V8Ranger

The 74 Mustang II was available with a V8 in Mexico and was rated at 205 hp. It was our EPA causing all the problems. The small block Chevy making 200 at that time in the US was very good.

Carl

I'm Batman

For some reason Delco and Bosch didn't like to work together, and Bosch held all the cards on EFI systems in the 70s. There is an interesting if short discussion about the EFI procurement/development headaches in Dave McLellan's "Corvette from the Inside."

jesse10886

No one has touched on the fact that they were not to much under powered as the 60-early70s were just over powered. Even today in the 2012 ford f150 5.0 you only get 350hp. That is 40 years of innovation to only give you 50 more horsepower out of an all aluminum design engine. The 2012 silverado is the same with the 5.3 putting out 320hp. Yes they are gutless in comparison to a few years previous but over all they are not sooo horrible. Also the body design an lack of downforce keep these cars from being high speed vehicles anyway. A new z06 can do around 200mph a hopped up c3 with an lsx built to the max would flip into the air before it hit 160 on stock suspension. They were great for what they were. They were the best thing on the road at the time. An they had to be loved by the market even with the gas crisis b/c they sold out 50k of the 79 model an at the time late c3s were the priciest vettes ever.

Priya

Yes, but you have to keep in mind that those 2012 motors are producing that horsepower with a tiny fraction of the emissions that were allowed in the mid 70s when engines of that size produced about 1/3 that amount of horsepower. Doing that and getting considerably improved gas mileage is a huge feat even if the 2012 motors only produce 50 more hp over what such an engine might have produced in 1970.

boeing46

GM surly has some of the great engineers in the car industry. I think they just got lazy and just went cheap with the standard 350. Ya can't tell me they couldn't have come up with an H.O. 305/350 that would meet the emissions requirements. They did some amazing things with the 327 and got up 375hp for certain cars in the 60s. They only had to make it pass emissions. GM made some extremely H.O. 6 cylinder engines for some cars in subsequent yrs. 300hp should have been the bare minimum in my own personal opinion. Corvette says power just by it's looks alone. In many states we can't even drop a 383 stroker in for fear of not even being allowed on the road. I'm not a professional or even an amateur mechanic so consider the source I was just wondering about why? Thanks for your input guys.

boeing46

[QUOTE=demoke;1580799435]You can't do that legally in California and many other states. If I could I would.

Priya

They couldn't come up with an H.O 305/350 that would meet the emissions requirements. That's why you had the 200-225 hp L82 in those years. If they could have done better they would have.

mrvette

RONG!!!! what YOU don't know would fill the encyclopedia of auto history.....

IF you want a explanation of history PM me, to remind me in case I miss this thread.....

I will come back to esplain it to you Lucy......

boeing46

Please don't get me wrong here. I think the late model C3s are among the hottest looking Vettes ever and I love mine. There are just so many modern family cars today with smaller engines that are faster than my V8. I still contend that the GM engineers of the day could have put in a little more effort for the only true American sports car. My 81 305 H.O. Camaro was very fast. They just didn't do it. Why can't I drop in a modern motor with more HP like some of the latest Camaro's 426hp, Charger's 470hp and Corvette's 638hp ect. The EPA standards are the same as far as I know. It's just illegal in many states. I love my black beauty and it is so much fun to drive.

Clams Canino

Yes, they called that version the C4.

-W

Priya

I've never heard of a law in any state preventing you putting a modern motor in an older car. It can work the other way around, that you can't put an old high pollution motor in a modern car but if your old car can meet emission standards I'm pretty sure they don't care that you put a newer motor in it.

Priya

No, they called that version the C1, C2, C5, or C6

81pilot

The late models(80-82) were no more underpowered than a lot of other Vettes, they were not the lowest HP Vette of the C3 era....AND the change in the way they are rated when you do early conversions to the newer rating they are not all that different. They are capable of a lot more with minor modifications and adjustments that the EPA put in there. Timing adjustments and pipes do a lot for these motors, and for a me , jerking the computer and its crap did a lot for the car and more for my psychi. The late model Trans Ams and Z28 camaros boasted about 170HP. The era was what it was....Throw heads, cam, intake, headers and pipes and you have a heckuva fun car with the HP it should have had from the factory. Blame the gov't and the fairly new EPA.

uxojerry

For all the California guys, GM came up with the EROD series of crate motors. They meet California specs and have all the components for a swap as a kit.

Lou64

EPA was established in 1970.

I would think one of the main reasons for the loss in power was indeed the EPA emissions especially the following:

EPA Sets New National Air Pollution Standard for Lead
Sep 29, 1978
EPA announced its final atmospheric air quality standard to protect the public health from exposure to airborne lead, a pollutant that may, even at low levels of exposure, harm human nervous and blood-forming systems.
Link: http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/
Added by: usepagov

Leaded fuel was on the way out, so GM engineers had to work with totally new guidelines! As far as GM being WAY behind the times as far as fuel injection? Whoever said that garbage needs to take Corvette History 101. It was an option back in 1957, only two years after it made its debut on a Mercedes 300 SL Gullwing, which did cost at that time about $6,000, twice the price of the Vette. BUT, FI was costly, and last time I checked, GM is a business that does have cost in mind.

They "maybe" could have put tens of thousands of hours into engineering an FI '80 Corvette with 300 hp that would fit the emissions restrictions, but it might cost $50k. Significantly less American buyers at that price point, along with many other considerations, just not a good idea.

Billem

I haven't seen it mentioned so far, but wasn't there something about flywheel horsepower and rear wheel horsepower that played a role in how much actual hp was present? Didn't that come about in the early70's? Bill

Red99Hardtop

Thanks for the corrections regarding my post. My Mustang information was quite faulty regarding Mustang II's. A friend of mine had a 77 V8 back in High School, terrible performance and horrible gas mileage but the fun we had back then cruising around in it. Thanks for setting me straight.

80Baby

Just about all C3 owners know the history of the "Shark". We love our cars and we tend to be experts on its history.

Most responses here are correct. The EPA really came done hard on all U.S. auto manufacturers. I've been reading yet another book on the Corvette history (C1 to C6). Fact is Chevrolet began culling the teeth of the Shark in the early '70's and not by choice - but because they had to. Vehicle emission requirements and fuel milege restrictions made life hell for everyone. I applaud the Chevy engineers for their ingenuity at that time for nursing the C3 along until technology caught-up and Chevrolet was able to make performance a stable in the C4.

My 1980 Corvette was a horsepower pig, but for it's time it went fast enough for me. But more importantly it looked awesome and it was still a Corvette.

Rest easy Mr. Duntov. The C6 may not be the "middie" that you always pined for, but it sure is one hell of the performer. The Corvette legacy lives on.

mrvette

OK, this is a short form for the history....GM got in touch with a Bendix group in the early 70's to make a electronic version of the old Bosch pisser system....IE...pulsed fuel injection...Bendix was bought out by Allied Signal, then Siemens

I talked to the OEM guys from the Bendix days....back in '91 or so when putting a '76?-79 Caddy DPFI system on my 455 Pontiac...and so they told me how it worked, this was done on old land line phones....they were located in Newport News Va.....I was near Wash. DC....

the entire R&D thing was done under Caddy div. and involved 3 engines...the Olds/SEVILLE 350, the 425 and the 500 engine which was discontinued around '75 or so....there maybe a few of them made with that DPFI setup....but I personally never seen one....
I stripped a 425 out of a '79 Sedan DeVille....my father had one, but was with a Qjet....that's how I remember the year of the car....

seeing many of the the SeVilles in the yards with the DPFI on board, I got to wondering over my Pontiac 462 in a '70 Lemans....

so it was welded/machined up over one winter and installed....


the thing that enabled Bendix/GM to make the first electronic DPFI system was the use/availability of solid state chips and transistors to drive the injectors.....much less the temp sensors to enable fuel ratios for various conditions....the system was supposedly enabled to do a O2 sensor, but I never saw one so equipped.....

All I can say is the fuel economy went from 12 at best to 14+ on my tow car....back when gas was ALL gasoline, and the car was 4100 lbs and the CFM on the t-body was 1000 cfm.....

SO, GM was on board with the modern invention of chips, called OP-AMPS and elementary switches back in the early 70's and made up a very early system of DPFI that not anyone I know of beat them to market with.....first showing in '75 or '76.....

anyone think different....bring it to the line.....

raff

There was a change from "gross" horsepower to "net" horsepower --

Here's a quote on the subject:

"Faced with this reality, along with the pressures of the safety and environmental lobby, domestic manufacturers decided it was time to abandon the gross rating system. In its place they adopted the SAE net rating methodology, described by SAE standard J1349. "Net" horsepower ratings are still made with the engine on a test stand, but with stock ignition timing, carburetion, exhaust, and accessories: in short, a closer approximation of how much power an engine produces as actually installed in the car. (SAE net horsespower does NOT, contrary to some assumptions, measure horsepower at the drive wheels; both gross and net ratings are at the flywheel, and don't reflect power losses in the drivetrain.)"

For the complete article:
http://ateupwithmotor.com/automotive...orsepower.html