Muscle Car Flops

Executioner · Post by **Executioner** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:12 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/09/ ... scle-cars/

LOL

4. 1981 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28: Perhaps the nadir of the stone knife and bearskin approach to emission controls, the ’81 Camaro Z/28 with a 5.7-liter V-8 came with a whopping 165 hp if you ordered the manual transmission. To put that into perspective, the 1.6-liter turbo four in a new Chevy Cruze is rated at 181 hp.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/09/ ... z26kvERHZd

Which is why cars made between 1973 - 1989 are not worth buying IMHO.

eGoCeNTRoNiX · Post by **eGoCeNTRoNiX** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:44 pm

Funny Stuff.. I'm really surprised there weren't some easy engine mods to counter that.. Displacement is Displacement after all..

EvilHorace · Post by **EvilHorace** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:06 pm

eGoCeNTRoNiX wrote:Funny Stuff.. I'm really surprised there weren't some easy engine mods to counter that.. Displacement is Displacement after all..

Ahh but there were. I had several 70s cars that were easily enhanced by simply swapping intake manifolds and carbs. Back then, a huge power robber was the poorly designed air pump system but with a manifold swap....gone.
One example was my '74 Regal with a 350. Swapped intakes, carbs from a '68 Skylark 350 and had no air pump, EGR or carb emissions. Had much better performance and mileage. Still only had 8.5/1 compression ratio however.

If you really wanted performance, you then rebuilt the engine with performance parts (pistons, cam, heads, etc).

Most people who own 80s Mustangs don't have the stock engines in them anymore as they were lackluster compared to newer cars.

Err · Post by **Err** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:22 pm

EvilHorace wrote: Most people who own 80s Mustangs don't have the stock engines in them anymore as they were lackluster compared to newer cars.

I remember that the 1986 Mustang SVO (2.3L Turbo) would out perform the 5.0 that year. I think a lot of 5.0 guys ended up dropping in crate or modified motors.

normalicy · Post by **normalicy** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:08 pm

I once drove an '82 Mustang. It was a sad thing. Like so sad that my Geo Metro could have taken it.

Key Keeper · Post by **Key Keeper** » Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:53 pm

Weird, my buddy had an 85 notchback with a 5 speed and it was pretty damn fast. Bone stock motor!

normalicy · Post by **normalicy** » Wed Sep 19, 2012 6:54 pm

Well, the one that I drove was about 15 years old at the time & who knows if it was properly maintained. All I know is that I have an '88 5.0L & it would have left the '82 in the dust.

Key Keeper · Post by **Key Keeper** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:42 pm

I think 85 was first year for the roller cam. The true "HO" motor. Before that they were all slug motors...

EvilHorace · Post by **EvilHorace** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:33 pm

Fox body engine specs: http://www.fiveohinfo.com/fox/engine.html

My 2 boosted turbo Volvos (2.3 liter) have my power than any of them.

normalicy · Post by **normalicy** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:40 pm

Well there you go, 1/2 the power.

normalicy · Post by **normalicy** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:44 pm

And they weren't all that light either.

renovation · Post by **renovation** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:03 pm

when was it the made the switch from measuring hp from the trans to the rear end on car ! I know hp rating was measured diffrent. i could be wrong as to what way its measured

eGoCeNTRoNiX · Post by **eGoCeNTRoNiX** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:30 am

Manufacturers always measure the horsepower at the cranks. They never give you wheel numbers..