That olds!!! 
Nobody's going to complain about a '75 911
Maybe a free one. They're a lot closer to a beetle than they are to newer 911s you can get for the same money which still qualify as world class sports cars even at 15 y/o etc. In objective and value terms they suck. If not in objective terms then you could say a lot of malaise cars suck a lot less!
frenchyd said:MotorsportsGordon said:Curtis73 said:NormPeterson said:Curtis73 said:
frenchyd said:There is a fair number of higher end cars like Jaguar and Mercedes Benz from that era. A few extra tubes and air pump etc didn't deter ownership and pride in those.
Same with Corvette although one year the 350 small block had 350 horsepower the next it was 160 horsepower. Pretty much the same engine except instead of advertised horsepower it was actual horsepower. A lot of people would rather be lied to.
Two big things killed the whole HP thing, but it's not what most people think. They think that all the added hoses, air pumps, and emissions helpers can be taken off and they'll gain all the hp back. They fail to realize that the emissions stuff costs almost zero hp. It was the neutering of the compression and cams that killed it for EPA regs.
Compound that with the switch from gross hp to sae net and you quickly saw 350 hp muscle cars become 200 hp wheezers even though they didn't lose nearly as much as you think... mostly because the old gross hp rating was ridiculously optimistic.
Agree on the old gross HP numbers being ridiculously optimistic in most cases. But the early pellet-style converters that GM used for many years certainly did steal power. A single cat flowing less than 200 cfm @ 25 inches of water hurts everywhere but becomes your basic bottle-cork at anything over about 4000 rpm.
Norm
Agreed. I was speaking more to the combination. People saw a 1968 455 with an advertised 375 hp (gross) and no emissions equipment. Then they saw a 1976 455 with miles of hoses, air pumps, egr, pcv, charcoal canisters, and an advertised 250 hp (net). They assumed that the emissions equipment was the cause of the power loss and misguidedly removed it expecting a big power increase. My assertion was simply that the emissions equipment wasn't costing any hp in the 250hp example. If you have a 1987 Olds 307 pumping out 125 hp and you remove all the emission equipment, all you've done is turn it into a 125hp engine that now might have detonation, 2mpg worse mileage, and no real benefit.
If you wanted to up the power, yes, the cats were a problem. I was simply asserting that removing the emissions equipment wasn't a path to magical power.
EGR costs zero tq/hp. It only operates at cruise. WOT = no EGR flow
PCV (not entirely emissions equipment) costs zero and drastically improves oil health
Air injection is after combustion so the only thing it costs is drag on the alternator or the belt running the pump
Charcoal canisters cost zero power.
What killed them was the low compression, tiny cams, and (generally) poor heads.Well in 76 the 455 was actually around 200 hp net ratings however that was only the second year of the catalytic converters which was definitely costing power.
It wasn't the converter. About the same time the Mercruiser 350 made 200 horsepower and the 454Mercruiser made 210 neither had cats. Or come to think about it air pumps etc. I don't believe pollution controls applied to boats at the time.
Yup. All of the marine manufacturers more or less purchased of-the-shelf crate engines and slapped on the marine externals. Up to about 1994, Mercruiser got a little spunky and spec'd their own cam from Melling that was... wait for it... the same exact cam that came in the crate engine with a 1 degree wider LSA. For packaging reasons, Mercruiser held on to their 3" riser setup and they were afraid of reversion. Once the 4" riser became more common, that measly 1 degree wasn't an issue.
Marine exhausts are wide-open, free-flowing systems that are not only dual 3" or 4", they benefit from a small amount of vacuum at the prop AND water cooled jackets that dramatically reduce exhaust volume, so when you compare a vehicle with a 200 hp 350 with cats and the same assembly in a boat with all those exhaust benefits still making 200 hp, it's not the cats.
But when the cheap crate engine from Chevy was a 7.8:1 wheezer, they just worked with what they had instead of a whole R&D department along with the risk of inflating their own warranty issues. Why pay to develop their own combination when Chevy had done such a good job of making a reliable assembly?
P.S. Melling's 22121 Mercruiser grind (IIRC it's a 198/208 with 113 LSA) is a fantastic truck/towing cam with Vortec heads and 9.5:1. I built a few for some guys. Makes for a nice 290hp/375tq stump puller and the 113 LSA saves a little fuel.
Mazdax605 said:Solidly in the malaise sticker package era. Still, I like it.
My brother had the Chevy version, plain jane V6. He got it into two accidents in the same day in two different towns.
Somehow I clicked this thread after a few days and I see it's about Jaguars. The only thing I know about them is that anything after the E Type is malaise.
Paul_VR6 said:Somehow I clicked this thread after a few days and I see it's about Jaguars. The only thing I know about them is that anything after the E Type is malaise.
Nope.
The thread isn't about Jaguar, but every post by Frenchyd somehow IS !
Antihero said:We really really really need to do a Land Yacht special class at the challenge one year
Interesting thought. How would we classify them? Weight length and width?
frenchyd said:Antihero said:We really really really need to do a Land Yacht special class at the challenge one year
Interesting thought. How would we classify them? Weight length and width?
Nah.
SB/O class: Squirrely Bolt-On. Must have at least 22 lbs of chrome bolt-ons like curb feelers, fake cell phone antennas, spoke Daytons, and rocker panel covers.
WW-M class: White-wall Modified: All mods fair game but must have 225/75-14 all-season whitewalls and factory suspension. That would make the autocross a hoot to watch.
CP/P: Cell phone pretentious: Only cars that were factory equipped with cell phones.
PW/A: Plywood/Aero. Any aero mods allowed as long as they're made from plywood scraps
SB-Spec: All European roadsters and coupes from the 70s (Opel GT, GT6, Spyder, Spider, MGB, 928) with a stock wheezer SBC swap. Basically just like every other european tub that made it over here in the 80s got.
Oh, can't forget the Landau class. It's a 12 hour endurance race. Must have a Continental spare tire and vinyl roof of at least 9 square feet. Drivers are required to stop every 10 laps and rotate the tires including the spare on the trunk lid.
volvoclearinghouse said:frenchyd said:Stampie said:In reply to frenchyd :
I think a lot of the GM malaise cars disappeared because they became drivetrain donors for Jaguars.
I know they did. I used to pick those V12's up for scrap metal prices from the guys doing the swaps. Most were in perfect shape. Nothing wrong with them. It's just the owners were terrified of the fuel injection. They were perfectly willing to accept 100 horsepower less in exchange for the familiar carburator.
Or they built up a 300 HP SBC that had 2/3 of the moving parts of the Jaguar mill and could be swapped in less time than it took to set the valve lash on the V12.
If you count the 16 pushrods Jaguars didn't have and 16 rocker arms Jaguars didn't have a Chevy V8 is pretty complex compared to the 4 extra pistons and 4 extra connecting rods of a Jaguar. Oops 8 extra valves and 8 extra lifters. OK it's a tie.
Stampie said:In reply to frenchyd :
I think a lot of the GM malaise cars disappeared because they became drivetrain donors for Jaguars.
One thing I'd like to do is buy a Monte Carlo. Paint it black. Put a big number 3 on it . yank that anemic V8, replace it with a Jaguar V12 and go LeMons Racing.
In reply to AnthonyGS :
I had a '77 Cutlass that was very similar to that Dale Jr. car. It was an "S" model, in fact, so when I had the local Chevy dealership work on it they looked up parts under the Laguna S3 model. The suspension parts were upsized almost identically.
I loved that car, but it eventually succumbed to rust- lightened body panels to appease the American public's overestimation of how much it spends on gas. Had I been approached by someone affluent and older who wanted to do what had to be done bodywork-wise, I would have sold.
But I never did. I got approached pretty often by the sort of person who wanted to put 20" wheels on the car and call it a day.
I think those cars are, contrary to what Curtis73 said, really almost entirely gone. Look up the production model for the '77 Cutlass. It's a staggering number, almost 800,000, and that's just Olds. GM wore out the dies making those things that last year.
When's the last time you saw one of those, though? I didn't see many even back in the late 1990s when I was driving my Cutlass.
Wish I still had this
The hair, not the car.
I would say that 2 to 3 point of compression plus terrible cams, timing, and heavy bumpers all made malaise "error" cars terrible more so than the cats, until they clogged. Then they absolutely killed performance.
I had an early 60s Fairlane with the in-line six. We are talking about Super pedestrian transportation. It was slow. Probably 0-60 in the 15 to 17 second range. However, in comparison to mid 1970s Hornets, Mavericks, 301 Pontiac, Chevy Monza, etc... even early 1980s sedans; it felt like a rocket. The Maverick and Granada's of the era are probably the closest comparable cars. I have direct experience with both along with the other malaise mobiles. They felt positively dead in comparison. The underpinnings and engines on those cars shared a lot of common parts, but there is absolutely no comparison. Those later cars were absolute junk.
The malaise was real. Real terrible. There is some seriously hilarious denial in this thread. 
At the time, wasn't having a catalytic converter a nice-to-have performance / drivability feature?
You could get a car without a catalytic converter, e.g. a Chrysler Lean Burn, but people who paid for a car that did have one got more rational and "hotter" ignition timing (among other things, probably).
Sure, there was some exhaust restriction, but on balance I think a car with cats ran much better than one without, back when some had them and others didn't.
b13990 said:At the time, wasn't having a catalytic converter a nice-to-have performance / drivability feature?
You could get a car without a catalytic converter, e.g. a Chrysler Lean Burn, but people who paid for a car that did have one got more rational and "hotter" ignition timing (among other things, probably).
Sure, there was some exhaust restriction, but on balance I think a car with cats ran much better than one without, back when some had them and others didn't.
The early catalytic cars generally didn't run very well. It took quite a few years before the manufacturers were able to get the emission controls worked out to be reliable.
frenchyd said:volvoclearinghouse said:frenchyd said:Stampie said:In reply to frenchyd :
I think a lot of the GM malaise cars disappeared because they became drivetrain donors for Jaguars.
I know they did. I used to pick those V12's up for scrap metal prices from the guys doing the swaps. Most were in perfect shape. Nothing wrong with them. It's just the owners were terrified of the fuel injection. They were perfectly willing to accept 100 horsepower less in exchange for the familiar carburator.
Or they built up a 300 HP SBC that had 2/3 of the moving parts of the Jaguar mill and could be swapped in less time than it took to set the valve lash on the V12.
If you count the 16 pushrods Jaguars didn't have and 16 rocker arms Jaguars didn't have a Chevy V8 is pretty complex compared to the 4 extra pistons and 4 extra connecting rods of a Jaguar. Oops 8 extra valves and 8 extra lifters. OK it's a tie.
You forgot the extra camshaft in the Jag and all those bearings! And all 16 valves in a SBC stay adjusted for approximately 200,000 miles. 
frenchyd said:Stampie said:In reply to frenchyd :
I think a lot of the GM malaise cars disappeared because they became drivetrain donors for Jaguars.
One thing I'd like to do is buy a Monte Carlo. Paint it black. Put a big number 3 on it . yank that anemic V8, replace it with a Jaguar V12 and go LeMons Racing.
You need to do this. I'll help drive and wrench.
volvoclearinghouse said:frenchyd said:volvoclearinghouse said:frenchyd said:Stampie said:In reply to frenchyd :
I think a lot of the GM malaise cars disappeared because they became drivetrain donors for Jaguars.
I know they did. I used to pick those V12's up for scrap metal prices from the guys doing the swaps. Most were in perfect shape. Nothing wrong with them. It's just the owners were terrified of the fuel injection. They were perfectly willing to accept 100 horsepower less in exchange for the familiar carburator.
Or they built up a 300 HP SBC that had 2/3 of the moving parts of the Jaguar mill and could be swapped in less time than it took to set the valve lash on the V12.
If you count the 16 pushrods Jaguars didn't have and 16 rocker arms Jaguars didn't have a Chevy V8 is pretty complex compared to the 4 extra pistons and 4 extra connecting rods of a Jaguar. Oops 8 extra valves and 8 extra lifters. OK it's a tie.
You forgot the extra camshaft in the Jag and all those bearings! And all 16 valves in a SBC stay adjusted for approximately 200,000 miles.
I never had to adjust the valves on any of the Jaguars I've owned and driven on the street. But then I kept good clean oil in it. The nice thing about Jags is that if you do stuff like that you won't be adjusting valves very often. Oh, look at the oil pathway on Jaguars compared to Chevy's. That's why Chevy had to go to hydraulic lifters to keep the valves from clattering.
Look, a Chevy is a very good car inspite of its shortcomings. It may not have the class or elegance or exclusivity of a Jaguar but there is nothing wrong with common and ordinary.
The really great thing about Jaguars as far as I'm concerned is they are bought by wealthy people. Who are fickle and depreciate very quickly. Enough so that once they get a little older and shabby they are astonishingly great valves.
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
I'd take you up on that if you lived near Minneapolis Minnesota. I think it would surprise most people.
Since I know nothing about Fuel rejection I'd go retro with the 4 carbs. Each has 1&3/4 inch butterfly which is Holley Dominator size. ( or is it bigger?). But they are so simple and basic. Then one wire to the coil and it's ready to go.
If you use a 1981 or newer it has 11.5-1 compression stock and is backed by a GM turbo 400 transmission.
By mixing the right (stock factory) parts together you can kick it from 262 net to about 340-350 horsepower.
and SAE wrench sizes. No metric!
Mazdax605 said:
So glad that is on the other side of the country. I used to own a Cutlass Salon from that era.
stuart in mn said:b13990 said:At the time, wasn't having a catalytic converter a nice-to-have performance / drivability feature?
You could get a car without a catalytic converter, e.g. a Chrysler Lean Burn, but people who paid for a car that did have one got more rational and "hotter" ignition timing (among other things, probably).
Sure, there was some exhaust restriction, but on balance I think a car with cats ran much better than one without, back when some had them and others didn't.
The early catalytic cars generally didn't run very well. It took quite a few years before the manufacturers were able to get the emission controls worked out to be reliable.
The Chrysler lean burns didn't work great either. My dad had a Charger and it would run down the road and then all of a sudden cut out and back fire then cure itself. Then do it again a few miles later. The mechanic at the dealership I worked at just changed the distributor, carburetor and ignition box on his and all was good. I think Chrysler sold the kit through Direct Connection
BlindPirate said:stuart in mn said:b13990 said:At the time, wasn't having a catalytic converter a nice-to-have performance / drivability feature?
You could get a car without a catalytic converter, e.g. a Chrysler Lean Burn, but people who paid for a car that did have one got more rational and "hotter" ignition timing (among other things, probably).
Sure, there was some exhaust restriction, but on balance I think a car with cats ran much better than one without, back when some had them and others didn't.
The early catalytic cars generally didn't run very well. It took quite a few years before the manufacturers were able to get the emission controls worked out to be reliable.
The Chrysler lean burns didn't work great either. My dad had a Charger and it would run down the road and then all of a sudden cut out and back fire then cure itself. Then do it again a few miles later. The mechanic at the dealership I worked at just changed the distributor, carburetor and ignition box on his and all was good. I think Chrysler sold the kit through Direct Connection
The Chrysler lean burns needed the May head ( fireball ) head of the 40's 50's and early 60's Chevy six head like Jaguar adapted to run lean burn. It rotated the fuel/air mixture across the hot exhaust valve concentrating the fuel right over the spark plug. Making it far more likely to fire even with a weak ignition.
On the heavy (4600+ pound ) Jaguar V12s it increased fuel mileage from 9-10 mpg to 18-19 mpg.
Oh man. That's like, less than a dollar per pound.
https://baltimore.craigslist.org/cto/d/essex-1974-mercury-grand-marquis/7086348346.html
There's also a '74 Electra on our local CL for under 3Gs.
You'll need to log in to post.
