybe designed to be disposable because maybe robots will be able to swap them as swell as do 90% of the assembly. I'm not against electric cars but my beef is with Li batteries because they are a fire hazard in a few ways, but not all use Li batteries and they will continue to improve. Basically don't all keep their cars tune right, down to the air in their tires being low causing a lot of extra fuel to be burned because people are going to slack. Helping people where they slack with keeping their car less poluting and using it less all together helps everyone. So it's worth it to help out. The value trickles around. Immagine if they forced all the mfg. to have their motors all swapable with each other. Think about the wast it would cut and the competition it would inspire. Simplify thins accross the board. We focus way too much on styling when we shold focus way more on functionalitty, of form , ease of repair and cost/availability of parts.
A '76 455 Trans Am with EGR and cats still outruns
Detroit has a history of lost innovation, as the heavy metal muscle worked so well.
Detroit perfected turbos for WWII plane engines like P-47's Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp,
Detroit flirted with turbos after WWII with cars like the Oldsmobile Jetfire but simple V8 muscle was enough & for some reason hot-rodbers hated them,
it was inefficent belt driven superchargers or death. New small engine performance was left for Japan's rice burners & high-end Euro sport carss, & for Detroit to play catch up.
I made a video about turbocharging you should check it out if you haven't allredy
@@IBR-SRT Thanks.
You'd better get a hold of NHRA and let them know they need to switch over to turbochargers as the inefficient belt driven superchargers for their 11,000hp dragsters and funny cars is inefficient.
@@ironpanther2420 Luv em but dragsters, least of all top fuel aren't about efficiency.
Sadly, that will eventually be seen in electric dragsters that aren't nearly as fun as they're way more efficient.
A big block swapped Vega is awesome.
Ugh, what pitiful sad combinations we were stuck with.
Low compression and inefficient combustion combustion chambers made worse by the piston deck height and quench being to big, making detonation a problem even with low compression ratio....
Retarded cam timing
Leaned carb tuning- to lean to make power
Distributor timing was insanely stupid..
The egr didn’t seem make anything better
The exhaust seemed to get smaller and more restricted ; need duals!
Cats???
Let’s not forget we had higher rear end ratios.... 2:25 ratio is a slow take off folks with any engine ...
Using a 1970 9:1 cr engine instead of a ugh malaise era engine and a 2:75 rear end would give you a car you could enjoy 😊
I would say even mid-late 80s - I have a Hyundai Pony (modded with a different engine, bolt ons, etc) that ran a 15.8 in the quarter. Not fast, sure, but it would have beaten the same year Mustang or Camaro V8 (both ran 17s) of the same year. Different story even 2 years later though.
Yeah, by 1988, the 225 hp stang and the 240 hp iroc were decent runners, though not blinding fast. the buick 3800 series 3 v-6 was also stout. At last, the malaise days were over!
cadillac Eldorado got up & went i like them.
I think buyers back then did not really understand what they were doing and buying. Boomers and older, what do you expect the manufacturers were going to deliver to them
Most of the emissions, CAFE, and "safety" standards were passed by politicians OLDER than the "Boomers". We had to put up with this shit just as we got old enough to drive, and then, in a few years, could buy new cars.
Starting in 1973, for the first time in automotive history, the vehicles were less powerful than the previous years models and would be a trend throughout the malaise era, with 1974 being rock bottom- the worst vehicles ever made. Not since the 30’s and 40’s did we have V8 engines with less than a 100 horsepower. Even worse, the vehicles were just bloated pigs with those hideous -and outright comical, like the Mustang II- amusement park bumpers on them.
3:39 the difference in HP between 1970 and 1975 is wrong. You are comparing GROSS figures to NET figures. 1971 they swithed to NET. NET rating on the 455 was like 250hp on the 1970 455. Plus you could also get the 1975 model with a 400, engine making 185 hp.
I own a standard nothing special for the time 1975 Buick LeSabre with 455. Still makes 230 hp and get 0-60 in ten seconds with a top of 120mph. Most of the european or japanese stuff made like 70 hp, 0-60 in 15-20 seconds and 90mph top (yes i know about the few sportscars or very expensive top end Mercedeses that also were quick, but the bread and butter cars, like my LeSabre was at the time, werent faster or more powerfull). They werent all bad and slow. Some were, but then again, most european and japanese were also slow. They just were slow with smaller engines
These weak engines can make you seem like a hero. They are so easy to add horsepower.
Size of vehicles should of been regulated. Better emissions would of followed without the high cost of poor power.
How about the CUSTOMER and not Uncle Sugar regulating the car size by buying what he WANTS? Instead of nosey, arrogant busy bodies presuming to dictate consumer choice?
A few of my friends dropped small block Chevy engines in Chevy Vega's. Other's small block Ford's in the Pinto. Still Quick by today's standards. Other than that a few piece's of hot rod engine part's and sub 15 second's to sub 11's would follow
They mostly used the inline 6 in these cars, which were feckless at best!
The V8 cars were better but ate gas. An L6 car could get 26 mpg on the highway but the 302 V8 was likely to get 13 in the city...
None of these cars could reach 60 mph in less than 15 seconds. They were SLUGS! But they were still better than GM products or Chrysler crud~
I do not miss my 1976 Volare. or it's pathetic 360.
Great editing!
Thank you
Your background music is too loud.
Kill the music please.
I have seen the comments and have lowered the music down in my later videos after this
@@IBR-SRT - okay. Thank you. I give the others a view. Thanks.
I see you were not around during this time there were 4 Large auto companies in America I had to give you a thumbs 👎
What was the 4th???
I was around. They didn't call them The Big Three for nothing.
I had a 1973 Torino, a good friend had a 1975 Ford "Elite". Both were HORRIBLE. Huge outside, cramped inside, AWFUL MPG, handled like a garbage scow.
This crap is still going on today only worse with EV's
Wrong! The malaise era is the '80s.
It started in the mid 70s
I might make a part 2 about the cars of the 80s next
American motor's have always been lacking in power. They are all noise and no go compared to engines made in Europe and Asia.
Even the Australian Turing car competition had to change its name and regulations because small 4 cylinder engines were out performing the v8 engines.
American car manufacturers are some of the worst in the world for quality, reliability and performance.
The Buick 3800 would like to have a word with you. And he brought his brother, LS to back him up.
@ironpanther2420 just two examples of engines that have less horsepower and torque than their European equivalents. Ls engines are one of the cheapest crate motors available hence their popularity.
You can thank Jimmy "Peanut Farmer" Carter for this
Thank you corporate America. You mean. Europe and Japan did not have those problems.
Horsepower was in decline before Jimmy Carter, 2nd worst President of all time behind the current idiot. I’ve always had and still do own a malaise era car. They’re not as pathetic as they’re made out to be. My 75 Grand Prix with a smog 400 with headers, dual exhaust and 3.23 posi rear can light the tires up without doing a brake stand.
@@mikee2923I can make any vehicle light up tyres with skinny crappy rubber.
@@Low760 Yes, the joy of bias ply 85 profile tires.
@@Low760 I’d like to see it in like a Vega, Pinto or Chevette without a brake stand or slippery road.