wHY wERE AMeRiCAN V8 ENGiNEs SLoW iN 1970s?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 04. 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...
- Auta a dopravní prostředky
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...
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.
"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!
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.
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
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.
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?
First generation catalytic converters were really really restrictive as well
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
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
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?
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.
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
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'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.
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.
"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
You just set my entire generation straight.
I like how he used the phrase "neutered"
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 CZcams 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
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.
I love how the Europeans throw shade about that when my 1976 Mercedes 3.0L makes 79hp.
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.
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 😂
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.
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
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.
This was a really interesting video, would like to see more for the different factions
"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.
In the 90s they were still struggling for power but managed to still make some of the most iconic trucks in the world
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
One thing you can’t forget is the torque they displaced. That never changed.
American cars had fuel injection as early as 1958 with the Chrysler DeSoto being the first, they had overhead cam motors but at the time innovation for OHC engines would be expensive...especially to implement into production, OHV engines are cheap and worked just fine and still do...so why "uproot" the industry for gains that were essentially not needed at the time, once you change something production wise it costs millions (back then) which was not peanuts, does anyone remember the saying "if it aint broke dont fix it" they have been and were innovating...GM made a rotary engine...US automakers were not ready for the emissions laws and fuel crisis, and being a US company, cost is a huge deal
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
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
The truth about the horsepower drop from 60s to 70s cars was how auto manufacturers used to rate their engines. Before 1972 Detroit would use the old SAE gross hp rating system which was just a dyno of the engine without being in the car or having stuff like A/C or catalytic converters attached. After 1973 the Government changed the rules for Detroit and started enforcing strict regulations that car manufacturers had to rate the horsepower after the engine was installed and all accessories were bolted to the engine. That and insurance companies would charge a person extra money if they had powerful cars. So Detroit started lying about the actual numbers. My dad's friend had a 78 trans am and it definitely had more than 200 hp.
There was also the switch to unleaded fuel, which brought a big drop in compression ratios. That happened by 1975.
You should also include the whole brake HP and net HP rating thing that came in the early 70s
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.
As an european i have a lot of respect for american cars. I wish i could buy a 1969 ford mustang but locking at my grades... yeeeeah, toyota gt86 for 11 k it is.
Even with gud grades you mostly won't be able to afford it bcuz retro cars appreciate like crazy
@@Gvrgt they're talking about the gt86, which is surprisingly cheap (and modern, not the retro one)
@@Suzumi-kun yeah here in austria even used ones from 2013 go for 15-26k ........ So no you can have bad grades, you just have to be in a high paying job thats all.
@@nsreturn1365 I just checked and the minimum they go for here in the netherlands is also like 14k, they prob live in the uk for those prices
I've always dreamed of owning a bit american car and I thought it was just my age. Then along comes my son who's starting to get into cars now and I have a modern BMW and just let him like the cars he likes, he's gravitated toward big american cars, loud cars, powerful cars, he used to love supercars but now he loves super tuned road cars and basically anything 80s or 90s.
Just face it. American engineers have always been five steps behind Japanese and European engineers.
Government ruins everything.
Ummm mate, have you seen the gas crises ?
No. 50 years later. No. @@Sailed_away
@@Sailed_away The government/big oil imposed crisis?
_U.S. Government trying not to fuck over Cars Speedrun, Difficulty: IMPOSSIBLE_
@@americancapitalist9094 no I meant to say the laws were a reactionary measure to the oil crises. If it hadn't happen . There won't be such laws.
Similar thing with Chicken tax and a lot more laws. All of them are reactionary to some event.
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 🤦🏽♂️
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.
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.
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.
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.
You were the only CZcamsr who faced the laughter and madness of the jdms and the euros, congratulations, you gained a subscriber
Feedback
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
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.
Thank you for that information as I always wondered why they were slow even though they had bigger engines
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
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
My dad was having so much fun in the 60s and 70s even the 80s as a mechanic for speed junkies and he also was police mechanic his cop cars was insanity fast
Japan: haha you barely make 200 horse power
American muscle cars: im only using 5% of my powers
Americans couldn’t build a fast engine even if their lives depended on it
@@eyes7777 Camaro Exorcist ZL1, Hennessy Venom GT, Mustang SVT Cobra, Dodge Hellcat, Saleen S7, Dodge Viper ACR, Corvette Stingray C8, 2017 Chevrolet SS, Ford RS200, Ford GT, Mosler MT900S: _Allow us to introduce ourselves_
@@eyes7777🤡
@@eyes7777 Funny you say that considering euro car companies borrowed American engines for their cars. One i think used a motor from a Crown Vic,and of course some used chevy motors.Americans can make badass motors .
@@Juvxiiyou really just used the RS200 there???
Yeah they were de-tuned and very asthmatic but they could be bought back to life with a gentle massage.
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.
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
American motor engineering will always remain supreme
I had several late ‘70s T/As and they responded well after the smog equipment was removed;)
A big factor is not emission regulations, it is that until 1972 US car manufacturers used Gross HP ratings, that were easily inflated. In 1972 they switched to SAE HP, which is standardized. For example the Corvette 350 went from 330 Gross HP to 255 SAE HP.
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.
A big part is that in the 70s, they stopped making high compression engines to help people save on gas and to have lower emissions. They left it up to the owners to make it what they wanted. The emissions garbage still lives today, especially in diesels. Cutting back on power and reliability majorly by requiring a diesel emissions system. In states where theres no emission standards, its VERY COMMON for the garbage to get deleted to increase power and reliability.
And unfortunately when a delete happens, the owner/driver and technician that touched those chocking devices can (and have) been hit with huge fines and/or jail time. While I disagree with these devices/systems that actually cause more environmental harm than the good they are touted to provide, there are a lot of tuners that are getting up to and even over 1,000 hp out of the engines with those devices intact.
@@jmackinjersey1, I've never heard of anyone turning them off for performance. Seen them roll coal, even hitting a dozen bicyclists because they had to prove their tiny pp wasn't tiny (failed BTW). Even seen them do it just because they want to impress uneducated buddies, which is slightly better than trying to kill a dozen cyclists. Never seen them get even a slight increase in acceleration out of it whilst rolling coal, always been same speed or slower (because you're not getting the true impact of emissions blasting a pedestrian if you weren't next to them while doing it for a solid 3 seconds before getting up to any reasonable speed)
Yes, but Compresion was lowered because lead was removed from gas.
higher compression ratios provide better mileage via producing more torque everywhere in the RPM range. One of the ways I get 20mpg on E85 from 462 inches of Pontiac V8 is the prodigious torque they produce and raising the compression ratio to 13:1. More compression works the fuel harder, thus producing more torque, which requires less throttle angle to move the vehicle, so it uses less fuel.
The problem is gasoline is terrible with compression, as it likes to ignite when it feels like it rather than when the spark hit the cylinder. TEL (tetraethyl lead) was an octane enhancer that allowed gasoline to withstand higher compression, because it makes gasoline more difficult to ignite. Toluene does the same thing, but its as rough on rubber fuel system parts as methanol is. The problem is lead is harmful to humans and life in general, so pumping tons of it into the air every year was a bad idea.
Gasoline also wastes more than 80% of its energy as heat, which must be shed via the radiator and exhaust system or else the engine will expand to the point it looses oil film between the bearings and journals and wipes out the bearings. It is not a very good fuel, no matter what people think or tell you about how awesome it is.
Absolutely right. I remember an older gentleman rolling up in this double-cabbed Ford from like the 70's that I swear had like an 8+ foot bed on the thing and looked like it weighed 3+ tons. And he got 22mpg in that thing. My Tundra gets 12. He got 22 and probably has at least 1500lbs on me unloaded. Still bugs me to this day.
70s corvette looks like a freaking spaceship, my dude. You dont need hOrSePoWeRs in space
Thank goodness you Explained that to everyone genius ! ! !
Emissions. Emissions ruin it all...
And cars aren't even the biggest source of emissions!
That meddling government and their damn dog!
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.
we got a 70s Lincoln Continental Mark III, V8 7.5L but barely 180hp. It still sounds amazing though.
Woooww thats so cool, i finally understand why cars made from 1972 and before are considered “classics” and dont require passing smog!
Another thing people forget is how much torque these engines had, especially the late 60s ones
All of them. All the years.
Torque is only good for real-life usage, in traffic. On race tracks it doesnt really matter
@@horvathr95 Torque turns tires, horsepower is just for bragging.
@@totalmetaljacket789 uhm, no? 🤷♂️
A car with a higher horsepower figure will always be faster everything else being equal, other than the gear ratios.
@@horvathr95 Riddle me this: how do you calculate horsepower?
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
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.
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
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
Basically Americans didn't know how to make fuel efficient engines that are also small.
There's a lot more that goes into it than not knowing how. V8 were the standard at the time and vastly preferred by most consumers.
Vastly preferred by consumers you mean "car enthusiasts" 😂@@incredulousd9408
@@incredulousd9408 That's exactly what I meant. V8 were the standard... in the US. Even a grocery getter had one back then. They didn't know how to pull an inline like the Japanese and European did.
@@DanDaFreakinManMostly because an American would prefer buying V8 over inline, it’s like buying Gucci over Adidas.
@@DanDaFreakinMan Cough, inline sixes are a thing, cough. Not every classic american cars always have a V8, infact many muscle, pony, or even pickups have the option for inline 6 back in the days. As for the luxury land barges, I think it makes sense why V8 are essential in them. I dont think a 1 liter inline four would even get those luxury landboats moving.
Lower compression ratios was one of the things they did to reduce emissions. Specifically nitric oxide emissions. In 1975, the first emissions control device was required on all cars: the catalytic converter (2way) and then later on the 3 way which had a reduction bed to reduce nox.
Back then, they didn't have the sophistication of computer controlled fuel delivery. The 02 sensor, that was later introduced in I believe the early 80's was a game changer. Not only for emissions, but for engine performance.
And now it’s like the 60’s era horsepower wars all over again!
Power per liter was a big marketing scam that silly people bought into
Having fewer horses per liter means your engine isn’t stressed too much
It’s also MORE fuel efficient than having a small engine making the same power because you’re going to be running a much leaner AF mixture and need to apply much less throttle
There truly is no replacement for displacement when talking about everyday driving
alot of DOHC small engines are bigger than my 7L Ls7 C6Z lmao There’s a reason why LT4s make 1300+ WHP completely stock bottom end stock rods, pistons etc, most euro engines cap out in the 3 digits lmao. Even the S58, highest whp stock bottom end s58 is 960 whp. Yes WHP, not the gay bhp calculations to the crank.
I believe the actual argument for power per liter is moreso about track performance, lower displacement engines tend to be smaller and lighter, getting adequate power out of a small engine is much better for an actual track car than getting ridiculous power out of a massive engine.
@@Tepid24 yes but that idea was being relentlessly pushed into the normal car sphere and it’s just annoying af because people who keep parroting that point almost never track drive their car
@@sarmatiancougar7556 Eh, massive horsepower figures also keep being pushed in the normal car sphere and those are worth less for regular daily driving than something being light and compact. I am very firmly on the "literally anything is a replacement for displacement" side of the camp. For daily driving you want something light and efficient, for track driving you want something light and dense. The niche that massive american V8 muscle cars exist in is similar to Harley Davidson for bikes, which is 95% just about making noise while extracting the least real life value out of it that is feasibly possible.
@@Tepid24 dude you can’t replace low end torque with anything
There is NO replacement for the comfort in gives you
And large engines are not that much bigger
Especially the pushrod ones
You are saying all of that as if it means anything but it really doesn’t amount to anything
You’re never really going to notice that something inside the engine bay is bigger
Never mind the fact modern cars are getting heavier and it got nothing to do with the engine
first so i can stop the kids from saying first
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
@@jarodjohnson4357 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 personally love factory sleepers like the SHO. One of my dream cars is a Buick Roadmaster wagon with the LT1, tune and mod it a lil. As far as the PTU, I’m guessing 158925
I’m boutta upset some poor kids with no cars but the fastest 4 cyl motor is the GM LSJ Ecotec that ran a 5.8 second 1/4 mile at 240+ mph, 2000+ hp minimum lmao.
No one is upset that an engine built for racing performs well when racing.
Exactly zero people in these comments will ever own a car with that type of build and drive it on a street.
@@totalmetaljacket789 the fastest cars on the streets are all LS foxbodies lmao, they beat almost everything on a Dig on street lmao.
@@ManLikeEddy It’s not confusing, the fastest 4 cyl in the world is from Carl Brunets Promod that uses a GM Ecotec motor from the chevy colbalts. He ran a 5.82 second 1/4 mile at 242 mph beating the previous world record of 4 cyls from the K24 that ran 5.86.
Because government
Thanks alot Jimmy Carter.
Had two of those Trans Ams, and it was an absolute crime that such a good-looking car was so underpowered...JustSaying
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.
Eastern countries just don't like admitting their cars are slower
Its not them.. its the fanboys saying those things.. kinda like Apple n Android thing we have now
That depends on what you mean by slower. When Americans say a car is fast, they mean in a straight line while Europeans say a car is fast they mean round a track.
Historically American cars have always and still struggle when going around a race track.
@@jackcowling5969 probably looking at how they are.. because comparing EU roads and American ones they're quite different.. due to how far one places are from the other no wonder Americans made their cars to have more top speed output.. while the EU have shorter trips between one places to the other
@@ravioliravioli693 that’s the thing tho they didn’t have the greatest top speed either as American cars had very bad aerodynamics and terrible gearboxes.
The things is no matter what anyone says American cars will be slow to most of the world as they are slow around a track.
@@jackcowling5969 maybe poor top speed and bad gearboxes was cuz of the oil crisis at the time.. more speed and gear means lesser fuel efficiency maybe.. plus, not switching to smaller engines might cuz of GM not wanting to invest a few bucks more on developing new engines, so which why they stuck with their current ones and massively detune them.. without restrictions, they might make at least 35% - 60% more than their current hp
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.
1970-71 Challenger made 400 horsepower from the factory. I can remember pre-Hellcat days where they were advertising 305 in a Challenger like it was a lot.
Pre hellcat days there was Jeep grand cherokee SRT8 SUVs running 8.00 second 1/4 miles at 173 mph from paramount performance. Now the srt8 jeep guys cramming into the trackhawks
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.
Emissions restrictions were part of the reason advertised power dropped, but another big reason was the way power was measured changed. In 1974 car manufacturers switched from SAE Gross horsepower to SAE Net horsepower. Belt accessories like air conditioning, smog pumps, alternators, and more took a lot of power to turn, and reduced the power actually going through the driveline. By changing to SAE net horsepower they measured the engine power actually getting delivered to the driveline after accounting for power losses from belt accessories. You can see in some cars that kept the same or similar power trains through 73-74 the power dropped dramatically despite no major changes happening to the engine. It’s because the changed the way engine power was measured.
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.
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.
They also lied about the numbers alot because nobody had a dyno.
And in the late 60's early 70's manufactures often listed the power ratings below what they actually made too.
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.
People also like to forget that Americans in the 70’s didn’t need an ultra compact 8 speed eurobucket to get around a 50,000 population city the size of a couple nyc blocks, they needed 2-4 door highway cruisers that could do a 60-100 rolling pull in 5 seconds and hold half the extended family at the same time, literally can’t fit 8 people in any 2 door jdm or euro car from that time period but in America you got continental coupes rolling around with half a continents population in the rear seat
The Cleveland 351 is indestructable and you could do whatever you wanted to with it.
1970 Shelby GT500, 1971 Hemi'Cuda and 1971 Chevelle 454: Allow us to introduce ourselves