I don't think it's as much quality as it is parts availability. Same reason Harleys from the '60s are around and very few *** bikes over 25 years old hang around much. Parts for domestic stuff is usually cheaper and a lot easier to come by.

The japanese companies don't make parts for their old cars like GM/Ford/Chrysler do, and if they do it costs 2 arms and a leg.

 

Oh the 2.02 cammel hump heads are sweet, and copied to this day by edelbrock and the like, and the stock intake flows up to 6k ad the aluminum version were also good performing heads.


later emmisions requirements restrcited flow, and mild cams replaced the hipo ones, but they are not crap certainly

 

Dunno, it's common for cams from late 70s and early 80s chevy 350s to go flat around 80k - 100k miles. Mine did like right around 80k miles. Boy did that suck hardcore...

 

no argument from me, but that was the expected life for many components back them (80-100k) and insofar as the life expectancey of that gen of components yeah, but fom a performance perspective the late 70's cams and up were not really performance cams take the L82 for example with 210/216 .440"/.454", these were usually the usually the first things replaced with aftermarket.

I guess it depends on how far back you look, and what kind of performance you want, mild vs street, vs strip.....

Suffice it to say though that the general has made strong performing motors, and while performance was reduced over time, it doesnt mean they are crap, it means you have to know what to do to free up those ponies........


FWIW give me a mouse and an iventory of the general's available parts over the years and I can make anything from a street light brawler to a high winding highway machine

If you want to drag an get into the 10's well then you're talkin about some aftermarket components, and or some machine shop work, and the rest is in the assembly


Not to mention what Rats can be made to do

also consider that many of the aftermarket heads and such are made from the same castings as GM untill you get to the real heavy hiitng stuff from Brodix and the like. Also when you look at what makes a head perform , valve size, angle to the intake manifold, combustion chanber volume , port macthing the real difference from the old muscle heads to the later emission heads is valve size and Combustion chamber volume... you have to move to the next gen vortecs for any other significant mods.

For intakes the recipe is intake runner length, cooling, single vs dual plane, and agle but what the heck, build it how you like



.02

Tim

tim

 

None better...

 

Don't sell the 77' short..it set the road n track slalom course record with a record of 63.6 mph being hampered by stock air pressures not to be topped untill a 99' with Mario Andretti behind the wheel beat it with only a 63.4 mph....The 85' out performed the Lotus espirit turbo,Ferrari 328 gts n the porsche 944 n the 928 in the Slalom,The Road course n Maximum lateral exceleration...

 

Do you honestly think these cars ran a stock L-81 with Ca. emissions?

 

Thats kind of like showing up to an airport with the Wright brothers plane and someone telling you its crap because the propeller is inefficient!
Nice trolling, dude.

 

As an old codger building cars in the 60s and 70s, if you wanted more horsepower than stock you took your parts to a machine shop and had them mill, port polish, balance. relieve etc to allow stock engines to breathe and make more horsepower. These stock engines will easily go 200,000 miles before major work is required on them. They were the latest and most reliable design of the times to give people what they wanted from the dealerships. If you wanted a race car, you built it. I would much rather build a chevy 350 than any other engine on the market today or in the 60s and 70s. Those cars were not crap and are not crap today. My 79 did not handle as well or was as fast as my 92 but I couldn't expect it to be either; without using modern technology to make it that way.
Bernie

 

The heads are crap. I had an orginal 49000 mile motor. I did a cam swap
and took all the computer crap off, and redid the heads at the same time.
my heads had 6 Freaking crack in them. I still drove it like that for a while.
49000 freakin miles only

 

Cams were crap too. My 76 c-10 and my 81 vette both lost rear lobes at 68,000 and 90,000 miles respectively.

 

'

PERZACTLY, show me how many old *** cars are on the roads today, vs anything American made......

I remember all the Zs' really well, they were all OVER The place....not anymore....see lotsa old vettes around, but to see an old Z of any number is to see something more rare than a solid axel vette....

 

There was another word on GM and Corvette engineers mind in the late70's and early 80s - Cafe or C.A.F.E. which stands for corporate average fuel economy, which like emisions standards was dictated by the federal government. Cafe was probably more at the root of the disappearance of the big block from the Corvette options list, than were emissions standards. When the C3 was originally introduced, it was anticipated that it would be replaced by a completely new design (in theory the mid engined wankel car) by 75 or 76. Emissions killed the wankel (thank god), just as 5mph crash standards had killed the chrome bumpers. Corvette with its more limited production numbers became the production test bed for energy absorbing bumpers, new lighter weight body panel materials, and suspension components. The "crap" engine that appeared in the 82, was still there when the C4's were released, but with better transmissions behind it, delivered more performance and fuel economy in C4 trim. When you think about the gen 1 small block, it had a hell of a record in terms of longevity, and performance. Corvette engineering had a lot on its plate in the mid to late 70's with emission standards, cafe requirements, and government mandated safety issues. Those same things pretty well killed British sports cars, as they were unable to handle all of the issues required to continue marketing in the US market. In addition to government mandated requirements, GM as a "good corporate citizen" had to pretty much squash the image of being a premier muscle car builder to demonstrate that it was truly concerned about these issues.

 

That is as clear a summation as one can get. Kudos

 

Thanks for the photos. In 79 my 79 was the fastest production built in the USA, or so I think I read some place, right?

 

That must have been why the 3:55 rear gear was standard.

 

I made that distinction...in my post.

 

This thread certainly rose from the dead...