2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia All 2010 - 2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015 Camaro news, photos, and videos
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

2009........ 1969 reborn...... but better!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-08-2005, 09:09 PM
  #76  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
guionM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Re: 2009........ 1969 reborn...... but better!

Originally Posted by 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.
1. Yes and No. Horsepower on the 350 was down 55 horses at worse directly related to emissions requirements (155 vice 210). However, the Z28 (and it's engine) died because of poor sales. The LS6 454 died because no one bought them due to the cost of insurence.

Another intresting point, Chrysler's top 4 barrel 440 engine in 1972 (carry over from '71 save the net rating) put out 245hp & 360 torque. In '73, it went up to 275 & 380. Ditto 1974. But the Challenger and Barracuda didn't even make it through '74. Point is manufacturers aren't going to put their money where it's not going to do them any good. In '75 Chrysler ripped the 440s out of everything save trucks and some large cars because people weren't buying big engine cars anymore. Horsepower dropped a mere 25 to 250.

2. There was no high performance 350 in 1980. Only the LM1. Only difference was it had solenoid flaps in the hood that brought in air at WOT. The LT1 had performance parts (different head, cam, intakes), and can't be compared to anything. However, the baseline 350 4 barrel was a constant from 1967 up to 1981. Not talking about marketing, I'm talking about emissions actual affect on horsepower. The 350 4 barrel is a perfect yardstick.

2. We aren't talking about Europe. The issue is how much did emissions standards reallystarve horsepower over here.

3. Oldsmobile's 455:
365 (gross hp) in 1970.
340 gross in '71 (which calls their 1970 rating into suspicion since it was the same engine)
270 net in 1972 (same engine different way of rating)
250 in '73 & '74

Production ended in 1976.

When GM stopped using dual exhausts, and used a single converter instead of twins, the final 455s were rated at 210 horsepower, about a 40 horse drop (about 60 from the emissions free days of '72 and prior).

Safe to say Olds' engines with duals had under 300 without emissions and 250 with. This corresponds with our 350 4 barrel Chevrolet's losses due to emissions equptment.

BTW: GM used single exhausts due to cost savings, not emissions regulations.

Some Chrysler V8s used duals well into the 1980s. Even the Mustang II 2.6 V6 had duals feeding into a large rear muffler with twin outlets.
guionM is offline  
Old 12-08-2005, 10:46 PM
  #77  
Registered User
 
teal98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Re: 2009........ 1969 reborn...... but better!

Originally Posted by guionM
1. Yes and No. Horsepower on the 350 was down 55 horses at worse directly related to emissions requirements (155 vice 210). However, the Z28 (and it's engine) died because of poor sales. The LS6 454 died because no one bought them due to the cost of insurence.

Another intresting point, Chrysler's top 4 barrel 440 engine in 1972 (carry over from '71 save the net rating) put out 245hp & 360 torque. In '73, it went up to 275 & 380. Ditto 1974. But the Challenger and Barracuda didn't even make it through '74. Point is manufacturers aren't going to put their money where it's not going to do them any good. In '75 Chrysler ripped the 440s out of everything save trucks and some large cars because people weren't buying big engine cars anymore. Horsepower dropped a mere 25 to 250.
Actually, the 1971 Chrysler 440 had 305 net hp as installed in the Charger and its brethren.

Originally Posted by guionM
2. There was no high performance 350 in 1980. Only the LM1. Only difference was it had solenoid flaps in the hood that brought in air at WOT. The LT1 had performance parts (different head, cam, intakes), and can't be compared to anything. However, the baseline 350 4 barrel was a constant from 1967 up to 1981. Not talking about marketing, I'm talking about emissions actual affect on horsepower. The 350 4 barrel is a perfect yardstick.

2. We aren't talking about Europe. The issue is how much did emissions standards reallystarve horsepower over here.
If you're trying to compare emission effects on horsepower as in your second #2, you should be taking into account internal engine changes as in your first #2. The 1971 LT1 could never have passed 1980 emission standards. So to just compare an engine that does pass them with a derestricted version of itself understates the loss of horsepower.

Secondly, the difference between a European-legal engine and American-legal engine is a perfect indicator of how much emission standards cost in terms of horsepower lost over here. The chemistry and physics are the same, no matter who builds it.

Originally Posted by guionM
3. Oldsmobile's 455:
365 (gross hp) in 1970.
340 gross in '71 (which calls their 1970 rating into suspicion since it was the same engine)
270 net in 1972 (same engine different way of rating)
250 in '73 & '74

Production ended in 1976.

When GM stopped using dual exhausts, and used a single converter instead of twins, the final 455s were rated at 210 horsepower, about a 40 horse drop (about 60 from the emissions free days of '72 and prior).

Safe to say Olds' engines with duals had under 300 without emissions and 250 with. This corresponds with our 350 4 barrel Chevrolet's losses due to emissions equptment.

BTW: GM used single exhausts due to cost savings, not emissions regulations.

Some Chrysler V8s used duals well into the 1980s. Even the Mustang II 2.6 V6 had duals feeding into a large rear muffler with twin outlets.
You've got a number of things wrong above. In 1970, it was 365 gross for the standard 455 with 4bbl carb. In 1971, it was 340, but that was due to the change in compression. The net in 1971 varied substantially depending on single or dual exhaust and 442 versus B-bodies. The W30 model was rated at 300 net in 1971.

By 1975 with the cat, it was 190, not 210. The 403 that replaced it in 1977 had 185hp, a minimal loss.

Dual exhaust was available with the 455 until 1975. The extra cost up until catcons was minimal. After catcons, the exhaust systems became much more expensive. It wasn't until many years later that GM even engineered a system with dual cats. So I'd say the loss of dual exhaust was directly related to emission standards, because those standards made it too expensive to offer.

So lets recount. The 1970 Olds W30 engine made a supposed 370 gross hp. Net was around 320, based on acceleration times recorded in that era. The lower compression engine (lower compression because of emission standards) had 300. By 1976, the single exhaust standard engine (W30 engine wouldn't pass emission standards, dual exhaust was too expensive to engineer and produce for anticipated volume, because of emission standards) was 190hp.

I guess you can restrict your field of inquiry as much as you want, ignoring second order effects -- such as emission standards making dual exhaust much more expensive, former high performance engines unable to pass emission standards leaving only standard models, emission standards forcing lower compression engines -- and maybe come to a conclusion that the effect on power was minimal. However, I think you end up with the wrong conclusion.

If the U.S. had had European standards, I think it highly likely that there would have been some sort of 1980 Z28 with more like 275 hp, which though still not equal to the musclecars of yore, at least could still be called at least a 1/2 muscle car in the way that the actual 190hp model could not. So that gets me back to where I said I 1/2 agree.

Last edited by teal98; 12-08-2005 at 10:48 PM.
teal98 is offline  
Old 12-08-2005, 11:40 PM
  #78  
Registered User
 
teal98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Re: 2009........ 1969 reborn...... but better!

A quick little thought experiment.

Let's say the new Camaro comes out in 2009 with 400hp. Then it gets 430 in 2010. In 2011, due to new SULEV emission standards, it drops to 360. It says there for a few years, then in 2015, it drops to 300 because it runs on hydrogen.

GM determines that they could develop a high performance option with 340hp, but with anticipated volume, it would be a $4000 option.

How many people would want to spend that money versus just go out and buy a 2010 model? Btw, the 2010 models are really cheap, because they still run on gasoline, and gasoline is being taxed heavily to convince people to buy hydrogen and save the air.
teal98 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
mark0006
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
1
08-29-2015 09:45 AM
Collector Car
Cars For Sale
0
12-17-2014 01:12 PM
jmthigh
Classic Engine Tech
2
07-09-2003 08:12 AM
Timberwolf
Midwest
13
02-01-2003 06:20 PM



Quick Reply: 2009........ 1969 reborn...... but better!



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:02 AM.