• Nukedogger86@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Those 70s boat anchors were in part to low compression ratios, smog trash on the back, choked up intakes, and so little of cam and crap heads that they’d only spin 4k to 5k rpm before floating the valves. They usually had some torque, but no rpm to make hp with.

  • Epotheros@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Cadillac 8.2L V8 made 375 hp and 525 ftlbs of torque when it debuted in 1968. It was all the emission restrictions that reduced power to 180 hp. It wasn’t designed to be inefficient. It’s like having restrictor plates on racecar engines to limit power. The engine can make more power, but the class rules state it can only have a certain amount of power.

  • 45acp_LS1_Cessna@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    190 horsepower from an 8.2L V8

    That specific motor in the caddy, I’ve always wondered what kind of gains would happen if you swapped out the heads for edelbrock cnc whatever run of the mill, intake manifold & carb.

    • Foolgazi@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The 472/500 was actually a fairly sophisticated design for the ‘60s. 400HP/550lbs-ft at its peak. The HP is kind of irrelevant with that engine because it was designed for low RPM torque.

  • VulpesIncendium@alien.top
    cake
    B
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Interesting? Maybe.

    Desirable to own? No.

    One of my main reasons for trading in my Subaru STi was how bad the fuel economy was for how little power it made. Compared to my new Camaro, I went from 300 HP at 20 mpg to 455 HP at 30 mpg.

    Why would I find it fun to spend more money and burn more fuel, just to go slower? I find it far more fascinating just how much more power modern engines can make using far less fuel than older designs did.

  • runway31@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I too, think everyone should be interested in the most efficient engines. You do not want a high horsepower, high revving, or many cylinder engines. Please do not buy them! let become super cheap so we know efficiency is superior.

  • Ok_Beat5399@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d love to see a modern GMC cyclone have some engine tinkering done with a modern tuner

  • SCPendolino@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The interesting thing is how they managed to squeeze so little power out of such massive displacement.

    Driving-wise, they suck. All the power of a Volkswagen 4-pot with none of the eagerness to rev. Plus, they must have come from the factory with an oil refinery, otherwise I don’t know how anyone was able to afford to fuel them.

  • RunninOnMT@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Having driven a 3.8L V6 making 105 hp around a race track a few hundred times, let me tell you, the novelty of that kind of a powerband wears off.