I was surprised to find that a lot of the later model C3's are at or under 200hp, with the same displacement as many earlier vettes. What accounts for this decrease in power? For example, some of the 60's models are at or over 300hp. I doubt gas mileage can be the reason, since it doesnt appear that horsepower was ever sacrificed for increased MPG........Any thoughts?

 

Government regulations
Gas shortage
Safety concerns
and those goddamned tree huggers !!!

 

60's models were rated in gross hp, not net hp, which partly explains the difference. The main reason is that the spike in petrol prices and increase in govt. regulations in the early 70s killed performance cars. The Trans Am was about the only decently performing car throughout the mid 70s...

 

Also everything prior to 71 was raw horsepower ratings, 1971 and later are at the wheel horsepower ratings. The biggest decline in power was the switch from 68cc heads to 76cc heads to bring the compression down resulting in a lower horsepowered engine. Then came all the A.I.R crap, I have a 72 and my father in law has an 1980, looking at the two engines almost makes me puke with all the horsepower robbing crap they put on his.

 

Damn those tree huggers....Dont they know breathing is overated..

 

 

manufacturers never provide "at the wheel horsepower ratings." They switched from gross to net in 1972, both measured at the crank. Net hp was with a full exhaust and accesories attached... but don't ask me which accessories! (in 1971 I think they advertised gross but supplied net figures as well. The 425 gross hp LS-6 was I think a mere 325 net hp)

So merely switching from gross to net produced a fairly dramatic drop in advertised hp. The 72 bigblock was rated at 270 (NET) hp, while the 71 bigblock was rated at 365 (GROSS) hp. The actual difference in hp was very small.

Going forward, there was a very real drop in horsepower that was a direct result of getting the engines emissions certified.

 

The Cat converter plunged HP off a cliff..in`75...165HP for a base Vette.. Even the L82 went from a solid 250HP in `74 to only 205HP in `75.

 

....and causes air pollution.

 

my 75 is 165 h.p. but it says 276 ft lb of torque(or close) it doesn't even make sense.mike

 

I fixed that on mine........
Lets see if the environmentalists can keep up now in thier Prius.

 

As the following add up, the HP goes down:

- Anti muscle car insurance rates
- Pollution control equipment
- CAFE
- No real competition. GM sold more low horsepower vettes in the 70s and early 80s than at any previous time (except the the extended 69 model year).

 

Either way you name it the 350 base engine in 1971 and 1972 were the same and due to the change in horsepower ratings one raw or with no load and the other with a load for easier terms. you can call it net and gross all you want, the fact remains that it is the same engine. Raw 270hp in 1971 and net 200hp in 1972.

 

Speaking of Priuses... here's a short story
last year this frizzy haired semi-large redhead woman in a prius (You know the kind I mean..tree hugging, planet saving, holier-than-thou type) cut me off when I was driving my Dodge Durango. she cut me off, and braked suddenly, which caused me to slam the brakes, and my horn. She looked back in her rear view mirror shrugged and raised her hands as if to say "that's what you get for driving a V8 polluter SUV..." I mean the cheek !!! did she think she was better than us gas guzzling suv drivers ? We were in a little congestion at a red light.
So I decided to play a little "scare-the-$hite-out-of-the-mouse" game.
I lumbered up on her and stopped 2 inches from the back of her car.. All she could see the chrome grill of my durango in her rear view. So she moved a little ahead and I followed again stopping 2 inches away again... This girl was running out of space. she inched up to the ford pickup in front of her (F350) and I followed and stopped .. 2 inches off her rear. I could tell this woman was getting all upset and frustrated. I played with the mouse for about 5 minutes and 2 more stop lights, even changing lanes to follow her... but had to let the mouse go... haha It was harmless fun. Probably freaked her out though !

Teach them zippy tree huggers to mess with us behemoth drivers.

 

I am assuming you LIKE to BREATH? You should be thanking god for the tree huggers. I get tired of hearing them get blamed for everything - the environment is already polluted enough. Thank god there are some out there that try and save what we have left.

 

Are you or your wife tree huggers Charlie ?
because I honestly don't think you would get this touchy unless I hit the ball close to home.

California with its million+ conservation laws ensure better air, so i don't worry much. Tree hugging per se, like feminism are overdone causes that no-one really cares about. I love animals, but i'm not all that hot about trees. There are no trees in the middle of the ocean but I can still breathe there.

Nice vettes by the way, I like the yellow C4

 

You all might also want to add that GM never invested any R&D to develop a high horse power small block engine that would meet the environmental standards even though they knew they had to meet them. Thanks to the big 3's foot dragging during this period of time, the Japanese car sales jumped. The boads and CEO as usual were more concerned with linning their own pockets.

 

This is true, in the early and mid 80s, the top 3 produced ghastly box shaped cars...

 

God help me - you gotta know how oxygen is formed right? No not a tree hugger but I'm glad there is a voice at least trying to preserve what we got - just look south my friend to the devestated rain forests of South America.

 

I am not arguing that trees are not being dessicated in acres per second. That is terrible, I know, along with the loss of habitat for millions of animal species. It's just that I dislike tree hugging type "people" who act holier-than-thou and perhaps do good, but then walk around and advertize it all day long.