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

Think about it.

By this time, not only will the big 3 have pony cars for the 1st time since 1974 (35 years by this time), but Dodge, Chevrolet, and (most likely) Pontiac wil be fielding the most powerful RWD sedans ever in their history.

Cadillac will have even more powerful STS and CTS "V" cars than today.

Cobalt's aftermarket should have come full strength by then. As Solstices come off warranty, owners should be dialing these things up to current base Corvette levels.

Ford is going to have Mustangs over the 500 horse levels.

GM is likely to have Corvettes over 600.

SVT Futuras (if SVT lives up to what they seem to be aiming for) will perform at or above current V8 Impala SS levels, with AWD.

We should have a new Thunderbird that's going to be far quicker than the last one.

the Viper is likely to have a V10......Hemi!

That goes without mentioning SRT-4's successors (yes, plural!).


The end of this decade promises to put the so-called muscle car era to absolute shame insofar as performance cars and the variety we'll be able to get performance in.

As long as our economy doesn't cave in (deficit spending has a way of collasping economies sooner or later) and as long as GM keeps itself afloat (if it collasped, it would drag the US economy down the tubes with it), we are in for a platinum (forget golden) age of automotive performance cars. :bow:

I like the way you think Guy!!! :thumb:

I'm down with it

I was just talking along these same lines on another board and used the term "renaissance" in reference to what is about to happen over the next couple of years!!:D :D

Best regardSS,

Elie

Hopefully the tree huggers don't launch a massive coordinated offensive against performance cars by then

Hopefully the tree huggers don't launch a massive coordinated offensive against performance cars by then

I dont see how they could . All are fuel efficient , and I do believe both the Hemi and LSx engines are rated as low emissions vehicles .

I dont see how they could . All are fuel efficient , and I do believe both the Hemi and LSx engines are rated as low emissions vehicles .
doesn't matter what gas mileage they get or how clean they burn. to a tree hugger, V8 = end of the world. all of them around here are like that.

Holefully a new Camaro and GTO will still be around..Lucerne also....


Challenger :)

Plus the price of gas is starting to come down.
Screw those tree huggers, if they dont like it they can stay in their Hybrid POS

The big three have the performance part down, and they will continue to get better. This makes me happy :D .

David

And the best part about it is I'll be in the market for my first brand new car about this time!!!!

doesn't matter what gas mileage they get or how clean they burn. to a tree hugger, V8 = end of the world. all of them around here are like that.
Well maybe they'll have to bring a valid argument to the table to actually get anything done.

I like the sound of that, but I don't see the Viper getting a Hemi...or at least that was the word going around a few months ago

I like the sound of that, but I don't see the Viper getting a Hemi...or at least that was the word going around a few months ago

Really? :confused:

I heard they were working on making hemi heads for the Vipers V10,

I dunno, I don’t follow DMC all that closely

As long as our economy doesn't cave in (deficit spending has a way of collasping economies sooner or later) and as long as GM keeps itself afloat (if it collasped, it would drag the US economy down the tubes with it), we are in for a platinum (forget golden) age of automotive performance cars. I was just thinking about this the other day, when I saw an "American Revolution" ad...I was thinking, "Man, how right that is!..":D
Hopefully, it will oust the foreign auto take over of the '80's...either way these are starting to be great times to be an enthusiest!..:cool:

just wait for young drivers and higher accidents / races in these new cars. That's all it'd take for legislation to be written, blah...

The sad thing is that 2009 is too far away. :(

I don't think it's good practice to show concept cars in year 2006 when we will see them in 2009. I'd much rather GM reduced that timeframe down to under 12 months. A three year lead time is long enough to let the competition retaliate or catch up.

just wait for young drivers and higher accidents / races in these new cars. That's all it'd take for legislation to be written, blah...

Unfortunately, you are right. It is already happening.
The last time the HP-war started to get exciting, the artificial gas crisis alone was enough to kill it, but that was before the days on instant global communication, internet, and 24-hour news agencies that could dispell "rumors".
Today, I still expect legislation, insurance, and the natural occurances of the world to yank the curtains on this HP war. Mostly, legislation and insurance.

For example, today is the first day a new set of laws goes into effect here in North Carolina, whereby ANY child under the age of 8 is prohibited from driving an ATV of any size (http://news.yahoo.com/s/wxii/20051130/lo_wxii/3093949). Between the age of 8 and 11, they must have completed a safety course and be operating an ATV of 70cc or less. And so on to age 16, after which ANYONE still has to take a safety course before riding one.
Granted - these are ATV's... for now. Kids getting killed in cars is not much different than kids getting killed on ATV's though, and cars offer the chance to kill MANY others than just the driver (as most ATV accidents do).
I can see legislation coming that will restrict both the HP, age of driver, and even fuel consumption that carmakers are allowed to sell - and without much problem too, especially after the current administration is gone in 2008.

As for insurance, there can be no doubt that rates are going to fly up the charts. There are many myths that need dispelled here too, like "I'm 40 y/o so my rates won't be as bad as a teenager's." That's BS. The rates are determined by each state's insurance board, but there is a rating system that almost all comapnies use (except State Farm who made-up their own system) to determine the risk of insuring a vehicle/driver combo - and the model of the vehicle is a large contributor to that formula. The rating system provided to insurers from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) uses data based on claims, MSRP of the vehicle, crash test results, costs to repair, and the vehicle itself (model, make, etc.). They say clearly that the model has a significant impact on the rating score - regardless of driver's gender, age, etc.
Here's a link to "How Car Model Affects Your Auto Insurance Rates". (http://www.insurance.com/Article.aspx/artid/139).
Therefore, all the variables are already in place to allow insurance companies to go ballistic on our GT500, Z/28, Z06, SRT8, and the like. It will only take someone at the ISO updating the rating system, and your insurance agent will be more than happy to inform you that "your rates have been adjusted up by the insurance board, and you owe us $XXX more next month". And what's more, with every car like yours that gets wrapped around a tree or stuck into the rear of a pickup, the rates for EVERYONE that owns one of these cars will keep inching up in response.
When the insurance costs more per month than the car payment, people will NOT be buying the car en-masse - I promise.

Lastly, fuel.
TOO Z MAXX posted above,"Plus the price of gas is starting to come down."
Dude, how long do you think this is going to last?
You know when the next hurricane season begins?
You think refineries across the US are impervious to tornadoes? Lightning?
You think we have instantly created more refining capacity in the US?
You think we have disbanded OPEC and the oil-shipping cartel that control crude supplies/prices?
You think world supply has instantly doubled?
You think world demand has instantly been halved?
You think China is going to use less fuel oil and gas in the next 5 years?
The price of gas is coming down now because it never should have gone up so high so fast in the first place. This, however, DOES NOT mean we have solved the problems that made it go up to start with. It will never be below $1.50 here in the US again, and I doubt it will go much lower than it is right now. In fact, I expect you will see the traditional spring increases in just a few months as people start taking off for spring breaks, vacations, and school lets out. $2/gal is here to stay... until it starts edging back up. And if we get another hurricane or two next year, we will see $3/gal real soon if not more. We have set a precedent now, so every storm or political event that occurs in the Middle-East, Gulf of Mexico, or Venezuela causes the media to go wild with "speculation", which in turn sends everyone with a gas jug to the local store to hoard-up gas and create a panic. History will repeat itself if nothing changes from the first occurance ---- and it hasn't.
So again, if the fuel bill costs 50-70% of the monthly car payment, you can safely assume that most buyers will not be looking at these performance cars for anything close to daily activity/driving, which will rule-out a lot of potential buyers.

That's 3 strikes against big-powered cars for the common working Joe in the near future, and what it all boils down to is that only those with more money than sense will be able to afford a new XXXXX with 500+ hp. I predict this new age with dozens of high-HP musclecars will be short-lived. Only the musclecars that have the most loyal following and a portfolio of lesser offerings to help financially support the "top-dog" will survive... just like 30 years ago.

That's my .02... Bank It or Bust It. :cool:

The sad thing is that 2009 is too far away. :(

I don't think it's good practice to show concept cars in year 2006 when we will see them in 2009. I'd much rather GM reduced that timeframe down to under 12 months. A three year lead time is long enough to let the competition retaliate or catch up.

ABSOLUTELY a safe bet that Mustang will have a reskin by MY'09, and the opportunity to revamp the driveline too. The new 3.5L engine will be going, hybrid offerings are slated, and more cockpit refinements are a sure bet.

Timing is everything in a niche segment like this, and quick responses to public demand can be the difference between success, also-ran, and failure.

OT: 8 years old at the minimum to ride an ATV? Wow, my sister is getting one for my nephew next year... when he turns 3.

Hopefully the tree huggers don't launch a massive coordinated offensive against performance cars by then

They're too busy pushing hybrids and going after Hummers.

The only thing I see in the immediate future that would threaten all this is the economy imploding either through a collaspe in the financial market or GM going into bankruptcy which would have a chilling effect on the entire US economy for years.


BTW:
Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't the tree huggers that killed the last performance age:

1. Insurence companies banded together around 1969 and began jacking up insurence rates into the stratosphere on anything that had a performance engine, or had the initials "SS" on it.

2. The Feds mandated that lead would be removed from gasoline. High compression engines needed lead, so that ended high compression engines.

3. The baby boomers who bought sport cars in the mid 60s began looking for more comfort and luxury in their cars as they got older.

4. Finally, we had a rude awakening in 1973 when OPEC banded together and turned off the oil.

Detroit was on the verge of creating another "Muscle Car" age in the 1970s based on compact cars (Ventura GTO, Volare Road Runner, Aspen R/T, Nova SS, etc...) but it fizzled out. Only the Chrysler twins with their 340 based 360 engines, and real dual exhausts lived out the decade.

The tree hugger's role in the demise of the muscle car age is greatly exaggerated. :)

I don't think anybody seriously blames tree huggers for the demise of the 60s muscle car. Several different grades of gas today? Sure - but not the end of the LS6/SCJ/Hemi (real one).

That said, I think this movement is MUCH stronger now, and could play a much more prominent role. Personally, I think we do need to get more efficient and reduce emissions, I simply think that in this case - fun cars that are efficient - we can get there with technology

They're too busy pushing hybrids and going after Hummers.

The only thing I see in the immediate future that would threaten all this is the economy imploding either through a collaspe in the financial market or GM going into bankruptcy which would have a chilling effect on the entire US economy for years.


BTW:
Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't the tree huggers that killed the last performance age:

1. Insurence companies banded together around 1969 and began jacking up insurence rates into the stratosphere on anything that had a performance engine, or had the initials "SS" on it.

2. The Feds mandated that lead would be removed from gasoline. High compression engines needed lead, so that ended high compression engines.

3. The baby boomers who bought sport cars in the mid 60s began looking for more comfort and luxury in their cars as they got older.

4. Finally, we had a rude awakening in 1973 when OPEC banded together and turned off the oil.

Detroit was on the verge of creating another "Muscle Car" age in the 1970s based on compact cars (Ventura GTO, Volare Road Runner, Aspen R/T, Nova SS, etc...) but it fizzled out. Only the Chrysler twins with their 340 based 360 engines, and real dual exhausts lived out the decade.

The tree hugger's role in the demise of the muscle car age is greatly exaggerated. :)

Good points... I agree.
I said too that the hp war is not over NOW, but I think it is going to be short-lived. I'm guessing that 2009/2010 will be the "dawn of the end" of the hp-wars. Last time it went about a decade or so, and that's about where we will be again. It seems that it takes time for the big bureaucratic wheels that comprise government, industry, the insurance business, finance business, and ultimately the people's taste and style, to move.

PS - good plug about the tree-huggers too. They were actually as close to non-significant as it gets when it came to the demise of musclecars and ponycars in 1970-1973. They were too busy burning weed and protesting the war to worry about tire smoke and crude oil.:rolleyes:

The real kill-shot was the gas crisis. It was bad enough to have gas rationed to you 5-gallons at a time, but when you could only get it on certain days of the week based on your last name... well, who could sit in a 4-hour line with an engine running that drinks 8 miles/gallon, only to get 5 gallons to last you for 3 more days? People literally HAD to get cars that got 20mpg or better just to get to work and to the gas station again 3 days later.:(

Does the Thunderbird return as a Corvette fighter? I hope so..

Yeah but 1969 pretty much marked the end of the muscle car era. Sure it lingered in some cases, but by 1973 performance was on its way out.

I'd rather go back to 1959, which pretty much began the infancy of what was to become one of the greatest decades in automotive history.

:D

I don't think anybody seriously blames tree huggers for the demise of the 60s muscle car. Several different grades of gas today? Sure - but not the end of the LS6/SCJ/Hemi (real one).

That said, I think this movement is MUCH stronger now, and could play a much more prominent role. Personally, I think we do need to get more efficient and reduce emissions, I simply think that in this case - fun cars that are efficient - we can get there with technology

I couldn't agree more. While I also agree with the comments about rising insurance rates and government legislation being introduced that may offset any gains that automakers are currently making in performance, I think history has pretty much taught us to expect a "one step forward, two steps back" kind've scenario. It may very well be a possibility that by 2009 there will be new laws enacted that will make owning a car like the 5th gen more of a pain in the rump for enthusiasts, but then I see things like this and find that my optimism returns:

http://tmortn.blogspot.com/2005/11/h2n-gen-car-gadget.html

Now granted, this is just a prototype device, and for all I know it may turn out to be a complete failure, but the existence of things like this demonstrates that people are looking ahead and are actually trying to do something about the problem, which is refreshing. So even if in the next 5-7 years we hit another speedbump in the road to performance, it's evidence of technology like this that will allow it to bounce back, just as "the computer age" of internal combustion engines that started in the 80's has bounced us back to where we're at today.

I'm hopeful. :thumb:

Adjusted for inflation $5,700 in 1969 is equal to $30,000 in 2005.

Do any of you old-timers know what new muscle & Pony cars were selling for in 1969??

Adjusted for inflation $5,700 in 1969 is equal to $30,000 in 2005.

Do any of you old-timers know what new muscle & Pony cars were selling for in 1969??

There's a McDonald's in the Cincinnati, OH area just outside of the King's Island theme park. Anyway the inside of this McDonald's is all decorated up with Corvette memorabilia. Last time I was there, I remember seeing a poster showing a picture of a 67' Corvette, and at the bottom it showed a photocopy of a window sticker from the dealer: $4,600, fully loaded.

My Dad's 69 convertible 'Vette stickered at $5400 for a 427 tri-power (400 horse) with a 4 spd. Hell of a welcome home present to himself after two tours in Vietnam. And btw, he said his c6 convertible would smoke that car up and down the track, road whatever. Amazing how how far technology has come. After being able to drive it a couple weeks ago, I have to say what an absolutely fantastic car.

My Dad's 69 convertible 'Vette stickered at $5400 for a 427 tri-power (400 horse) with a 4 spd. Hell of a welcome home present to himself after two tours in Vietnam. And btw, he said his c6 convertible would smoke that car up and down the track, road whatever. Amazing how how far technology has come. After being able to drive it a couple weeks ago, I have to say what an absolutely fantastic car.


That just shows that the retail prices of many cars have have outpaced inflation and a Corvette in 1969 would sell for under $30,000 in todays $'s. I wont argue that todays cars are faster, safer, and handle better but at the end of the day they are still more expensive.

This reminds me how over the last 15 years the 2005 Honda Civic has grown into what the Honda Accord was in 1990 and the 2005 Accord has grown into what the Acura Legend was in 1990 as well. While automakers keep the same name over the years often those same cars evolve and tranform into a larger, more refined, and more expensive car over a decade or so.

So we can expect the top-model 2009 Camaro will outperform what a new 1999 Vette was able to achieve but that top Camaro will most likely sell close in price to what that 1999 base-level Vette sold for as well.

Wow there is so much in this thread I dont agree with I dont even know where to start.

:D

I don't think anybody seriously blames tree huggers for the demise of the 60s muscle car. Several different grades of gas today? Sure - but not the end of the LS6/SCJ/Hemi (real one).



Not that i was alive during it, but you mean to tell me that low compression, small cams, and pellet type catalytic converters weren't responsible for killing performance / muscle cars?

I'm asking seriously because you're not the only person in this thread saying that. Again, i admit i wasn't alive, but when lumpy cam big blocks with factory dual exhaust dissapeared exactly when catalytic converters and unleaded gas appeared, i'm left confused.

Do any of you old-timers know what new muscle & Pony cars were selling for in 1969??My Dad's '68 Camaro SS, 396/325, was $3,800 + change.
I wonder how much of the Fed.'s eliminating lead from the fuel was affected by the Tree Huggers?
I think Guy hit the nail on the head...2. The Feds mandated that lead would be removed from gasoline. High compression engines needed lead, so that ended high compression engines.Cubes, compression and Horsepower, fell like a meteor from the sky after this one.

The Escalade is the Cadillac Fleetwood of our day and it has a 403HP/417tq V8 standard!!!!! With a V-series on the way!!!!

It is amazing what many of us today think is wimpy for car/truck XYZ and 10 years ago we were drooling over that #.

Anyone remember 225HP 1995 Mustang GTs? They still could smoke the tires pretty good. How about 200HP 5.7L Chevy truck...... 220HP in a Colorado doesn't look so bad now.

a 320HP 2001 WS6 Trans Am is as fast as the fastest car sold in the USA back in 1988.

Wow there is so much in this thread I dont agree with I dont even know where to start.

:D


heh heh, no kidding!

We're also entering a DESIGN Golden Era too, especially at GM. Things are going to be very exciting the next few years, and all my bitching for desirable cars will finally pay off. It's like a design orgasm:D

Not that i was alive during it, but you mean to tell me that low compression, small cams, and pellet type catalytic converters weren't responsible for killing performance / muscle cars?

I'm asking seriously because you're not the only person in this thread saying that. Again, i admit i wasn't alive, but when lumpy cam big blocks with factory dual exhaust dissapeared exactly when catalytic converters and unleaded gas appeared, i'm left confused.

I didn't mean to imply that government regulation as a result of the environmental movement didn't have a part in it, but I think other things mentioned in this thread were a much larger part.

Not that i was alive during it, but you mean to tell me that low compression, small cams, and pellet type catalytic converters weren't responsible for killing performance / muscle cars?

I'm asking seriously because you're not the only person in this thread saying that. Again, i admit i wasn't alive, but when lumpy cam big blocks with factory dual exhaust dissapeared exactly when catalytic converters and unleaded gas appeared, i'm left confused.

Muscle cars started tanking very VERY rapidly in 1970.

Catalytic converters started showing up in cars in 1974, though Chrysler got along without them in most V8 cars till '77. Low compression engines and their related smaller cams happened in '73 & '74. In 1973, you could almost hold a meeting of all high performance buyers that year in a school gymnasium.

In 1977, complete with single exhaust and pellet converter, Pontiac created Trans Am's TA/6.6 engine, which actually was a significant increase in horses over the previous few years with that engine.

If there was a market for muscle cars in the 1970s, you could bet your little finger that automakers would have had them on the market.... and they actually tried.

I didn't mean to imply that government regulation as a result of the environmental movement didn't have a part in it, but I think other things mentioned in this thread were a much larger part.

Back then, at least enviromentalists made sense, and were right. That lead in gasoline was coming out the tail pipe, and we all were sucking it in. :yuck:

Today, though cars essentially no longer pollute, the only thing they come up with is "global warming".... too much CO2 in the air. Personally, I don't buy into it, but that's just me. The only answer is better fuel economy, but that isn't going to affect performance as long as the public demands it, so I'm not worried.

We're also entering a DESIGN Golden Era too, especially at GM. Things are going to be very exciting the next few years, and all my bitching for desirable cars will finally pay off. It's like a design orgasm:D

That's the word. :D

Muscle cars started tanking very VERY rapidly in 1970.

Catalytic converters started showing up in cars in 1974, though Chrysler got along without them in most V8 cars till '77. Low compression engines and their related smaller cams happened in '73 & '74. In 1973, you could almost hold a meeting of all high performance buyers that year in a school gymnasium.

In 1977, complete with single exhaust and pellet converter, Pontiac created Trans Am's TA/6.6 engine, which actually was a significant increase in horses over the previous few years with that engine.

If there was a market for muscle cars in the 1970s, you could bet your little finger that automakers would have had them on the market.... and they actually tried.

Thanks for the lesson. I never realized things got so bad so early since some of the 70s and 71s are the best of the bunch; I guess they were the swan song.

Thanks for the lesson. I never realized things got so bad so early since some of the 70s and 71s are the best of the bunch; I guess they were the swan song.

Yep. Except for Pontiac's Trans Am and Chrysler's Road Runner Volare & R/T Aspen with the 360 and duals, that was it.

Even the Z28 died in '74. When it came back just ahead of the 1978 model year (April '77), it had the identical engine that was in the new smaller Chevy Caprice.... the 170 horse LM1. :cry:

Thanks for the lesson. I never realized things got so bad so early since some of the 70s and 71s are the best of the bunch; I guess they were the swan song.

To add to the fray...

Ford's marketing prowess in 1969-1970 was simply unbelievable... it's like they had a crystal ball.
They foresaw the coming legislation on emmissions and fuel changes, and began to realign in mid-flight.
* Iacocca's insight to downsize the Mustang started in 1969 (see another thread in this forum for more details on this point). Don't laugh - the M-II was car of the year in 1974, and sold like $.25 hot dogs... it's what the people wanted at the right time.
* Ford stopped development of their performance engine programs after the incredible 429 Semi-hemi NASCAR engines (that powered the Boss 429 Mustang of 1969 and 1970).
* The 429 that was developed creeped into about 1800 Mach 1's in 1971 - ironically, THAT was the very engine that Bunkie Knudsen made the car so big for!
* The Boss 351 was the fastest Mustang ever until the 2003 Cobras, and it also died in it's innaugural year - 1971. (A lower compression version was offered in 1972 as an "R-code" known as the 351 H.O. - also available for only one year, most speculate to use the Boss parts up.)
* Smog systems on California cars in 1970 became mandatory, most took it off as soon as they got home and threw it away, now they're some of the most highly sought-after and expensive NOS parts in the hobby.:shock:
* In 1970, Ford pulled out of all auto racing programs. Only private partys maintained race teams, and without Ford factory sponsorship. Ford was basically out of all racing and performance auto sports for the entire decade.
* The Maverick and Pinto came to market in 1970 and 1971 respectively. The Maverick was to replace the fatter Falcon. The Pinto was Ford's first shot at a true American compact (that didn't really go to well, as some may recall. ;) ). Both of these cars were meant to be more economical and "thrifty" than the models they replaced, and both have reputations that carry on even today - despite being dead since 1980!:eek:

I could go on and on, but you get the jest by now i'm sure. 1969/1970 was really a huge turning point for Ford, basically finding them walking away from a very dominant performance program grown in the 1960's, that included the Shelby GT350R cars that won championships routinely, the Boss 302 Trans-Am championships, multiple NASCAR championships with David Pearson and Cale Yarborough, Don Garlits taking NHRA championships, 428 CobraJet S/Stock championships, GT-40s that were raping Ferraris and Porsches on domestic and foreign tracks alike, Daytona Coupes that dominated, SC Cobras that dominated, etc, etc, etc.
To see Ford just close-up shop and walk away from all that success and investment in just 1 year... well, it must have been utterly jaw-dropping in 1970. I can't imagine that happening again. :no:

But again, some of the cars they replaced the musclecars and land-yachts with actually have reputations that live strong even today, and the company certainly was reaping the rewards with HUGE sales and customer satisfaction from the mid-'70s through the '80s. And as guionM commented in another thread, Donald Petersen presided over a period of unprecedented success for Ford through the 1980s. Just goes to show that sometimes what appears to be a crazy decision to an enthusiast (like abandoning/radically changing the vehicles that seem to be your bread-and-butter) can turn out to be a wise move for the company in the long run.

Food for thought.:think:

In 1977, complete with single exhaust and pellet converter, Pontiac created Trans Am's TA/6.6 engine, which actually was a significant increase in horses over the previous few years with that engine.They also had the "6.6 Liter" engine as stamped on the hood scoop, an Olds 403ci version. But I believe the 1974 or '75(?) 455/SD motors were said to be the strongest.(I was big into Pontiacs then, that's why I bought a '67 Firebird 400 for my first car.)(I felt Camaro had betrayed me with the body switch of 1970...now I kinda like'em.:cool: )
I loved the return of the Z28's....my cousin had a show quality, Blue with light and dark blue decal/striped, chin spoilers, hood scoop, rallys, quarter flares, 350/4bbl/Auto-350T, '79 Z28...it could still roast the tires pretty easily.:D
I liked the 160mph speedo's too..:eek:

Wow.......this post is a ray of light in an otherwise dark horizen. :)

lets not forget the 40 year anniversary :)

They're too busy pushing hybrids and going after Hummers.

The only thing I see in the immediate future that would threaten all this is the economy imploding either through a collaspe in the financial market or GM going into bankruptcy which would have a chilling effect on the entire US economy for years.


BTW:
Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't the tree huggers that killed the last performance age:

1. Insurence companies banded together around 1969 and began jacking up insurence rates into the stratosphere on anything that had a performance engine, or had the initials "SS" on it.

2. The Feds mandated that lead would be removed from gasoline. High compression engines needed lead, so that ended high compression engines.

3. The baby boomers who bought sport cars in the mid 60s began looking for more comfort and luxury in their cars as they got older.

4. Finally, we had a rude awakening in 1973 when OPEC banded together and turned off the oil.

Detroit was on the verge of creating another "Muscle Car" age in the 1970s based on compact cars (Ventura GTO, Volare Road Runner, Aspen R/T, Nova SS, etc...) but it fizzled out. Only the Chrysler twins with their 340 based 360 engines, and real dual exhausts lived out the decade.

The tree hugger's role in the demise of the muscle car age is greatly exaggerated. :)

very good post and correct points...but I'd add something to number 4.....as a result, the federal govt. created CAFE (Corp Average Fuel Economy) laws....and those laws combined with emissions sent the industry...esp. the domestics which built the large cars that America claimed they wanted......into a tailspin. Essentially, the Government said "Clean up your tailpipe emissions by (I recall) 70%.....improve your fuel economy by 75%.....and you have 5 years to do it....and, oh, by the way........you can't talk to each other 'cause that's Anti-Trust.

The Foreign cars, on the other hand...had been building fuel efficient cars forever because of the wants and needs of their home markets. Gasoline has always been substantially more expensive overseas.....further, Japan's government had no restrictions on working together.

The Foreign cars, on the other hand...had been building fuel efficient cars forever because of the wants and needs of their home markets. Gasoline has always been substantially more expensive overseas.....further, Japan's government had no restrictions on working together.
That's really wierd. Its like a teacher telling a student that working on the school newspaper in a group is collusion. :blah:

The insurance problem was mentioned. A question I've been meaning to ask is, how do the insurance companies determine the rates for new vehicles, such as the SSR, HHR, and soon to be 5th gen?

Do the automanufacturers have to resort to underrating certain aspects of the car to get around this?
Maybe they should dyno the car with the A/C on full blast, the stereo turned up, and all the options/features of the car being used...I mean hey, that is reasonable right? Because that is how a car operates on the roads, with the a/c on, windows being rolled up and down, stereo on, etc. Lets be honest, its only fair to operate a vehicle on a dyno in the same manner that a consumer would be operating it legally on the street.
Heck, maybe the computer will allow the vehicle to have two settings, a street and strip mode. Street for better gas mileage and limits the HP of the car by a good amount. And a strip button. I mean, if your insurance won't cover you crashing at the race track, then they should not be able to cite the "strip mode" (car having worse emissions, more hp) to insurance policy pricing. How about the gov? Would they mind a bad emissions "strip mode" to be on the car?

edit: Also, are there any stock guys in here? Will the 5th gen concept affect GMs stock?

Does the Thunderbird return as a Corvette fighter? I hope so..

So Corvette can kick it's a$$ AGAIN????

Yeesh. You would think they would have learned by now.

Thinking of having an even better muscle car era for my generation that came too late for it gives me the chills. I've always been jealous of all of you that lived through those years to experience it, I just hope we have some sweet looking cars to go with the power, I don't want some boring looking car with an LS7 *coughGTOcough*

Maybe they should dyno the car with the A/C on full blast, the stereo turned up, and all the options/features of the car being used...I mean hey, that is reasonable right?


AC compressor kicks off at WOT. Having most of the options on is not likely to have much of an affect on the final HP total on the dyno.

What SRT-4 replacementS ?

I know of the Caliber STR4.. Whats the other one?

How is the TBird coming back? Is it going to be another 2-seater, or is it going to be like the TBirds of the 90s?

That's really wierd. Its like a teacher telling a student that working on the school newspaper in a group is collusion. :blah:

The insurance problem was mentioned. A question I've been meaning to ask is, how do the insurance companies determine the rates for new vehicles, such as the SSR, HHR, and soon to be 5th gen?

Do the automanufacturers have to resort to underrating certain aspects of the car to get around this?

When the insurence industry started slamming it to performance cars, they did it through a number of means. Horsepower ratings, gender, and the version of the car you bought and how many doors it had. At one time, even the color of the car influenced your insurance. If you were a male driving a '69 Red Plymouth Road Runner with a Hemi and a manual, you'd be selling your new born next to a married female who bought a blue Plymouth Satellite with a 318.

Insurence today is quite a bit better than it was back then. They actually look at driving records, age groups, zip codes, and (at least in Cali) are gender and car color neutral.

Most important of all, a car's rate is based on average claims. Cars with an older demographic tend to be alot cheaper to insure than so-called "ricers, regardless of actual horsepower. That's why you have Mitsubishis V6 Eclipses and I4 Acura Integras costing more (and Mustang GTs with nearly a 100 horse deficit costing as much or even more) to insure than high powered, 160 mph Chevrolet Camaros of the same year.


edit: Also, are there any stock guys in here? Will the 5th gen concept affect GMs stock?

Stocks are affected by one thing.....money! The 5th gen won't affect GM's stock alone. Ford can't make enough Mustangs and F series trucks, yet their stock is still in the basement. :no:

What SRT-4 replacementS ?

I know of the Caliber STR4.. Whats the other one?

I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you. ;)

How is the TBird coming back? Is it going to be another 2-seater, or is it going to be like the TBirds of the 90s?

Seems a personal luxury coupe this round. I envision a GTO-like car... without the blandness or tireshreading reputation.

I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you. ;)





Wait, Can you say if it exists already or will it be a brand new model SRT4'ed? like the Caliber...

BTW:
Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't the tree huggers that killed the last performance age:

1. Insurence companies banded together around 1969 and began jacking up insurence rates into the stratosphere on anything that had a performance engine, or had the initials "SS" on it.

2. The Feds mandated that lead would be removed from gasoline. High compression engines needed lead, so that ended high compression engines.

3. The baby boomers who bought sport cars in the mid 60s began looking for more comfort and luxury in their cars as they got older.

4. Finally, we had a rude awakening in 1973 when OPEC banded together and turned off the oil.

Detroit was on the verge of creating another "Muscle Car" age in the 1970s based on compact cars (Ventura GTO, Volare Road Runner, Aspen R/T, Nova SS, etc...) but it fizzled out. Only the Chrysler twins with their 340 based 360 engines, and real dual exhausts lived out the decade.

The tree hugger's role in the demise of the muscle car age is greatly exaggerated. :)

The tree huggers certainly played their part. The low emission engines required catalytic converters and/or retarded timing. Both of those reduced performance of the engine. They also increased gas consumption, which made high performance models less desireable. If a 145hp 350 got 12 mpg, then a 240 hp 455 would have gotten something like 9mpg. If not for the emission standards, the 145hp 350 would have been a 175hp 350 and would have gotten 15. The 400hp 455 would have gotten 12.

Also, the work required to meet safety, emission, and fuel economy standards pretty much took all the engineering resources, leaving very little to develop high horsepower, low emission engines.

Just compare what you could get in Australia and Europe in 1977 with what you could get in the U.S. It was much grimmer here. Europe never really went through the junk-car stage.

When the insurence industry started slamming it to performance cars, they did it through a number of means. Horsepower ratings, gender, and the version of the car you bought and how many doors it had. At one time, even the color of the car influenced your insurance. If you were a male driving a '69 Red Plymouth Road Runner with a Hemi and a manual, you'd be selling your new born next to a married female who bought a blue Plymouth Satellite with a 318.

Insurence today is quite a bit better than it was back then. They actually look at driving records, age groups, zip codes, and (at least in Cali) are gender and car color neutral.

Most important of all, a car's rate is based on average claims. Cars with an older demographic tend to be alot cheaper to insure than so-called "ricers, regardless of actual horsepower. That's why you have Mitsubishis V6 Eclipses and I4 Acura Integras costing more (and Mustang GTs with nearly a 100 horse deficit costing as much or even more) to insure than high powered, 160 mph Chevrolet Camaros of the same year.



The final decision to trade in my '02 Black SS on an '04 Vette, was based on the insurance rates. It sealed the deal. Believe it or not, the rates are *CHEAPER* on the Vette. I couldn't believe it. My agent explained it to me like this:

Most people driving an SS Camaro, are in their mid 30's...still lots 'o testosterone, and thus a higher risk than the typical 55 year old male/female driving a Vette.

The tree huggers certainly played their part. The low emission engines required catalytic converters and/or retarded timing. Both of those reduced performance of the engine. They also increased gas consumption, which made high performance models less desireable. If a 145hp 350 got 12 mpg, then a 240 hp 455 would have gotten something like 9mpg. If not for the emission standards, the 145hp 350 would have been a 175hp 350 and would have gotten 15. The 400hp 455 would have gotten 12.

Also, the work required to meet safety, emission, and fuel economy standards pretty much took all the engineering resources, leaving very little to develop high horsepower, low emission engines.

Just compare what you could get in Australia and Europe in 1977 with what you could get in the U.S. It was much grimmer here. Europe never really went through the junk-car stage.

Actually, those engines got pittyful fuel economy BEFORE emissions.


Though you're right about engineering resources being diverted, that was after the muscle car era. Industry began diverting resources in the early to mid 70s... again, well after muscle cars died in the market place.

It's popular to lay everything that happened to muscle cars to enviromentalists coming along and taking over the entire country, but the reality is that is simply wrong. They like to think they killed off the cars, and enthusiasts like to oblige them by believing it. But that would be like them taking credit for today's plunging sales of large SUVs even though fuel prices are actually doing it.


As a whole (though not every individual), that group is full of it..... trust me, I live in Northern California.

1969 saw muscle car production drop. by 1971, you couldn't give away muscle machines to save your life. Timing, converters, power robbing emissions equptment...that all happened years after muscle cars became all but extinct.

If you wanted to look at the top 3 reasons, in order it would be sudden skyrocketing insurence, changes in market tastes, and finally banning lead in gasoline. Throwing tree huggars in on this is alot like blaming the silly or obnoxious colors and decals on alot of the cars (which turned off people who now wanted more adult cars). Both played a role, but only out on the fringes.


In 1969, Liberty (if I remember correctly) started an actual black list of cars that it hit with outlandish insurence rates. Allstate was another early one. It spread to all other insurence companies instantaneously, and within a year it decimated muscle car sales.


A bit of trivia for everyone.
The Super Duty 455 that ended up in Trans Am was also slated for the restyled 1973 GTO. Due to the changing markets, Pontiac decided against it (likely would have been the quickest factory GTO ever made...even with the pollution equptment). The public in the early 70s equated muscle cars with people who today would be equated with "ricers". GTO ended up with the regular 455 that was available on all other Pontiacs.

Pontiac was moving upscale to attract customers who were maturing from the "muscle era", and were planning a GTO line which included sedan. It had a unique nose, different from other Lemans, unique tail lights, and would focus on handling and balence more than "raw" performance. Instead it was decided that the GTO name would be too much of a liability to the new car, and it was called something else.... the Pontiac Grand Am.

Don't laugh or blame just Pontiac management.... what do you think the Chevrolet Laguna S3 replaced? ;)

Believe me. Tree huggers didn't do in muscle cars. Insurence & public taste did.

Believe me. Tree huggers didn't do in muscle cars. Insurence & public taste did.

I 1/2 believe you :)

Let me put it a different way then.

If the U.S. had implemented European standards rather than what we did, then yes, I agree that the days of the 450hp LS6 (around 380 net maybe) still would have been behind us. But I believe you would have been able to get something like a 350 cubic inch Chevy V8 with 275hp in 1978 instead of the 220hp 49-state thing that we had (or whatever it was).

Would that have been a muscle car? Maybe not compared to what we had in 1970, but definitely so compared to what we could get in 1978.

And unleaded gas came from the "tree huggers" too. Leaded was still freely available in Europe until the 1990s.

So tree huggers may not have killed the huge engines and stripes and all those great things from 1970, but they did kill any last vestige of performance.

Btw, the Super Duty 455 dropped 20hp between the prototype and production models due to complications in meeting the emission standards. Who knows what it would have had instead of 290 -- maybe 390 with 1970 emissions.

I just hope that GM decides to go through with their plans for putting a supercharger on the corvette for 2009 ;)

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

I 1/2 believe you :)

Let me put it a different way then.

If the U.S. had implemented European standards rather than what we did, then yes, I agree that the days of the 450hp LS6 (around 380 net maybe) still would have been behind us. But I believe you would have been able to get something like a 350 cubic inch Chevy V8 with 275hp in 1978 instead of the 220hp 49-state thing that we had (or whatever it was).


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.

The final decision to trade in my '02 Black SS on an '04 Vette, was based on the insurance rates. It sealed the deal. Believe it or not, the rates are *CHEAPER* on the Vette. I couldn't believe it. My agent explained it to me like this:

Most people driving an SS Camaro, are in their mid 30's...still lots 'o testosterone, and thus a higher risk than the typical 55 year old male/female driving a Vette.

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.

They also had the "6.6 Liter" engine as stamped on the hood scoop, an Olds 403ci version. But I believe the 1974 or '75(?) 455/SD motors were said to be the strongest.

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?

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?

Or with the more radical RA IV cam. :D

I 1/2 believe you :)

Let me put it a different way then.

If the U.S. had implemented European standards rather than what we did, then yes, I agree that the days of the 450hp LS6 (around 380 net maybe) still would have been behind us. But I believe you would have been able to get something like a 350 cubic inch Chevy V8 with 275hp in 1978 instead of the 220hp 49-state thing that we had (or whatever it was).

Would that have been a muscle car? Maybe not compared to what we had in 1970, but definitely so compared to what we could get in 1978.

And unleaded gas came from the "tree huggers" too. Leaded was still freely available in Europe until the 1990s.

So tree huggers may not have killed the huge engines and stripes and all those great things from 1970, but they did kill any last vestige of performance.

Btw, the Super Duty 455 dropped 20hp between the prototype and production models due to complications in meeting the emission standards. Who knows what it would have had instead of 290 -- maybe 390 with 1970 emissions.

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? :confused:


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. ;)

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


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.

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. ;)

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.

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.

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.

Or with the more radical RA IV cam. :D

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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


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.

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 :D

*73's EGR valve cost us 25 horses. I think air pumps started this year as well.
FWIW My 67 RS has an air pump. :D

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.

FWIW My 67 RS has an air pump. :D

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.

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).

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.

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.


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.


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.

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.