HotRodZilla
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Hey Bounce...That's 220bhp out of a 400ci motor. Pretty sad when you think about it.
The TRANS AM Lives!
- Thread starter SoCalFJR1300
- Start date
Help Support Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum:
Yeah. People look back on old muscle cars through rose colored glasses. Many from the factory didn't put out as much HP per CI as even current 4 bangers do. The large, heavy V8s also unbalanced the handling in many cases which is why so much of the culture of the time was straight line stop light blasting.
Last edited by a moderator:
RadioHowie
I Miss Beemerdons!
Spoken like a true Top Gear fan! 
Geezer
Parsimonious Curmudgeon
Hard to believe, but I agree with Bunce on this one. It was a hot rodders goal to get one HP per CI back in the day of the original muscle cars, and it took some skill, money, and aftermarket parts to do it. Now that we have electronic fuel injection and better metallurgy the one HP per CI is pretty easy, and with forced induction the bar is raised considerably. Power is relatively inexpensive and easy to do, so handling has become the new differentiator for street cars.
ktidrick
Member
Respectfully submitted, Geezer, comparing a Toyota Highlander to a Chevy Surburban is like comparing a contemporary Toyota Camry to a '78 Cadillac Sedan de Ville.
Just taking a quick look at specs on Edmunds, the Surburban weighs about 1500 lbs more than the Highlander and has 20 more inches in the wheelbase. It's CoG is likely higher as the ground clearances are much higher and the weight is distributed very differently. Further, (hence the Caddy ref), the Surburban is a body-on-frame truck design and the Highlander is a uni-body design lifted from the Camry sedan design.
Having owned a Toyota Highlander and a Toyota Sequoia (nearest to a Surburban I can get, but still smaller and lighter), I can agree - I drove the Highlander more aggressively than the Sequoia - but for many of the same reasons, not because Toyota made a better handling "mid-size SUV" than Chevy's "large SUV".
I won't argue that the Miata - long a recognized handling benchmark vehicle - feels more sporty than many (not JUST Detroit Iron examples) sedans, even sports cars, on the road today, I will argue that the selection of example "apples to apples" vehicles is anything but "apples to apples" and should not be used in the discussion or effort to denigrate Detroit's improvements in the handling department.
The Miata was designed from the ground up with a focus on handling. Some of the initial design specs for that vehicle were light weight, even weight distribution, etc. As such, it has never been the most powerful vehicle on the road and was never intended to be. We all know the value of power to weigh ratios, and this was more the focus than all-out power production. Other vehicles were built around the engines, then do what you must to manage the result. The highly lauded Porsche 911 family is a classic example. These vehicles were, for YEARS, loved for their power and "respected" for their tricky handling because the engine was hanging out BEHIND the rear axle. Porshe has improved this with high tech modern suspension, power management technology (like traction control) and huge, meaty gum-ball modern rubber on the back end. Throughout that handling evolution, the maligned Detroit Iron products routinely were credited with better handling than the currently-being-tested 911 variant. The point is, the Miata is a rare-breed example benchmark that MANY (not just Detroit) automakers fall short of besting when it comes to "fun to drive/sporty handling" comparisons.
Someone else mentioned the understeering characteristics of the Camaro. This, too, has long been a hallmark of US manufacturers' offerings. If you do the research you will find that, in many cases, this was a conscience engineering decision. While understeering is not always the more preferred dynamic in all-out performance, in the hands of the buying public and on the street this is a safer trait, generally. When you are building for the masses, as is the enforced mindset of high-volume manufacturers whose primary market is a highly litigious society (i.e. US automakers), you opt for "safer" vs. "ultimate" most of the time.
I like the new Camaro. I agree with yet another poster's comment that GM should have dropped Buick rather than Pontiac, but this was a "sales volume" driven decision. (On another note, I never understood the decision to drop Pontiac, yet keep GMC and Chevy Trucks - basically duplicated marques!) Off-track, sorry... As I was saying, I do like the new Camaro, but I would never buy one. Not because of any desire to snub Detroit, but because my 5 head-count family would not fit!!
Sigh... sorry for the lengthy soliloquy, and this isn't intended as a *** to Geezer (sincerely!), just a couple of comparisons along with a high number of drubbing-of-Detroit comments drove me to drone on a dab.
Beautiful day out, I orta be leaning through a curve somewhere!
Geezer
Parsimonious Curmudgeon
No problem. This entire conversation is about personal opinion. I still believe that Detroit has not caught up with the European or Japanese manufacturers regarding performance. I'm sure they know how if they want to. They don't perceive the larger market as wanting the improved handling, which usually comes with a reduction in comfort, a higher price tag, or both. I haven't driven any of the new Cadillacs which claim to have both performance and comfort, but they are pricey and target a smaller market.
I also would have preferred that Pontiac survive rather than Buick, but Buick was more profitable than Pontiac at the time.
Last edited by a moderator:
SoCalFJR1300
Well-known member
That was a lot of HP in the late 70's smog choked era.
Consider the FORD 302 (5.0) made about 140HP in 1975 or so.
Last edited by a moderator:
they gave mom an ATS as a loaner when her 94 Caddy was in the shop for an ECU. the 2.0 turbo was pretty sporty. since my STi is tuned, it wasn't to that level but it was a heck of a lot more so than the 94. caddy has made some strides but the euro/asian performance cars are a moving target. when her ECU couldn't be replaced (Chevy seems to have a very short half life for parts) she got a CTS4. Less power than the ATS but the AWD and suspension are light years better than the 90s boats. Caddy had to do something to stay in the game with the BMWs, Audis, and Mercs that buyers are comparison shopping.
As you noted though, the newer "performance" caddies aren't the same as the primate "muscle car" remakes.
BTW: EPA "smog choke requirements" have only gotten tighter, yet the reality is that 220 from a 400ci, solid lead motor of the day were sad when Yurp was doing more (excepting electrical systems and falling off parts).
But then I got into a friend's new Nova, closed the door and the B pillar trim fell off into the back seat, so Yurp wasn't the only ones.
Last edited by a moderator:
ionbeam
2 FUN
The 70's and well into the late 80's were the dark ages for American cars. American cars have a lot in common with the the American Iron Horse. They were large displacement push rod engines that are at their best when the road has no curves.
In the olde days there was a perception that 4 valve engines were weak at low RPMs and needed to really rev to get any kind of performance. Two valve push rod engines generally offered two mutually exclusive types of performance, small valve high torque at low rpm, and big valve engines with high HP only at the high end. There were things that could be done with a 4 barrel carb that would skew the power curve but valve size and valve lift ruled. Perverters of these big, lazy engines could do a lot of power improvements with intake and exhaust swaps and hot cam profiles. Bubba could turn screws on the carb while Jake put his nose in the exhaust and sniffed to guide a tune-up.
A 2.5 ton car with 80/20 weight distribution, suspend with leaf springs on a beam axle in back and torsion bars or coils on the front guided by a recirculating ball steering box had no chance of handling well. Anything aftermarket only changed the handling from being soft and bad to hard and bad.
These were the days when most guys could be a star car tuner because what they started with was so poor. My brother had a Firebird TA that he tried to match against my car, the outcome of that resulted in him getting a crate motor and doing a full-on hot rod job on the engine. In the end it didn't matter, he never got down the track before my car crossed the line.
His car was on the dying edge of old school performance cars. I had an early new school performance car but it still needed engine, transmission and suspension help. My Impala SS handled very good if you could drive well but it could over match a rookie driver. In terms of brute power, after a bit of tweaking it could scoot real good for being Two Tons of Fun.
This is my brother's Poncho failing yet again against my car at New England Dragway.
This is my car dispatching a Buick GS 455.
Ahh the good old days with cars that weren't nearly as good as we remember them. Today my current car makes 330 hp from a normally aspirated 3.7 liter engine, has struts up front and a multi-link suspension in back. Straight off the dealer's floor with no work my car would be a close (but not quite) match for my Impala SS after lots of work. Plus, my current car handles really good in part because it is smaller and lighter but also the suspension is vastly better.
If I could afford a second car, I probably would join Bounce with a WRX STi as a toy for autocrossing.
EDIT:
What the heck? I did an edit and my post comes up in HTML! Will fix later when I have some time. Well, now mostly better now.
In the olde days there was a perception that 4 valve engines were weak at low RPMs and needed to really rev to get any kind of performance. Two valve push rod engines generally offered two mutually exclusive types of performance, small valve high torque at low rpm, and big valve engines with high HP only at the high end. There were things that could be done with a 4 barrel carb that would skew the power curve but valve size and valve lift ruled. Perverters of these big, lazy engines could do a lot of power improvements with intake and exhaust swaps and hot cam profiles. Bubba could turn screws on the carb while Jake put his nose in the exhaust and sniffed to guide a tune-up.
A 2.5 ton car with 80/20 weight distribution, suspend with leaf springs on a beam axle in back and torsion bars or coils on the front guided by a recirculating ball steering box had no chance of handling well. Anything aftermarket only changed the handling from being soft and bad to hard and bad.
These were the days when most guys could be a star car tuner because what they started with was so poor. My brother had a Firebird TA that he tried to match against my car, the outcome of that resulted in him getting a crate motor and doing a full-on hot rod job on the engine. In the end it didn't matter, he never got down the track before my car crossed the line.
His car was on the dying edge of old school performance cars. I had an early new school performance car but it still needed engine, transmission and suspension help. My Impala SS handled very good if you could drive well but it could over match a rookie driver. In terms of brute power, after a bit of tweaking it could scoot real good for being Two Tons of Fun.
This is my brother's Poncho failing yet again against my car at New England Dragway.
This is my car dispatching a Buick GS 455.
Ahh the good old days with cars that weren't nearly as good as we remember them. Today my current car makes 330 hp from a normally aspirated 3.7 liter engine, has struts up front and a multi-link suspension in back. Straight off the dealer's floor with no work my car would be a close (but not quite) match for my Impala SS after lots of work. Plus, my current car handles really good in part because it is smaller and lighter but also the suspension is vastly better.
If I could afford a second car, I probably would join Bounce with a WRX STi as a toy for autocrossing.
EDIT:
What the heck? I did an edit and my post comes up in HTML! Will fix later when I have some time. Well, now mostly better now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Redfish Hunter
Gone Fishing
Man this thread has drifted...
Those '70s model TransAms may not be up to todays standards in either handling or horsepower but they were highly desirable in their day. As Ionbeam noted, there is a direct correlation between what the public wants and what the manufacturers build. Take a look at how many Harleys are on the road and we know they are neither the fastest nor the best handling. It is what the majority wants.
Since I currently own a BMW 3 series which is considered a benchmark in the handling department, I have a few strong opinions concerning American vs. European technology. Whatever "edge" the BMW has in handling is completely erased by a lack of reliability and cost of ownership. If it were not for the fact that Mrs. Redfish loves the stupid thing, it would already have been traded for a Camaro or a Mustang GT.
Those '70s model TransAms may not be up to todays standards in either handling or horsepower but they were highly desirable in their day. As Ionbeam noted, there is a direct correlation between what the public wants and what the manufacturers build. Take a look at how many Harleys are on the road and we know they are neither the fastest nor the best handling. It is what the majority wants.
Since I currently own a BMW 3 series which is considered a benchmark in the handling department, I have a few strong opinions concerning American vs. European technology. Whatever "edge" the BMW has in handling is completely erased by a lack of reliability and cost of ownership. If it were not for the fact that Mrs. Redfish loves the stupid thing, it would already have been traded for a Camaro or a Mustang GT.
Also consider that many of the esoteric American cars of today are as unreliable as those from Yurp. The Ford GT "Supercar" breaks as often as an Italian Stallion. The difference is you don't get the "glow" that surrounds you when driving a Ferrari but then that's the same if you get "stuck" with a Lambo instead of a Ferrari.
But... ooo baby for a daily driver like the Audi R8 or Posche 911.
Since I'm on a beer budget, I had to go for "nearly-a-Porsche" at half the cost (the STi). Again, I don't get to be surrounded by the "glow of ownership" that comes with the other marques.
But... ooo baby for a daily driver like the Audi R8 or Posche 911.
Since I'm on a beer budget, I had to go for "nearly-a-Porsche" at half the cost (the STi). Again, I don't get to be surrounded by the "glow of ownership" that comes with the other marques.
Last edited by a moderator:
lnewlf
Well-known member
spent a Saturday morning last fall watching test and tune at Lebanon Valley dragstrip...the 'merican V8's, old and new, Chevy, Ford and Mopar, were putting everything on the trailer, with the exception of some guy with a Toyota Crown who was running high 8's...bikes were sucking hind teat too..
ionbeam
2 FUN
Abigail
Active member
That's a pretty car, though like others have said, it seems kind of pointless to convert a perfectly good Camaro. I tried to talk my dad into a Firebird ("It has a back seat, and it's not very expensive!") when it was time to upgrade the ancient Isuzu Trooper me and my sisters were using. Since I was the designated chauffeur and would be paying half the car's cost, I had some say, but not that much say- we ended up with a Mazda 626.
Guess I could get a sporty car now, but it seems pointless- my FJR is faster than anything I could buy!
Guess I could get a sporty car now, but it seems pointless- my FJR is faster than anything I could buy!
Daniel78362
Active member
OM...........freaking God........................this thread is the best....................
First: my wife is hot even at her age................why??????? cause hot is hot.
Second: chick cars come in every " HP"
Third: when 'chicks" are the focus of "your AD..........Chicks area your market........and Chicks will buy your car................
Forth: then Chick and "Chick like DUDES WILL BUY YOUR CAR
First: my wife is hot even at her age................why??????? cause hot is hot.
Second: chick cars come in every " HP"
Third: when 'chicks" are the focus of "your AD..........Chicks area your market........and Chicks will buy your car................
Forth: then Chick and "Chick like DUDES WILL BUY YOUR CAR
Daniel78362
Active member
MY POINT::::: .......................................HAVE A GOOD ******* NIGHT, TAKE YOUR PESCRIBE MEDS. OR JUST TAKE A HUGH ******* SWIG .............
SoCalFJR1300
Well-known member
Yeah, but back then they were learning how to try to get HP out of a smog choked engine.
Now they know how.
HotRodZilla
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Hold on a second...Daniel is yelling about something.
Bustanut joker
Well-known member
Yeah.... He's pissed because some Mexican stole his hubcaps.
HotRodZilla
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Well, since the 70s, it's been a ***** decorating our fences. Stupid Detroit stopped putting hubcaps on cars, so we have to scrounge them wherever we can find them. Daniel's were bitchen!!
Similar threads
