Car And Driver (et. al.) admit some funny mistakes

Yea those Towncars were horrid, I should know I owned one. The Winded V8 was truly crap.
 
klutch said:
Haha...was it really that anemic?
Click to expand...

It gets worse.

The 1980 Camaro, similarly constrained, made 120hp from a 4.4L V8. Rather embarassing, since the 3.8L V6 base model made 115hp. The 1975 Camaro made a whopping 145hp from a 5.7L V8 (though the "high output" version made 10 more).
 
Spectre said:
The 1980 Camaro, similarly constrained, made 120hp from a 4.4L V8. Rather embarassing, since the 3.8L V6 base model made 115hp. The 1975 Camaro made a whopping 145hp from a 5.7L V8 (though the "high output" version made 10 more).
Click to expand...

http://img105.imageshack.**/img105/2701/aetsdfghez4.jpg

Lately, it seems like I can use that pic more and more.
 
Can't really blame the car companies for the oil embargo of that time. Just a couple years earlier they were selling muscle cars with 500-600hp. Just take a look at the Hemi motors from Chrysler in 1971 or the LS6 454 V8 from GM in 1970.
 
Yeah, but that turns out to be "marketing" gross horsepower. Put an LS6 Chevelle on a dyno now, and you'll be lucky if it makes a *real* 250hp at the rear wheels.

The best part is how they half-assed it. Chevrolet was having problems getting more than 180hp out of their decades old design, while Jaguar was getting 205 out of their even older I6.

The problem wasn't the oil embargo. The problem was the idiot engineers and the even more idiotic beancounters.
 
Spectre said:
Yeah, but that turns out to be "marketing" gross horsepower. Put an LS6 Chevelle on a dyno now, and you'll be lucky if it makes a *real* 250hp at the rear wheels.
Click to expand...

The LS6 was rated at 450hp and they think it was underrated, since original examples are putting out over 500hp in some cases.

Same went for the Hemi engines at the time. Insurance companies were coming down hard on muscle cars, so the big three underrated their motors to lower insurance costs and still beat their competitors at the drags.
 
klutch said:
Haha...was it really that anemic?
Click to expand...

That is part of what hurt the big 3 that are mistakes they seem to be avoiding this time around. They refused to develop new engines for the smog era, instead chocking them down and forcing them to run in conditions they don't like. The LT and LS series of engines show how a "clean sheet" design of "technology" used back then could do had they spent the money when they had it.

spectre said:
The 1980 Camaro, similarly constrained, made 120hp from a 4.4L V8. Rather embarassing, since the 3.8L V6 base model made 115hp. The 1975 Camaro made a whopping 145hp from a 5.7L V8 (though the "high output" version made 10 more).
Click to expand...

The 1982 Z/28 sticks out in my head. 130hp from the 305. The 2.8 v6 from the base model only 6 years later made more power.

Both cars were piles of trash, though I still loved my '88 v6 (it looked so damn good in Maroon)

Spectre said:
Yeah, but that turns out to be "marketing" gross horsepower. Put an LS6 Chevelle on a dyno now, and you'll be lucky if it makes a *real* 250hp at the rear wheels.

The best part is how they half-assed it. Chevrolet was having problems getting more than 180hp out of their decades old design, while Jaguar was getting 205 out of their even older I6.

The problem wasn't the oil embargo. The problem was the idiot engineers and the even more idiotic beancounters.
Click to expand...

Yet at the same time there are race series devoted to requiring that engines be left completely stock, with exception to what adjustments can be made with the factory equipment. Many of these cars on sub 245mm wide tires are well into the 10's... not cars that are "lucky to make 250hp." The series is called F.A.S.T.

Also speedtv had a show on a while back where they tested "blue printed" engines that were belting out more power than the factories claimed. Those were given some slack as cams didn't have to be exact (just "close") and modern ignitions could be used. I posted a video ages ago of a "stock 426 hemi" pushing damn near 900hp.

Lastly I've been in one of those Chevelle's and considering how it pulled that heavy ass boat of a car I'd say it's pretty freakin' close to that power figure.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but that's still not the original setup - the old low energy points ignitions and "guesswork" cams weren't exactly up to the task. And it's GM, how many engines do you *really* think they shipped that were blueprinted?

I've been present when three stock or restored LS6 Chevelles (all TH400 equipped) were put on a dyno one after another. The best of the lot was a 10K old restoration with a stock spec but not blueprinted motor. It put down 260 something at the rear wheels.
 
Last edited:
Spectre said:
It gets worse.

The 1980 Camaro, similarly constrained, made 120hp from a 4.4L V8. Rather embarassing, since the 3.8L V6 base model made 115hp. The 1975 Camaro made a whopping 145hp from a 5.7L V8 (though the "high output" version made 10 more).
Click to expand...

I think this sort of thing should be applauded, I mean it would be VERY hard to make a car with such a ginormous engine have both little to no power AND use up tons of fuel at the same time...
 
Spectre said:
Yeah, the XR4Ti's "issue" was that for the US market, it looked strange. You can't argue that, it really does look strange for the US market.

As the article says, there isn't anything actually wrong with the car, it just looked odd and it didn't sell.
Click to expand...

I don't quite agree with the Xr4Ti either.

Infact, the Xr4 is a GREAT car (well, the Sierra is, which it's based on).. I think the Merkur came too early to the US, as in the styling was far too controversial. In the early 80's in Europe when the Taunus/Cortina was replaced by the Sierra, everyone thought it looked bulbous, which the Americans also thought when the design was shipped there.

I do maintain however that the Sierra is a great car: balanced handling, independent suspension, cheap lsd's available, great engines, and the design has aged well.

What i do agree on is the Mustang II, the horror of horrors.
 
Spectre said:
It gets worse.

The 1980 Camaro, similarly constrained, made 120hp from a 4.4L V8. Rather embarassing, since the 3.8L V6 base model made 115hp. The 1975 Camaro made a whopping 145hp from a 5.7L V8 (though the "high output" version made 10 more).
Click to expand...

Yup. My parents used to have a 1979 Z28. 167HP from 5.7L. Something like 280 torques though, so it wasn't that slow.
 
NooDle said:
I think this sort of thing should be applauded, I mean it would be VERY hard to make a car with such a ginormous engine have both little to no power AND use up tons of fuel at the same time...
Click to expand...

Actually, it is quite easy.

Take a bigass 5L plus motor.
Put very low compression pistons in it.
Put a tiny 250cfm carburetor on top.
Reduce the exhaust pipe size to half what it needs to be.

Presto, there you go.
 
TomCat said:
Can't really blame the car companies for the oil embargo of that time.
Click to expand...

You are right - only American car companies are to blame. In the late 70s early 80s European cars had about the same power as American cars, but were using considerably smaller engines. You have to admit having something like a 2.8 V6 produce 140hp is not as embarrasing as 140hp from 5.0 V8. (not exact numbers, just giving example)
 
_HighVoltage_ said:
You are right - only American car companies are to blame. In the late 70s early 80s European cars had about the same power as American cars, but were using considerably smaller engines. You have to admit having something like a 2.8 V6 produce 140hp is not as embarrasing as 140hp from 5.0 V8. (not exact numbers, just giving example)
Click to expand...

Surely, but at the same time typical European cars weren't making 400+hp a couple years earlier. The oil embargo hit hard and the car companies had new strict regulations to meet and nothing but V8 motor designs to work with for their performance vehicles. It was far easier on the Europeans and Japanese who had perfected small engine designs, even for performance applications, then it was for the Americans. The 4 & 6 cylinder engines built by the big 3 were rather pathetic and typically stuck in cars that were far heavier then your similar sized European or Japanese cars. Not to mention Americans still loved their V8's and cursed these tiny tin cans from Japan. I'm sure at the time many Americans would gladly pay more for an upgraded 145hp V8 over the standard 140hp V6.
 
You are forgetting Mercedes and their monster 4-6L V8s. Sorry, your argument doesn't fly.
 
What about them? In the late 70s Mercedes were using a 4.5 V8 making 190hp, which is a lot more than what GM was making with a 5.0.
 
I don't think some people realize just how long it takes to actually design and test and engine....

You can't just say oh shit, I need a new engine by next week.
 
Spectre said:
You are forgetting Mercedes and their monster 4-6L V8s. Sorry, your argument doesn't fly.
Click to expand...

I don't care. Your hate for the big three and anything built by union hands is well known. Trying to claim the oil embargo and increasing emissions regs had nothing to do with the pathetic power output of engines released immediately after the oil embargo is thin at best.
 
Hidden_Hunter said:
I don't think some people realize just how long it takes to actually design and test and engine....

You can't just say oh shit, I need a new engine by next week.
Click to expand...

True, but they had nearly 20 years from the early 70s till the end of the 80s and they didn't do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top