Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BKCowGod t1_j6ef6w9 wrote

Fun fact, depending on the year and state that Camaro may have made a rip snorting 165 horsepower out of a 5.7. Meanwhile BMW was getting 190 horsepower out of a 2.8l.

We were dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age. Still looked cool though!

21

rrhogger t1_j6ejfgl wrote

Definitly a cool looking car. I'm amazed by the low hp rating. Had a 89' Mustang GT rated @ 225, later had an 05' Mazda6 rated @ 220 with a V6 and now I have a 17' Focus ST rated @ 250 with a turbo 4. Amazing how much more power we get out of today's engines.

12

BKCowGod t1_j6eko6z wrote

I just parked my '77 GMC. Factory hp was 165. I dropped in the mildest 383 I could find and I'm making 400. It's a bit quicker now.

7

ac1dre1gn77 t1_j6enxiv wrote

I had an 04 mazda6.it was a sport with the v6 and 6 speed. What a fun car that was to drive. I always hoped they would make the 3.0l turbocharged for the mazdaspeed edition. Sadly they came with a 4 cyl. even though they are also quick. I was sad when the wife traded it in for a 2012 Mazda5. She wanted a third row seat. Now I have a 91 mazda RX7 turbo and it's cranking out an estimated 420 HP and it only has a 1.3L

3

Turdy_Tornado t1_j6eowah wrote

My ‘90 F150s got that Windsor V8 block too. I think it’s 185 horse.. my brother has a ‘15 F150 and I believe it has almost 400😂

2

Unhallowedhopes t1_j6fr664 wrote

Yes but the mustang gt has 300 lbs of torque. I had one too, loads of low end power. I put 3:55 gears in it and it woke it up.

2

Milnoc t1_j6fggrk wrote

I have a 4 banger 1.4 liter turbocharged Fiat 500 Abarth that can do 160 HP.

However, I would never consider trying to get laid in it! 😁

5

BKCowGod t1_j6fiw2y wrote

I suspect you'd end up in the ER. My mom has a 500 convertible. The rear seats have never been touched.

2

Milnoc t1_j6foxut wrote

"Please tell me again how the shifter got stuck up your butt." 😂

2

halxp01 t1_j6fmwun wrote

Would have to be a very small couple to get laid in that

1

nostromo7 t1_j6fhu4o wrote

>Meanwhile BMW was getting 190 horsepower out of a 2.8l.

Not in the US they weren't...

3

BKCowGod t1_j6firb4 wrote

You're right, but still more HP than the domestic 350. 167 in the US. My 535 in the US was making 218 and an M5 was making 286. Alfa Romeo was getting a little over 1 horsepower per cubic inch out of their 4cyl that had been in use since the 50s.

1

nostromo7 t1_j6fv46w wrote

You're playing fast and loose with timelines and numbers here, bud. You're mixing numbers up with European-market cars from years later that didn't have catalytic converters and wouldn't have had a hope in hell of being sold on the US market.

The pictured Camaro is a late '70s Z28, which would have had 185 hp (although this had dropped to a nadir in '81 of only 175 hp, with the introduction of the Computer Command Control (CCC) electronically-controlled carburetor). The 535i didn't come out until 1985; an IROC-Z made 215 hp from its fuel-injected 305 by then. The M535i of the early '80s was never sold in the US because it didn't meet emissions standards. The M5 didn't come out until '86 in the US, and it was 256 hp when configured for US emissions.

>Alfa Romeo was getting a little over 1 horsepower per cubic inch out of their 4cyl that had been in use since the 50s.

Again: not in the US they weren't.

The 2.0 L (122 cu in) Spider and Alfetta GT/Sprint Veloce with SPICA mechanical fuel injection only made 110 hp at the time. It was respectable. The real screamer in the US Alfa lineup was the GTV6, which came out in 1980 and made 154 hp.

3

BKCowGod t1_j6fz73r wrote

In California it was 165. I know, I had the same engine in my '77 GMC (which didn't have catalytic converters).

I understand you are very passionate about this. If you really believe American V8s of the late 70s and early 80s were actually great then that's on you.

0

nostromo7 t1_j6g2v0x wrote

Every engine of the late '70s and early '80s sucked. I'm not very "passionate" about these sucky engines, I just don't like when people use power figures from Europe and/or from the mid-'80s to make disingenuous arguments.

1

bedlog t1_j6geazz wrote

and the drivers still wouldn't use their turn signals

1

Cool_Dark_Place t1_j6erkvi wrote

Lol...reminds me of another fun fact. A new turbo Ecoboost Mustang (4cyl) is faster than a 1970 Boss 429 Mustang. But hey, if this fucks your ego up too bad, the new Ecoboost has a feature to automatically make rumbly V8 noises with the car stereo.

2

BKCowGod t1_j6erxm1 wrote

I had a customer who installed a device to make his V6 Camaro misfire on purpose to mimic a lumpy cam.

Meanwhile my fiancee was shredding the tires on a subcompact Spark EV drag racing my Z06. Technology is so fun, though I will admit the modern stuff is a bit too seamless and perfect for my taste - my daily driver is 60 years old in two years.

2

slater_just_slater t1_j6hw8xq wrote

Yeah but back then with about $300 in parts and a weekend, you could easily rip 300 horsepower tonnes of torque out of a 350. With $300 parts on a BMW would get you 192 horsepower and the same torque.

1