wHY wERE AMeRiCAN V8 ENGiNEs SLoW iN 1970s?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ย. 2024
- wHY wERE AMeRiCAN V8s SLoW iN 1970s? The 1970s Clean Air Act and 1973 Oil Crisis made American V8 Engines Very Slow since they had to meet very stringent regulations. On the upside, the Big Block regulations made it where small Block V8's became more powerful and reliable than ever. This would later snowball effect into the now Famous Corvette LS and Mustang Coyote Platforms. Some of the greatest wins come from the greatest sins...
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 78 | คู่เอก "ปกรณ์ vs ฟาบิโอ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LSOmgl0Th2c/mqdefault.jpg)
70s American muscle was like 90s Japanese cars
Detuned and able to make a lot more than advertised
Mostly yes, but some Engines were beyond saving. There are videos of people unlocking the full potential of the 5.0L King Cobra and 6.6L Trans Am. The L82 okayish, but the L48 V8 Corvette though? NO HOPE LOL. Maybe 220HP? up from it's 175HP haha? Even as a Corvette Owner, I'm ashamed to admit the L48 Corvette was a lost cause compared to a Datsun 280zx, the gapplebees receipts were insane 😂😂
@@BladedAngelnah in it's early days 400 and ended off at 200
Ahh NVM your talking about the 305 right@@BladedAngel
@@bryantb3391 Yeah the L48 in late gen C3's, not the 427 in the Late 60s to early 70s Stingray.
First thing you do is tear out all that goddamn emissions bulshit, then you rejet your carb, 86 your stock exhaust and replace it with open headers, Put golf tees in all unnecessary vaccuum lines.... You know, the standard modifications...
I still find it funny hearing an engine the size of a smart car making 120 hp, its like having a comically large gun that shoots tiny bullets
Yeah, it's still funny. There's just an understandable reason for the ridiculousness.
u guys always seem like ur hating tho acting like this is what americans used to make when they tried. you see the powerful v8s we’re making now? u think that juts came out of nowhere? in the 60s america birthed the most powerful engines 426 hemi dynoed at 550 hp and 600 lbft (815 nm) in 1965! the ford 427 sohc “cammer” advanced technology that layed the ground work for the ford modular engines which eventually gave us the coyote 🙏 these 150 hp engines are literally nurtured on purpose to make them this weak
they gave em low compression weak cams and weaker carbs literally intentionally worsening the performance in order to achieve fuel savings. they ruined the engines ability seeking easy fuel efficiency quickly as opposed to researching and developing fuel efficient engines but this was necessary because of the financial situation the county was in at that time
@@yeetllmcskeetllw6389 you have done all this mad yapping and still didnt realize that nobody "hates" on them
@@Q...........- why would i listen to you talking about “yapping” people like you always just on the next trend
People also forget that cars in the 60’s and early 70’s were rated at a Gross numerical H.P. number, the mid 70’s and up were rated at a Net numerical H.P. number.
I'd argue that people have in fact not forgot that. Rather never knew any better.
There are some cases of late 60's muscle making actually more power than advertised based on acceleration per weight and compared to european cars.
@@bradsanders407 That’s me. I’m that guy.🥴
@@Schmeeekevery day's a school day lol
@@forzer45The Buick Grand National made almost 40hp more than a Corvette of the same year. But GM rated them the same due to not wanting to hurt Corvette sales.
70's American cars were the definition of never judge a cover by its book
I'm actually not sure if you're making a clever joke or just don't know the correct saying.
This will not age well.
@RamenHutt that says more about you than it does him
I'm having a stroke trying to comprehend this
@@Ryan-vduff I also don't get what he is saying. It doesn't make sense here, since the cover is the hilariously low power figures.
Its still funny that a v8 made less power than a AE86
oh yeah, it's still ridiculous LMAO
I just wanted to clarify the reason behind, also duh it'-s my job to make vids on cars hurr burrrrr durr, thanks for watching.
They used V8 motors as economy motors because the gas crisis was so short notice that car manufacturers never had time to design a new motor. The U.S hasn't recovered since the crisis and emissions standards.
@@havoc-note This 100%!! The manufacturers weren't going to magically pull a 4-cylinder from their ass. By the Early 80s, most of them did indeed, start to roll out 4-cylinder models.
More torque though
@@BladedAngelMan, so many of the early 4 bangers were shit. Crazy how much power they get out of em today.
"The emissions regulations killed muscle cars."
No. Detriot's unwillingness to move on from the muscle car era technology and innovate (thanks in large part to shifting attitudes from forces like the Powell Memorandum) killed the muscle car. American automotive manufacturers stopped spending money developing new technologies and started spending it on lobbying for more favorable regulations.
I still love this quote from Soichiro Honda: "when the government creates new regulations, we hire more engineers. GM hires more lawyers."
Great comment and spot on. The big 3 were caught with their pants down when the oil crisis occurred. They failed to innovate because they thought they’d never be challenged. Their first attempts at fuel efficient small cars was a joke. That’s why the best selling cars today are Hondas and Toyotas.
Soichiro Honda's company invented a system that allowed engines to run much more cleanly without relying on detuning and cat convertors. GM execs said it worked on his "toy engines" and Honda got so angry they imported a GM car, installed their own system and passed the EPA's testing no problem. At least that's how the story goes.
And what technology specifically have the american companies failed to implement in modern cars?
You have NO CLUE what you're talking about. Modern coyote, flat plane crank, direct AND port injected, variable valve timing, lower tension piston rings, specialized modern piston design, optimized combustion chamber design, lightweight aluminum block, etc. The same tech that other foreign manufacturers are using. Same with the newer GM LT engines- vvt, direct injected, aluminum block, lightweight rotating assembly, these engines are top of the line and make well over 420 hp naturally aspirated on pump gas, all while upholding impossible MPG regulations and emissions requirements.
If you know anything about modern american v8 development you would know they played with firing order, intake runner design, valvetrain design to death- this development took decades to get to this point.
There are many reasons why there are no muscle cars, emissions and govt regulations is simply one of them, but also the sheer cost of them and the fact that no one can afford anything anymore due to insane inflation has really made brand new off the lot sports cars simply unattainable for your average working class person. In regards to Honda, they had to go through the same thing american manufacturers did. The only reason why there are no big V8s in Japan is due to displacement regulations. Theres NOTHING particularly special about japanese tech that makes them more "advanced". I am a fan of Honda, I drive a new Acura myself, but to act like theres some mystical thing about Japanese built engines is incorrect. They have WAY better manufacturing, WAY better QC, and higher standards in general, but as far as technology is concerned its spread all across every manufacturer and the japanese suffer the same consequences that everyone else does (carbon deposits on the back of intake valves on direct injected motors, etc).
I work at one of the largest research institutions in the nation, and in my division we deal with all manufacturers of all makes and models.....all the historical data from an engineering standpoint that would otherwise be unavailable to the average person is available to us at out library on campus and our online resources. I get to build engines from the ground up of all manufacturers myself and turn them into test engines for whatever our clients desire. Its eye opening but also sad that there are people like you that still hold onto some idea that , in modern times, and id say even throughout the decades, the tech isnt generally spread evenly in regards to ICE. How its implemented and QC in build quality or manufacturing is another story.
@@resistorstudiosto be fair, American engines didn't bother using DOHC or fuel injection until the 90s, and direct injection in American engines is relatively new. Ford famously went from push rod to SOHC, and then nearly after two decades did they finally make a DOHC V8.
@LuwiigiMaster Fuel injection in american cars became common in the mid 80s- along with European and japanese cars. Im not counting fuel injected 60's 'fuelie' corvettes as that would be unfair since they werent on mass produced vehices, but actually Rochester had TBI fuel injection way before the mid 80s- such as the Crossfire injection on 1982 Firebirds, Camaros, and Corvettes- and in 1985 the TPI batch fired FI (which used BOSCH parts, yes, BOSCH!) - as well as the underpowered base LO3 TBI 5.0 engines they put in literally everything...as far as SOHC, and DOHC the main advantage is less rotating parts, supposedly, but it still doesnt really make up for displacement or physical size advantages (why you can ls swap literally anything and not the other way around..) the main advantage with overhead cam design is the valve angle options, its simply easier to fit more valve surface area in a overhead cam engine than it is a comparable cam in block, but the tech isnt really that much of an advantage in millions of cars since they still use FLAT TAPPET lifters in most import engines as opposed to roller lifters in v8s -since the late 80s!
Being from the UK, I never much cared even if those cars were as slow as people said. The look and sound alone is more than enough to want one.
1000%!!!
That’s why they sold so well. No one cared that they were slow, just that they appeared fast. And as he mentioned, the power potential was always there, so the people who DID care, could easily tune it and yank it out of there.
Exactly
That's real. Something about a good, classic American V8 just makes your heart happy.
Though, nothing comes close to the sound of the TVR Cerbera
The reason that they still sold the big displacement engines was the fact that the people who bought them, could turn them back on. That was the whole point
Not that easy, cars of that era came with air injector pumps that required welding the port closed and grinding the slag smooth, it was no easy task.
@@Zyworski Just bolt on a block-off plate?
Yeah, I was thinking that the air was pumped into the combustion chamber rather than the exhaust port. The thing that confused me was that I seem to remember seeing a head with nozzles in the combustion chamber but I must be mistaken.
@@Zyworski Lots of different engines, therefore different heads...So that's very vague. You may have been looking at a diesel head fuel injector.
@@ZyworskiA good crew could definitely wake up a smog engine in a weekend.
1967-1972 Is the Golden era of POWER back in the day. My first car was a 1970 Chevy Malibu/Chevelle. It was a base model. The ultimate version had a 454 big block with 450HP.
Emissions , exactly. We didn’t know how to build engines that were powerful and still comply with regulations at the time.
Just a side note neither did Japan that's why we never got the fast Japanese cars here.
The other thing was that they changed the ratings method from gross to net horsepower, to reflect more realistic driving conditions.
Well, in a way neither did everyone else, but American engineers insisted on still having the thing consume insane amounts of fuel, just without any power, by way of keeping the displacement ridiculously high.
@@rachelpurity1 Not exactly easy to change your entire engine lines on a dime. Much easier and cheaper to detune instead
@@purplepotato69 Well, pretty much every other market adapted successfully.
"Removing the SMOG" was a popular mod in the 70s and 80s.
The smog equipment wasn't the issue, it was the low compression and especially the low lift and duration camshafts fitted. The emission spaghetti on the carb wasn't the limiting factor.
@@otm646don't forget the terrible heads, your not making any power with smog heads.
@@DarrellWilkerson4.6 thankfully, better heads where very easy to find and didn't cost much
U mean those stupid air pump things? I hated those...they would pump air into the crankcase to negate piston blow-by
Still is today
First generation catalytic converters were really really restrictive as well
Many of those restrictions from fifty years ago are still in place and still destroying GDI engines.
@@MaxAbramson3 the big problem with gdi only engines is that is no injector in the intake runner spraying down the port and valve keeping it clean as well as no real air/oil separating from the factory to speak of, it's almost like they want to sell us something that constantly breaks....
As a German I have to say that I love the sound of American v8 engines.
I do as well.. but as an American with German ancestry, I absolutely love the sound of a Porsche! I had a 924s and a 928, they sounded amazing and had such a clean engine exhaust note!
merc v8s sound amazing too
I prefer the sound of a flat plane v8s anyday, and I am American.
Appreciated, although I hold that perhaps the best sounding “American” V8 would be the Mercedes Sauber C9!
You clearly haven't spent long enough listening to an M100
Let's not forget the massive amounts of torque these anemic engines made
An ecoboost mustang makes way more torque than any v8 back then 💀
@@djkjthe3rd185 I would hope so considering its 50 years later and stock for stock sure but most of these cars weren't stock for long even back in the 70's all you needed was a big cam a good set of heads and a good carb to really open them up and push them easily to 400-450+
@@djkjthe3rd185 You need to look at the torque numbers of the Buick, Olds and Pontiac 455 engines before making such a silly statement.
@@djkjthe3rd185 The 1969 charger daytona was making like over 500 lb ft of torque, stock.
@@aimxdy8680 ah yes, 1969, the best year of the '70s
This is less than half the story. There was a switch to SAE Net horsepower from SAE Gross horsepower. Then a switch to unleaded fuel that required lower compression ratios and CAFE regulations and catalytic converters that made the mid to late 70s even worse. It was a lot of things, but the switch to SAE Net was a good move.
Finally someone gets it
It was multiple things at once that crippled the US car market, spot on. Lack of willingness to change and the rulebook itself being re-written screwed them over
@@bluemutt9964 I don't know specifically what you're referring to lol. I think maybe the events leading up to emissions laws taking effect? I will say in the manufacturers defense it was kind of an unfair ask to redesign all of their cars and engines from scratch to meet the standards. So you ended up with compromised engines with no compression and terrible exhaust because it was way cheaper to make a 120 hp 302 that met regulations than it was to build a whole new engine from scratch. Maybe if it were a "in 5 years you will have to meet these standards". Thing but even then would the money have gotten spent on R&D or lawyers to get it stricken down?
A lot off eu cars that was sold in us in second half of 70' were drastically detuned to apsurd levels. Example 1.5l engine i eu market has 80hp DIN while in us that engine had 50hp max 60hp din. Some reasons are smog regulations, but masive reason is bad gasoline.
Fun Fact: In the 60s dodge made the 426 race hemi which made almost 500 hp
426 Hemi 🙄
@@crazyoilfieldmechanic3195 i know, thats my baf
Like most cars of the era , hp at the brochure mostly
@@fredbugden6935 just check the NHRA stock class elapsed times records of Hemi cars in the 60's and you will easily see that the elapsed time and mile an hour of the cars compared to their weight required the advertised output of the engine and sometimes even less. Many TH-cam channels have dynoed different stock engines (not just the Hemi) and found the figures to be within a few horsepower of advertised. Another engine the whinners love to complain about is the 11 to one solid cammed and fuel injected 63 Chevy 327 at 365 hp.
Closer to 650-700 at 6800 rpm actually
As a European, i fricking love American cars, can't understand people hating on them.
bc unfortunately people love to group together when it comes to hating on shit dude, theres a lot of elitists on both ends
And as an american i love european cars more than the american ones
because they’re too broke for a V8 lmao
They look cool but there too big, too heavy, not fuel efficient and don’t handle well. So there don’t work on European roads
@@jackcowling5969 a pony or muscle car is fine for a European if they can afford the fuel 😂
Partially true (detuned for emissions reduction) but remember that the manufacturer's changed the ratings for horsepower from as tested on an engine stand in the open, with no accessories, to being rated as installed in the vehicle and with all accessories. I built & raced them and repaired them from the early 60s through the late 70s, watching the incremental changes in engineering and technology unfold yearly.
That doesn't help the cause tbh, it's why Europeans joked about American horses being so small.
I lived that reality. In the late 70's everyone wanted cars from the mid to late sixties.
People don't realize a lot of these cars came home from the dealership and had the cam and heads swapped while the block was still warm. Some dealerships would do it for you pre delivery.
You just set my entire generation straight.
They also change the way horsepower was measured in 1972 so anything before that, that has crazy high horsepower numbers you can almost knock 25% of it off.
Not really. hose pre-72 mills made more power than advertised. A restored, factory spec (cam profile, cylinder head flow, valve sizing, compression ratio, original factory intake manifold, and a tuned Holley carburetor, which every teenager in the '60's would have slapped on and tuned up immediately anyway) 426 Hemi got engine dyno'd and made right around 500 horses, 75 horsepower MORE than it was originally rated.
The gross power numbers WERE deceptive, but the automakers were also lying so their consumers could quote the manufacturer at 425 hp, for example, and get more lenient insurance rates on what was actually a 500hp engine. The ratings were a lie regardless of gross or net and almost all max effort big block V8s of the time made more power than advertised. The Ford 7.0L trio, for example, (427, 428CJ, Boss 429) all made more than the ~425 that they too were rated at.
@christcarscountry6870 A stock hemi Cuda was only a low 14 second car off the showroom. People tend to forget (or ignore) that peak muscle car era wasn't any faster than a modern V6 Camry.
@@wymotome 69 charger did 0 to 6 in 5.5 seconds in 1960 lol so not rly that was stock
@@wymotome The Hemi cars were slower in the 1/4 mile than the 440 cars. The Hemis were a born and bred endurance high RPM enigne for NASCAR. They made great top-end and could run in the neighborhood of 7k rpm consistently lap after lap. But they were short stroke engines and set up for the top end. The 440s made significantly more torque and would routinely run away and hide from the Hemi cars (in the 1/4).
People also ignore that the "V6 Camry" (modern grocery getters in general) they're referring to has a bajillion speed transmission (or sometimes one of those CVT transmissions) AND the factory cars they're comparing them to were three or four speeds and didn't have rear end gears for the strip. When you have a transmission with very few gears, your diff gear determines whether that car is fast in the 1/4, on the oval track, or cruises on the highway at a nice low rpm. Modern transmissions can be geared for bottom end, top end, and economy all at once because the surplus of available gear ratios make any differential gear capable managing power delivery for any application. This is a technology issue, not a power issue. That same Hemi Cuda (Or better yet, a 440 SP) with a modern eight-speed auto, six speed manual, or factory trans and rear geared for the strip, even at it's weight would crush the modern grocery getter no question (probably excluding some of the turbo cars, but obv that's apples to oranges since a turbo is basically a displacement multiplier)
This would all be meaningless cope, if this conversation was ABOUT 1/4 mile time, but it's not. It's about POWER. The number, not all the other influencing factors including "hurr durr modern computerized lightweight technologically advanced wonder car is faster than a steel brick with a V8 and an antiquated transmission." Yeah bro, we know.
I came here to say precisely this. Cars were rated differently prior to the early 70s and depending on the differences in as-installed configuration vs how it was configured when rated could be down quite a lot.
There are cars like the Hemi and Chevy L88 that were underrated, but typically to get to that true power rating quoted by the legends required exhaust headers and mufflers and perhaps a fair bit of carburetor tuning. Those engines were designed to be taken to the track and enjoyed in an off highway configuration.
The Chevy LT1 is a great example because it was rated at 330 HP in 1971. The same year mandated a switch in HP ratings and the motor was rated at 275 HP.
In 1972, they changed the way they measured the horsepower too to satisfy insurance companies and to give more realistic numbers. They went from a direct engine dyno test with no accessories, to one that added in all the extras and made more realistic numbers. So, yeah, they weren't actually making all that power in the 60's, they were faking it. By the time 1973 rolled around SMOG standards started setting in, which further deteriorated their numbers.
Check the qtr mile times
They weren't fluffing the numbers on power 😂proof is you can build a engine like a 350 example exactly like they did in the 60's and put it on a modern dyno and you will see they still have 300+ horse power the same as advertised in the 60s😂
@@auntjenifer7774 Not true. I rebuilt a 327 for a '65 Vette with 365 horse, lowered the compression (correctly) for pump gas, put in a bigger cam than factory, used 6.125" rods with lighter, flat top pistons and ported the heads ... all improvements over stock and it only made 360 on an SF902 SuperFlow dyno with no accessories and open headers. Much different from its configuration in the car. Factory intake with port work and a retuned factory Carb for today's pump fuel. Dyno numbers can be manipulated. The easiest way to do that is to switch from SAE power measurements to STD power measurements. That 360 horse was made on STD, which is higher than SAE.
@@Turtletoise Those were embellished with sticky tires and suspension mods. A late 90's car that is a match-for-match will smoke it with much less cubic inch and be much more driveable.
@@TTGTO288 Wdym by “match-for-match?” I already know that a 90’s sports car will outperform a 60s sports car because of a 30 year technology gap. Do you mean that a regular traffic car from the 90s will beat a sports car from the 60s?
I like how he used the phrase "neutered"
My dad always talks about this. He has a 1980 Corvette stingray that barely puts out 200 hp and it was because of the fuel crisis back when. He said he used to have to get fuel based off of; I believe the last digit of his license plate?
Those were the Odd and Even days of getting gas. It was so bad on Even days only the last digit of your plate if Even could you get gas and Even then the line stretched for blocks.
Bad times
@@shawnclyne1904 Yeah, I remember when I was really young, my parents didn't really have to worry about this. We lived in a rural farming town, on a farm. There wasn't a high population in the town to begin with, and there were like four gas stations there anyway. Even if we couldn't get gas there, we had access to a rather large gas tank on one of the neighboring farms that we share cropped with, and most of his equipment was diesel anyway. Even when my father was working in rather long distance locations from the house it wasn't a major issue. But I do remember seeing those lines when watching the news.
@@jmackinjersey1 Exactly.
It was all artificial and government created, just so you know. The USA was meddling in foreign countries big time. @@shawnclyne1904
Fun fact: C3s stopped being stingrays in 77.
In the 90s they were still struggling for power but managed to still make some of the most iconic trucks in the world
That trans am is still a helluva ride even with tiny horsepower numbers, the nice thing about 70s muscle cars is that they let you FEEL like you’re going fast without ACTUALLY going fast
Good ol quadrajets with the massive secondaries... man that four barrel sounds good
The biggest 'loss' of HP was SAE requirments making companies report the actual HP at the crank with accessories where as before they could rate the engine with no belts etc and lie to consumers. On paper the cars lost 100+ hp but if you dyno'd a car from before and after they didnt lose anything.
Tell that to my 79 coupe DeVille with a 400cid BB. That thing had fewer horses than the Belmont Stakes
They had to state whp, before they stated crank
This is something I wish more people understood. Before sae horsepower, American manufacturers used gross horsepower. This meant they could run the engine with exhaust systems that only had to fit in a dyno cell, didn't have to run air filters or belt driven accessories, and could freely tune the carb/cam timing/ignition timing without regard for real world driveability or conditions. How many, how often, and by whom tricks like this were actually used is practically impossible to know for certain, but you can often skim a healthy 100-150 hp off of the numbers that were advertised. In some circumstances, manufacturers would use net horsepower before being required to.
Oh, and don't forget the bandaid diff ratios. Some of the sportier 60s cars got some awfully short 4.0+ rear gears, but after the first gas crisis everything had a slapped in 3.10 odd ratio to lower cruising rpms and therefore efficiency.
people tend to bring this up a lot, but the actual reason they had to go to sae standard was because insurance companies started refusing to insure "high performance" cars and companies started advertising -lower- numbers than they were making, the switch happened to coincide with the smog stuff, as well as the added rules.
Yeah no, we dyno'd quite a few muscle cars and something like a 70 454 vette pushes well over 400whp
I have always loved those 70’s muscle cars, a huge engine making less horsepower than a cat but sounded like a beast and the cars still looked incredible
Regulations/ avoiding fines is at the heart of most things like this in the auto industry
its always the goddamn gobberment, gobbless
HECK YEAH BORTHER GOBBLESS
KEEP IT RUBBER SIDE UP AND DON'T LAYYERDOWN. I HIT SOME CLIBBINS THE OTHER DAY AND HADDALAYERDOWN
At least they still made V8s. Now they think the solution is just making the engine have less cylinders.
@@XXXDomtacion or no engine at all. Emissions problems were basically solved in the 90s and early 2000s, now they're constantly inventing new things to keep restricting and vacuuming money out of cars and car owners.
Is it possible to tune these engines or are they permanently trash because some of the 70’s American cars looked pretty good
if it's a common enough engine yeah
You're not gonna tune that power back in. A huge restriction for the mid to late 70s engines were the cylinder heads. The runner we incredibly small for the displacement and the valves weren't much better.
That said, any old small block chevy/Ford engine can be woken up for pretty cheap.
Even my old 305 sbc wad able to put 260 to the wheels through a th350 auto trans after some head work, flat top pistons, and an off the shelf summit cam.
I've also got a 350 sbc with the smog 882 heads that I personally ported that puts down 310 to the wheels through a 700r4
These engines are great for beginners to learn how to build power on a budget
@@nickowen7406thanks for information 🤙
They can be tuned and rebuilt, but it does need some $$$
People have used the Stock 5.0L Block on the King Cobra and brought it over 400HP all Naturally aspirated.
Others are beyond saving, the L48 V8 in the Corvette Stingray was BLEUGH, at 175HP stock, the best I've seen was maybe 220-250HP? The L82 however could be tuned to get 300-350HP. So if you want a Corvette from that Era, please buy an L82!!
@BladedAngel L48 is a smog engine with a smog head. I've built several and its not much to make decent numbers.
We took one, slapped on a set of pro filer 200cc heads, summit racing solid core flat tappet cam(don't remember all the specs), two valve relief flat top pistons, dual plane edelbrock intake, and a 650 cfm holley carb.
Made 360 to the wheels through a t-10 trans and made power all the way to 6100 rpms, although we set the limiter to 5900.
At the end of the day, with parts and machine work, he only spent about $2400
yeah, so those of us who knew anything about cars, deleted a lot of that crap, installed high compression pistons (if money wasn't a big concern) or milled the heads, installed camshafts that would let the engine breathe, installed headers, a high rise intake manifold, and an 850 double pumper, and had FIRE BREATHING DRAGONS! It was a LOT OF FUN! And they made better power than the factory cars did in many cases.
Switching from gross to net horsepower ratings made the engines seem less powerful.
Switching from leaded to unleaded gasoline caused the need to reduce compression ratios to prevent pre-ignition.
Adding catalytic converters and smog pumps also lead to a reduction in power output.
There are a number of different factors. But cars from the era were easily tuned to produce more power. By adding dual exhaust. A 4 barrel carburetor. Bigger camshaft. Adjusting ignition timing. All things that are easy to do and usually don't cost much compared to modern vehicles
In comparison most modern vehicles only require a software tune for a significant power boost.
American motor engineering will always remain supreme
A mustang from the 70's with 140hp is wild. 0-60 in 2 business days
A 1970 Chevelle made 500 hp and north of 550 ft lb of torque, the fuck are you taking bout?
@@ignaciomontano9183 bro did you watch the video
I'm still impressed at the fact that the Europeans and Japanese were able to make engines under those same constraints that were just as if not more powerful than their American counterparts.
Except they weren’t, mad poor people coping today I see. The fastest 4 cyl motor is the GM ecotec in Carls promod that ran a 5.82 second 1/4 mile whooping the Honda K24 promod that ran 5.86, the fastest engines of all time is the dodge Hemi V8 making 11000+ hp going 0-340 mph in just 3 seconds
Regardless, the Japanese are used to being constrained and controlled, Americans don't do "constraints".
We're going to do what we do, and if anyone has something to say about it, there are two cities in Japan full of people who will tell you to shut your mouth💁🏻♀️
Europe can suck one too.
They didn't fall under the same constraints.
Its worth noting that those cars also consistently make *far* more horsepower than advertised. My friend has a totally stock ‘76 mustang that his dad bought new that on the dyno was seeing not too much less than 300 hp with nothing but maintenance on it
As someone who's dyno'd a 76, I can promise it didn't make anywhere near 200 to the wheels. Those things were abysmally slow
No 😂 just no. Something was wrong with the dyno or soneone was lying about the engine.
They were rated at 140hp SAE net, they probably did 120hp at the rear wheels.
@@Raptor3388 0-60 times we're theoretical
@@nickowen7406 Can those era of engines, be made/brought back to higher horse power {easily}?
@dizcret really depends on the power you're aiming for. But any old sbc or sbf can reliability make 250 to 300hp on a budget
Also CAFE standards. They had to change from gross output from the crank. Rather the net output from the wheels
My question is “could you up tune those same engines to get 300+ hp
Would take a lil work but it's doable
not really tuning, but replacing parts that where intentionally designed to be restrictive, like better flowing heads, a cam, intake, carb, and exhaust and you make good power with most of these engines
Easily to 300HP. Some more work is needed to get past 400 (Usually doing Head Work) but these engines woke up with just Intake Manifolds/CAI/Headers/Exhaust.
@@carter1541the Ford 351m/400m is the poster child of this, it’s really only a 351C tall block, but with its terrible stock compression, pistons, crank, cam and heads it does nothing. Switch those out and you could have a 400 with no problem reaching 400/500 hp and beyond if desired.
My 1971 El Dorado had a 501 CID big block that generated 305 bhp. A new cam, better aspiration/exhaust and oversize pistons pumped her up to 540bhp.
That, and they like to talk about how slow the 454 BB Chevy was but it was a TRUCK MOTOR that was built for low RPMs and lots of low and slow torque. It takes a good tune and transmission pair to let that engine breathe.
It wasn't always just a truck engine but thise comments are typically directed at the 454SS which really was just a 3/4 ton or 1 ton truck engine in a 1/2 ton truck.
Ford's Godzilla 7.3 in a new Bluebird school bus will make 350hp. The gas sipping trend returns
Crazy how history repeats itself. And it’s sad cause when I was younger I thought we’d give up the V8s for flying cars.
People forget in the 70s Japanese cars could barely make it to 100 hp. The 240z was basically the only widely available exception. The dataun 510 couldn't even make it to 80 mph. All cars sucked hp wise in the 70s and 80s, but take the emissions off and increase the compression, and they'll make actual decent power.
Japanese engines also weren't 7 liters in displacement
@@christycullen2355yeah but did the japs have giant 10 lane roads, cheap fuel and a working vehicle infrastructure for the public
Small cars for small people with small needs
@christycullen2355 American cars weren't either with a few exceptions. Most were 5.0l in the 70s. Either 305 or 302cu. Either you're trolling or ignorant. Displacement was the only way to make power back then. Commercial superchargers and turbos weren't a thing besides the one or two outliers.
In the 80s I had a 79 Supra with a straight 6 and that car couldn't pull i finger out of a butthole. A 62 nova I bought with a 250 straight 6 ,3 on the tree was way quicker.
@@BruceLee-xn3nn I didn't even know they made a celica supra in '79 that's cool as shit.
the most recent Dodge Viper is honestly a good modern example of this. 645hp is impressive, but that 8.4 liter V10 engine actually makes 825hp with a stroker.
They have gotten 3000+ hp Stock block, 6.6 second 1/4 mile at 220+ mph on stock block.
I wanna see the torque numbers on that beast
Stroker isn't stock
@@Bloodcurling my point is that the Viper was destroked from the factory
I love how the Europeans throw shade about that when my 1976 Mercedes 3.0L makes 79hp.
You probably have an NA diesel OM617. not exactly supposed to be a muscle car
You fail to mention that prior to 1972 the US used SAE gross not SAE net . This made American and non American cars seem more powerful than they actually were
"Fail to mention" not my rules bud, YT only gives us 1 minute for Shorts. I had to edit out the SAE gross vs. Net because of Time constraints. If I don't make that window, then it's not picked up as a Short, so it doesn't get pushed. Don't hate the player, hate the game ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@BladedAngel i didn't hate anything
@shingosshojiopoulos6608 can't blame him, he's gotta appeal to the car guy circlejerkers. You don't get much audience with cold dry facts.
Alot of pre smog cars were underrated for insurance purposes.
@@BruceLee-xn3nn You didn't need insurance before smog.
Can’t lie I’ve made those jokes too if a large displacement V8 engine makes less than 400hp I don’t see it as worth it.
A well tuned 300 HP 350 SBC is a treat. With the short gears they're a ton of fun.
Remember, when the first generation Viper came out it made 400 horsepower and that was absolutely crazy. People didn't believe it.
400 HP in a daily is a very new thing.
C4 Corvette is the best way to enjoy 300HP
Getting those de tuned engines tuned can create one of those hyper reliable very powerful V8s not many people do it but it’s definitely worth it
Not hard to make these cars fast just a cam intake manifold and exhaust can gain 100hp sometimes 200hp on something like pontiac 400 or 455
yeah the Pontiacs wake up with minimal work, it's a shame hardly any good 6.6L examples remain (Rust and Time got to most), meaning lots of people will live their whole lives thinking that engine unironically was hard-capped at 182HP.
Big fan of the old Pontiac small block 400 you can build monsters out of that platform, Sucks they are rare now days.
It's not hard to make any car fast if you completely change the design of the engine
@@mrcaboosevg6089If a cam and two manifolds is an entire engine, I'm gonna start building some cheap fuckin engines.
@@totalmetaljacket789 A cam changes the entire dynamic of the engine, it also does nothing unless you support it with other things so logically it's never just a cam
I’m really getting tired of European/Japanese car fanboys acting like American cars are still this way though. It’s such a dumb argument to compare 50 year old American cars to modern day imports, and I see them do it all the time.
Sorry but still most of the American sport car engines so much less sofisticated and less power dense than European/japanese equivalents you guys just started using dohcs
that's fanboys of all cars though. It's like being in your teens and bragging you can win a footrace against your great-grandpa. Like no duh you're more fit than him LOL.
Nahh I love the cars you guys make (even the bad ones) there is just a certain look to them. Even if they were actually slow I'd still love one for the looks and sound.
@eclipsegfxable and theres a lot more than speed/displacement/looks when it comes to good cars and everyone seems to only use those metrics to determine a good car which makes no sense
@@mehmetkaraoglu5937 Not necessarily, the dodge demon is a pushrod and it makes 700+ hp. The ZR1 C6 corvette makes over 600 hp, and it gets even better with the C7 and C8, still using pushrods. There really isn’t that much of a difference in terms of performance to be honest. OHC engines make slightly more power in the higher rpms, but pushrods make more in the lower rpms, giving them better acceleration and torque. Plush pushrods can be much more reliable. Also, I own both a OHV and a OHC and that’s definitely not a major factor that makes the car better or not.
Yeah they were de-tuned and very asthmatic but they could be bought back to life with a gentle massage.
first so i can stop the kids from saying first
This is sorta similar to today, everyone is worried about emmisions and the V8 is on the chopping block but hopefully things will go back to normal 🤦🏽♂️
The fun part is that they often had suspension in this era that was off the shelf for what the European cars were running. A Camaro of this era could actually corner quite well for time, it’s why they dominated IMSA.
Also, horsepower measurements in 1971 changed from at the flywheel with no accessories to at the tires with a dynamometer. This added to the perception of lower numbers.
Yes. I imagine they did that because it gave a more accurate reflection of what the car could do.
"It wasn't the engineers failing, it was the politicians."
A tale as old as time.
The politicians didn't fail, you just didn't like what they did and fail to see why it is important because you are ignorant. A tale as old as time, truly.
Had two of those Trans Ams, and it was an absolute crime that such a good-looking car was so underpowered...JustSaying
The 260v8 in my '79 Cutlass made 110hp from the factory.
Today it's got an Olds 350 with roughly 400hp. It will still pass modern emissions standards.
I know because the guys at the testing station sometimes like to test it, my 72 Cutlass, and my El Caminos just to see what emissions numbers those old cars produce.
Keep them tuned up and they do remarkably well.
As a non american, this actually makes a lot more sense, I always got confused why (some) american v8's put out low power for their size, as an ignorant foreigner I just assumed that it was just due to the points mentioned, poor engineering, and possible poor build quality, didnt know the oil crisis affected the power of such cars via the smog regulations, thats really interesting, thank ya for the info
I, too, remember when I found out that older American cars made more horsepower than even modern ones.
I also remember when I found out that a 1950's and 1960's car got better gas mileage and yet more horsepower than many offerings in the early 2000's.
If you want to know, the names are Studebaker and Rambler.
Also, the automakers started listing HP in terms of net horsepower instead of brake horsepower in 1972. This reduced the advertised horsepower by around 40%. But it's true, in the early 70s, engines suffered from the new smog rules. I remember how the old mechanics complained about the loss of leaded fuel, while he used a compressor to blow away the asbestos brake dust while smoking a Camel.
I had several late ‘70s T/As and they responded well after the smog equipment was removed;)
They also measured the power of the engine without ANY accessories. No water pump, no alternator, no fan.
I was born in 87 and I feel like this shouldn’t be news to any car enthusiast. My 75 stingray was 165hp
And now it’s like the 60’s era horsepower wars all over again!
Also, in 1972, horsepower measurements were changed from the back of the engine to the back wheels. A car in 1971 listed as 250 HP would probably be recalculated at around 200 HP+/- for the exact same engine...showing a drop in HP when it was in fact the same, just measured differently.
MUCH MORE than (De)tuning for emissions compliance:
1. SAE Net horsepower versus "Gross". This had inflated the stated power output considerably. An engine was mounted on the dyno, no air cleaner, no water pump (water forced through), no accessories installed. In 1972, SAE changed method to evaluate dynamometer output at the rear wheels, with ALL accessories installed and engaged.
2. Compression ratios were lowered to run on only regular unleaded fuel and to reduce NOx.
3. Max ratings were taken at lower RPMs to avoid an engine being deemed "performance ".
4. Air Injection, EGR, and especially Catalytic Converters did rob power.
Thank goodness you Explained that to everyone genius ! ! !
i’m on 17.4.1 on my iphone 15 PM and charge abt once a day while using my phone watching youtube and movies and on social media pretty much all day. got it back in january. i’m at 150 cycles at 100% health. battery is decently good
For insurance reason they were also rated in net horsepower instead of gross so the numbers dropped without any change in power to some extent. Net is measured with the alternator , AC compressor, smog pump, etc. hooked up and robbing power from the engine (realistic numbers). Gross is measured with no accessories attached. German cars are rated at the wheels which takes into account transmission and driveline losses. So a 1970 car that makes 300 gross would be 250 net without any changes to the output and in Germany it would only rate 200 HP. All three identical performance because the output is the same.
As an American, the mighty V8 is etched into my DNA. Many family members either raced or were stunt drivers. As such, I have a great love for the V8. But this right here highlights the main issue I have with most of them. The power they can put out is not very efficient. They put out 300-600 hp while getting a miserable 6-20 mpg. This is why my favorite engines tend to be 4 bangers. While putting out 100-250 hp, they get around 25-50 mpg, but can be tuned to extreme levels to put out 400-2000+ hp while boasting the same mpg that stock performance V8s have. I will always prefer efficient power over more power simply due to the logistics. Lighter motor nerds less fuel so it can have a lighter tank and go fast for longer. But gawd that V8 sound is still so good to this day, and thats why I still love the V8s
that C2 stingray allegedly had 425 hp at the crank, but when they dynoed it, it meassured around 250-280 whp.
76 T/A 455. The cat had a big Allen head plug in the bottom and was full of pellets. Remove plug, tape the case a few times with a 2x4 and leave open for a week. Plug in and open exhaust. Make the shaker hood scoop work by drilling out 2 rivets. If you had a smog pump, remove and cap off. Working on or replacing carb and intake made the biggest improvements. The 4sd tranny, replace brass shift forks to steel forks.
Lots of things to do on the engine but the body floated around 95mph.
In a lot of those cars, swapping out the carb could pick up over 100 hp. I worked on an LTD of the era and always found it wild that the 460 made 200 hp
The Cleveland 351 is indestructable and you could do whatever you wanted to with it.
One thing you can’t forget is the torque they displaced. That never changed.
I have never met anyone who knew about these low powered sportscars from that era in the usa, that didnt also know the reason for it.
We Aussies didn't have that problem. We were making straight sixers with 4 liters of displacement and they made 300 HP from factory
Several reasons 60s HP was gross HP and 70s was net in the USA.
Secondly quite a few European manufacturers fluffed the numbers a bit to be higher than truthful, especially in the 60s… and even up to 90s with TVRs over estimating the bhp. But they were all at it. Rolls Royce wouldn’t even state their BHP figures in the 60s and 70s in reality they were also getting 180bhp ish from a 6.75L V8.
The other important thing to note is the way an American V8 produces power. If you compare a V8 with 180bhp to say a Civic type R. The American V8 is producing genuinely usable power over pretty much its entire 4000rpm of usable range… Where as the Type R is only really producing power in the very top band of its rev range. Before 5000rpm they’re producing very little and only 2000rpm of range is actually really useful. You need to drive the Honda much harder… compared to a more relaxed delivery suitable for daily driving.
Essentially they are well suited to the roads over there and more efficient than their US mpg figures would suggest to a European… I.e. 16mpg US is more like 20mpg uk.
I bought a 1976 KZ900 it was defined to 75 horsepower from the Z1s 87 horsepower. That actually made it a better ride mire versatile. In the Automotive sector back then,it was the useless attempt at anti pollution and reflow exhaust that filled the big 8s with soot.
It took EFI and a catalytic to burn it right the first time.
that’s why their engines make such a good basis for a fast car if you know what you’re doing
You were the only TH-camr who faced the laughter and madness of the jdms and the euros, congratulations, you gained a subscriber
Feedback
They also lied about the numbers alot because nobody had a dyno.
Yeah for example Buick GNX they say it's 276 hp but no it's around 340-350 hp
'How do they get so few horsepower from a V-8 motor?'
'I don't know'
It's worth noting that those de-tuned massive V8s could very easily be re-tuned to make 400 hp with just a few bolt on parts. That's why they were still 6, 7 and 8 litres.
1970 Shelby GT500, 1971 Hemi'Cuda and 1971 Chevelle 454: Allow us to introduce ourselves
It blew me away to learn my '88 Acura Legend with a 2.7L v6 pushes more horses than even some of those Mustang GT 5.0 from the 80s.
It blew me away to learn that your car is slow as shit and both my C7 and C6 will gap the fuck out of that.
@@aimxdy8680 🤣 trying to 💪 on random strangers on the internet make you feel better about yourself? I didn't say it's a mf racecar, did I? Gtfoh
@@FinnSwede906 I don’t need to, Name me a single Acura Making 11000+ hp like dodge hemi V8s. also the fastest Honda engine in the world just got dethroned for the 4 cylinder world record by the GM ecotec, GM ecotec is the fastest 4 cylinder in the world with a 1/4 mile of 5.82 seconds beating the honda K series 5.86, cry more.
I feel like any car guy should know this by now
One big additional factor was the transition from SAE gross to SAE net horsepower ratings. Without going back to refresh my memory, I recall this meant engines had to be tested as they would be installed rather than in idyllic conditions/tune. This kept manufacturers more "honest" with their power figures. Someone can chime in with more specific details if need be.
A good example is Cadillac's famous 500cid engine. In 1970 it was advertised at 400hp (SAE gross), dropping to 365hp (SAE gross) in 1971 when compression was dropped from 10 to 8.5. But the following year, under SAE net, it only made 225hp. Truth be told, it probably made 225hp all that time when installed in the vehicle. By 1975 with unleaded fuel and cats, it was down to only 190hp SAE net.
As a European, I never knew this. Thanks
And in the late 60's early 70's manufactures often listed the power ratings below what they actually made too.
Also, up until 1972, engines were rated in gross HP, whereas in 1972 and after they were rated net HP, which automatically made the power ratings ~65% of what they were. At the same time, the switch to unleaded gasoline required lower compression ratios which also robbed power. THEN the detuning started, along with the introduction of the catalytic converter, etc.
Man those Trans Ams look so gooood
I have a 1970 Oldsmobile 350 Rocket cammed up in my lowered 1980 GMC C10....duno how much HP it has but that engine sounds so unique.
Also, catalytic converts, they reduce exhaust flow, which forces you to reduce your intake and overall cuts power.
They also changed up the way horsepower was measured. Now certain losses were included in that measurement which dropped numbers significantly.
Speaking for Chevy, they started rating the power differently. Per oil crisis was flywheel power, post oil crisis was wheel power. Not to mention a lower RPM rating, usually @ 4200rpm. There was detuning done, mostly due to the heads but they were still putting down some good real world power.
we got a 70s Lincoln Continental Mark III, V8 7.5L but barely 180hp. It still sounds amazing though.
I love when people.blame politics for their problems instead of blaming unwillingness to change.
adding to that lower rating number was also the change in how the power was measured. it changed from gross rating to a net rating where the air cleaner, all accessories, an exhaust manifolds were installed.