Supergrobo82

I think that other SRT-4 guy is talking about is the Nitro

PacerX

I think we can all agree that in the end the removal of lead was a good thing, and I'm not bummed about it at all.

Red's Anti-Trust point is very well taken also. At the point that the decision was made to lower emissions and increase fuel economy, the Big 3.5 (AMC was still around) should have been allowed to share information and technology so as to improve their competitiveness.

Derek M

Same thing happened in my situation. 1995 Z28 MSRP $21,000 vs 2005 GTO MSRP $33,000. GTO is to this day cheaper to insure. Go figure. Everyone's situation might be different. I just chalked it up as being rather odd.

Eric77TA

The Pontiac L78 (180 horse) 400 also received "6.6 Litre" decals on the scoop in 1977 and 1978 with W72 cards receiving "T/A 6.6." T/A 6.6 was the only available Pontiac 400 in '79 (actually stockpiled from 1978 production). Olds engined cars have a "K" in the VIN (2W87K) and Pontiac engined cars have a Z (2W87Z). The only way to verify for sure that you have a T/A 6.6 is PHS documentation. There are tons of cars I've seen that have Olds VIN, but T/A 6.6 scoops. I think this is because the T/A 6.6 stickers are included in a lot of the decal kits.

The Super Duty 455 was produced in 1973 and 1974 and is probably the greatest smogger motor of all time, IMO. Capable of 13s with a good tune. It's amazing that the engine made it to production at all - though it hit the street without its originally designed dry sump oiling. How awesome would that have been in '73?

NikiVee

Or with the more radical RA IV cam.

guionM

I see what you're saying. But that 1978 emissions system offered better performance than the one from 1974. And that '74 version was likely engineered in '72.

On the other point, are you saying that taking lead out of fuel was a bad thing?


Going to the horsepower guesses, the 350 chevy engine is an excellent example to see how much pollution equptment affected horsepower since it was mostly unchanged in base form from introduction till after the 70s played out.



When it came out in '67 the 350 with a 4bbl carb it had 295hp (gross).

It went up to 5 horses to 300 in 1970. It had 10.25 compression (L48).

In 1971, the L48 had 270 gross (210 net) horsepower. Compression dropped to 8.5, which created a 30 horse drop. Torque at 360 lbs/ft (300 net) was off 20 from the previous year. Both net & gross power figures directly are from GM, net to gross equaled 60hp on the 350 4 barrel.

In '72, it dropped by 5 to 200hp. No change in torque.

In '73 175 & 260 due to EGR valve this year.

1974 185 & 270, 10 extra horses & torque. This was despite the 1st year of the catalytic converter.

1975, Camaro adoped California's version LM1 across the board, and power dropped to 155 & 250.

1976 jump to 165 & 260.

1977 increase to 170 & 270

1979 up another 5 to 175 while torque stayed at 270.

1980, big jump to 190 hp and 280 torque.

Worth noting although emissions diverted resources, there were still ways to make horsepower.


Noteworthy things:
*Switching to unleaded and the related compression drop cost 30 horses & 20 torque.

*73's EGR valve cost us 25 horses. I think air pumps started this year as well.

*74's HEI (high energy Ignition) made alot of power. Even with Cats, it gained 10 hp.

*From 1975 when GM used California's engine in everything, they steadily increased performance to where it had only a 20 horse deficit to the non smogged motor of the 350's early years. GM did the same thing with Pontiac's Trans Am's 6.6.

Not quite stamping out the last vestiges of horsepower.

teal98

No. All I wrote was that it came from the tree huggers. I.e., it came about from the requirement to lower exhaust emissions, both directly and indirectly. The direct requirement was to lower lead emissions. The indirect requirement was to not poison catalytic converters.

I guess the only reason that you and pacerx may have confused my statement is that "tree huggers" are people who advocate emission regulations that you/we disagree with? I was assuming "tree huggers" is shorthand for "those who advocated for and passed regulations lowering exhaust emissions".

FWIW, I think the emission regulations were a good idea, but they moved too quickly and with insufficient flexibility. The current system that averages emissions and has staged implementation would have had much better results back in the 70s than what was done.

teal98

But you're comparing the base 350 in 1971 with the high performance 350 in 1980. The 190 horse 350 in the 1980 model year would be comparable to the LT1 in 1971 in terms of market position. One would put the Corvette through the 1/4 in about 16 flat and the other in the high 14s. In Europe, you could still buy the equivalent of the LT1 in 1980.

In 1986, Mercedes had two versions of their 5.6l V8 engine. The version we got had 238hp. The version available in Europe had 300hp (though some markets also got our version as an option -- Germany had some sort of tax credit for low emission vehicles). And this was after engine computers, fuel injection, high flow cats, etc. With carbs and pellet cats, that 5.6 would have been nowhere near 238, yet the Euro version with carbs could still have been close to 300.

So I think that cars in 1975 were down 75-100hp from where they would have been without emission controls. A 455 Olds probably would have made 290 net instead of 190. Still not much compared to the muscle car era, but it would have been at least a low 15 second car instead of a high 17 second car.
Of course, if Olds had sprung for dual cats and put a lot of effort into higher flow cats, they probably could have gotten back to 250-260. But at that time, it would have made no sense to put the engineering development and cost into that. Without emission controls, the 290 would have come for free.

So whether or not they ended the muscle car era, exhaust emission controls emasculated the cars that were actually built far more than they would have been.

notgetleft

I dont follow. You shouldn't compare engines based on what the option sheet called it. You should use similarity of configuration:

The LT1 had a holley carb, aluminum intake, bigger cam than the base engine, etc.

The 1971 base engine is what evolved into the 190hp engine of 1980, you can see this via the same basic qjet carb, low lift/duration cam, low rise iron intake.

Eric77TA

Very true. Forgot that tidbit. I believe that a couple of the first road test cars actually had the 041 cam before it was replaced for production. Along with the "cheater" EGR (shut off after 53 seconds - since the EPA test was 50 seconds ). Too bad the EPA found out about that one.

teal98

It depends on what you're discussing.

This subthread started when guionm said that the "tree huggers" (which I take to mean exhaust emission regulations) weren't responsible for the death of the muscle car.

If not for the emission regulations, the 1980 Corvette engine could have had the same sort of high performance parts as the 1971 LT1 and put out 275-300 and likely had similar fuel consumption to what the L82 did. In my book, a 275 net hp engine in a Corvette or Camaro or Malibu is close enough to a muscle car.

So I think the hypothesis is at best 1/2 right.

notgetleft

Oh, ok. I read Guy's post more as a timeline of how emmisions regulations DIRECTLY affected the power potential of a given engine, which is why following the same basic engine configuration and seeing how the year to year changes affected it made sense to me. That the base engine only lost 20 hp by the time manufacturers figured out what was going on was the moral of his story. You're saying the regs cost the possibility of even putting an aluminum intake, bigger cam and holley carb on in the first place, therefore still way down on power compared to the old top engine.

both are valid points, Yours is more aimed at the regulations since they got rid of the good speed parts to begin with. Guy's point is the add on equipment and tuning only costed 20hp, practically all of which was probably the pellet cat.

teal98

Right. Though the aluminum intake itself probably wasn't a problem. The cam and carb surely would have been.

Yeah. 20hp versus the restrictive single exhaust 1971 base engine. Btw, engines like the Cadillac 500ci were already losing lots of power due to their single exhaust, pre cats. So, for example, the Olds 455 might produce 340 gross hp in a number of models with the high performance W30 producing 350 (1971). But the net would range from 225 to 270 on the standard engine, depending on external equipment and then up to 300 on the W30. So you had two cars with a 10hp difference in gross and a 75hp difference in net horsepower. By 1975, the Olds 455 was down to 190. From a muscle car perspective, I say that the cost of emissions was 110hp (top engine is 190, was 300). From the perspective of an Olds Ninety-Eight owner, they cost 35hp. If you're comparing 350s, it was only 10hp (170 to 180).

If Olds had put a lot of effort into it, they probably could have built a dual-cat 455 with 250hp. But what was the point? Muscle cars just a few years old could be had real cheap, with much more than 250hp. Gas was expensive. So Olds never could have recouped engineering and development costs. If the emission laws hadn't changed, they could have kept selling the 270hp model (non W30) from 1971 at minimal expense.

I'm kind of an Oldsmobile fan, btw

jg95z28

FWIW My 67 RS has an air pump.

All California Camaros in 1967 got the A.I.R. system. In 1968 only California Camaros with Manual Transmissions got them initially (my old 68 RS with a PG had none) then in late 68/early 69 (I can't remember exactly) the A.I.R. system returned across the board.

teal98

Colloquially known as smog pumps. They first started appearing in California in 1966 and nationwide in 1968. Some models needed them and others didn't. By 1971, emissions of HC and CO were said to be about 60% less than 1960 model cars. My 1971 Cutlass does not have A.I.R., but it has Transmission Controlled Spark.

A.I.R. only cost a few hp at the top end. Many people removed them. The TCS in my Cutlass affects midrange part-throttle in 1st and 2nd. No effect at full throttle or in 3rd gear (TH350).