Well this man in I'd say late 40's early 50's got up next to me at a light on my way home from work and he was in a vettte,lke a 79 or so.He started reving at me so I reved beck.His car was puting out quite a bit of black smoke.Light turned green and we both hit it.I got him out of the hole and stayed about half a car length ahead of him till about 55 Then I had to turn off.I don't know if he couldn't drive or his car was junk or what but I thought that was kinda cool.

 

The late 70's corvettes look nice but they weren't much for performance, I think the 78 had the least HP of any V8 corvette in history.

 

I don't think there were ANY cars in the late 70s with good performance... look at the HP numbers on 2nd gen F-bodys!

But its still nice to be able to say you beat a Vette!

 

those vettes only had between 195 and 225 hp depending upon the engine ...weighed as much as a thirdgen and only had two seats....LOL


http://www.idavette.net/facts/79.htm

 

A taxi cab would have put up a better fight than that Vette.

 

I didn't think they had good hp #s.I was pulling away from him more but I had to turn so I didn't want to miss it.It's kinda pethetic that my 305 beat him.

 

ive riddin in taxi cab caprices before ....and those guys think they are running a damn nascar race of some sorts...LOL


as far as the race goes its hard telling if he didnt know how to drive or if he was just having a mid life crisis ...LMAO


sounds like he was running extremely rich if it was blowing black smoke like that but its realy hard telling .....

 

yep those early 80s to later 70s VETTEs were pretty much Crap for performance.. Beautiful cars tho.. But yea a 305 Auto should have no Issues with one. Well there was one with a 220hp, i dunno if that ran any good tho.

 

Even some of the early 70s Vettes had horrible HP #s... I know someone with a 73 Vette... the original engine (not sure of the code) was a 350, but it was only rated around 205 HP or something like that!? What's the point in having a Vette with only 205 HP? That's probably why the car now has a done up 327 with around 300 HP in it. They are nice cars tho. Maybe one day I'll pick up an older Vette. Wish I had the chance to beat a guy in a Vette, just so I could say I beat a Vette!

 

because of the OIL CRISIS in the 70s.. By the early 70s V8 were dropped hp, thats why all pretty much cars from the 70s and 80s run crap for performance

 

There were some exceptions to that tho... look at the 73 SD455 Trans Ams... those things were still fast... if I remember correctly 73 was one of the last years you could still get an engine with some decent HP.

 

your correct i belive the last year was 1973, 74 was when smog and emissions and all the LOWER hp came in

 

Your race sounds just about right. I ran into a super loud late 70's vette in my '95 and as soon as we hit it I had to brake because I thougt I was going to run him over. They are horribly slow.

 

nick, not trying to start anything but you said all cars from the 70's and 80's had crap for performance. what about the TTA or the Firehawks or buick GNX all extremely fast and all 80's cars. not trying to start anything just saying.

 

I don't know anything about Corvettes, but if you want to get specific as far as Firebird is concerned, the oil crisis and emissions control began showing their effects on the Firebird's performance as early as 1972.

Even though the 455 SD was no slouch, it was still somewhat slower than the previous year's top-of-the-line engine... despite the fact that it had 55 more cubic inches under its belt. The trend continued until the mid '80s when engine performance finally broke into the "more than 200HP" range... something it had not done in more than a decade. Of course, there were exceptions (Pontiac 6.6L V8; Pontiac 4.9L with TBO305 AiResearch Corp. turbo)... but they were few and far between.

Here's a graph of the highest performance engines in the Firebird during this time period. Keep in mind most of the cars did NOT recieve these engines... many of them came with sub-200HP V8s and V6s (even a few four cylinders here and there).

EDIT: Thought I'd add that up until the 1982 LU5, all of these engines were built by Pontiac.

 

Wasn't there another reason HP reatings went into the toilet - somethign about how they used to dyno them. They used to dyno with no accessories on the engine,and emasured flywheel power, then they switched to having full accessories on them, of course they lost some power, but it was still the same motor and still felt the same in the car. Or am I smoking something...?

 

Yes, net and gross ratings. I don't know how much that affected GM's ratings though.

 

I dont know if Id call a TTA or a GNX FAST running 13's. It was good for their time though. I guess I'd call them quick. But you sure can build them to be fast.

 

it affected the rating system alot. yes they used to dyno them with as little acessories as possible through open headers with a performance tune up and messured at the fly. for example the 1971 base turbo fire v8 motor had 200 gross hp and 140 net hp. a difference of 60 hp!The 350 in the z28 had 330 gross hp and 275 net hp, so yeah there is a big difference in gross and net horsepower.

 

i agree, but they arent like today... Throw the L98 in there as well! I just 90mph for the 1st time in the camaro, damn its quick!

 

As a general rule, most 70s/80s cars had crap performance, but there were a few exceptions, such as the cars you mentioned. The GNXs were definitely fast cars... but how many TTAs and Firehawks do you see around? Not too many unfortunately.

Definitely good for their time... think about how slow everything else on the road had been for over a decade or more

 

There sure was a big drop in power from 1974 to 1975. 1975 was the year that the General Motors started putting catalytic converters in the f-bodies. My '75 used to have them...not anymore.

dave

 

1975 was the year of the 110hp 350 in the vette also wasn't it? All the smog garbage they put on these poor engines is depressing.

 

my dads friend has a mid 70's vette and its got the 350 in it. It runs low 10s in the 1/8. All stock. LOL Very dog like performance although greyhounds are fast This must be a basset hound. lol

 

110 HP???!?!?!?!?!! Holy crap, and I thought my 4 banger S10 was gutless! I can't beleive GM put such a low powered engine in a Corvette of all things! Thats ridiculous. Stupid smog crap.

 

They were trying to deal with the emission laws, probably got a bit carried away with it, and if you look at the eighties, you should see the numbers climb again eacy year, meaning that the manufacturers finally began to understand how to make power with emissions. Look at the LS1, for example, a testament of hwo to make a decent engine that makes a lot of power, has great economy and is pretty environmentally friendly to boot. The knowledge base for that just didn't exist twenty years ago. Hence why our cars are so unappreciated, they had to deal with the smog laws and the company was still trying ot figure out how to make decent power with that restriction. That also might play a role as to why carb swaps and emission delete jobs (AKA, for off-road use only) are so popular today.

 

Inwo are you sure it was 110hp?! Damn thats low! I thought the slowest Vette was the 82 Vette and that had like 160-170hp?

 

Guess I was a little low.

CHA: 350ci, 165hp MT CRK: 350ci, 165hp AT

165 thundering horsies in 1975. Down from 250 in 74.

The Camaro in 74 got the L65, a 145hp 350.

 

It seems like it would be a challenge to build a motor with that LITTLE horsepower LOL!! I mean come on, thats less than half the cubes!! Is there a limit to how little horsepower that can be made on a 350? What were people thinking in the 70's?

Me on the left, GM/70's people on right



With that power, they were better off putting in V-6's. Probly more efficient anyway.

 

I don't believe that the Corvettes ever had horsepower numbers that low (110hp). I know there were Corvettes in California in the early eighties that came with 305 motors. Does anyone know what the horsepower number were for the fifties Corvettes?

The 1974 z28 could be had with a 350 engine that put out 245hp.

The LM1 in my '75 came with 155hp. This was the highest rated motor you could get with the Camaro in '75. I guess that would give owners more incentive to modify them.

What was the highest rated z28 / Trans Am motor in 1982? Wasn't it around the 155hp mark?

dave

 

The lowest was 165hp, which is lower than my stock, 4 Cyl, Integra that I used to have.

 

At least if I ever come across any 70s Vettes that look/sound relatively close to stock, I know I could probably take em in my GTA... and then see the look on the guys face as he hides in shame cause his Vette was beat by a Firebird. haha

 

I agree about the 82 vette being a complete pig!!!

0-60 in a galloping 9.2 seconds

 

Nope your wrong. The Lowest was 150hp in 1953 when they introduced the 1st Corvette. Also those 50s early 60s vette hadd like 150-165hp. Still love em, there classics!

 

Actually now what im readin if the 82 did 9.2 0-60. The 1953 Vette with the 6cylinder did 0-60 in a galloping 11.6 seconds

 

Sad thing is that was considered quick back then

I'm glad we live in the 21st century

 

yep, But i looked up other rides from the 50s and they like doin 0-60 in 16 secs! So a 11 secs was awesome for that time. Until the 60s came and Vettes were going 0-60 in like 5.5secs and all that good stuff

watch this, in 40 yrs. PPL are gonna have flyin cars or somthing and theyll be doin 0-60 in like .3 secs. There gonna laugh at us for doin 5 secs.

 

I have a 1979 Corvette. They were offered with two engines, the 220ish hp L82 and the 190ish L48. I have the L48.

Its not a power house, but its decent. When the 4 barrels kick in, its quite nice. Anyhoo, but I have a 4speed manual so its a little better.

Anyhoo - These things have like 1.5" exhaust piping. Its rediculous!

Just an FYI tho - They're still fun cars.

 

Dante - Your Corvette has the same engine I pulled out of that black '79 Z28 and put in my car. Really nice low end, but hits a brick wall around 4200 or so, right?

 

]

sounds like TPI as well

 

Sorta, but its a cam/heads/intake/ignition curve/exhaust/compression ratio problem with the L48 motors.

TPI is mostly just an intake and exhaust problem.

 

Don't get me wrong. My L48 is a great motor for around town, its just not a pavement pounding powerhouse.

It could use exhaust, cam, and a fair amount of tuning before the L48 is really alive.

 

Just had to comment...

The HP ratings dropped because of several factors...

The oil crisis / embargo
Higher HP cars were getting higher insurance rates as early as the late 60's

The way cars were rated DRASTICALLY changed...


As for the SD455 Trans Am's...they were available in '73 and '74 and were rated very low in HP, but had HUGE torque numbers w/ LOW compression.

And the 73/74 Poncho's were FASTER than fastest Firebirds in '72... 13.5 1/4 mile @ around 104 BONE STOCK ( remember 70's tires? )


I served with a guy that had one he inherited from his Dad...

Bigger cam, headers, better exhaust, stock Turbo 400 w/ a better converter and he changed the factory gears from 3.08 to 3.42...

Car was good for high 12's all day long....

 

Well the L48 may not be best motor, but hey, since it has low compression, just get a blow thru carb setup supercharger and your ready to go!! LOL, But how strong are those motors internals? Olden days, well over 350hp was common but did smog era put crappy parts in them? Or was it just lower compression pistons and wimpy cam that caused low output?

 

Plus those SD 455's were weighing in around 3800lbs...no light weight..I belive they were underrated(big time!!!)at 310/290 net hp!!!
Considering that current LS1's weight quite a bit less and trap 102-106mph..I know they are underated too....
Anyway it just shows what pontiac could do(see also 89 Turbo T/A),when GM lets them build the cars the way they want to..

 

Most of those late 455s actually would run good times with just some exhaust work. The pipes on those things were rediculous. Unfortunately, most people couldn't be bothered with the Poncho motors and went to the Chevys where the parts were cheap and plentiful. I wish when GM decided to go corporate, they would have allowed each division to keep one of their own motors. Oh well.

 

just saw the post i have a 80 vette l48 190 hp and i can keep up with l98s all day. i think they where very under raited .my car is very quick and the only thing done to it is a 2\12 dule exh with 3.73 2200 stall

 

No way a L48 would be a L98 stock vs stock. There was guy trying to sell me his 79 Vette L48 for 8 grand. It wasnt that fast... He did some exhaust work. I know my L98 would rape it. L48s could use exhaust, cam and head work and they will FLY. Also rip that smog **** out as well.. There beautiful Cars ( i love C3s) But i rather have a Early C3 Stingray with a 427