1970 Chevelle SS 454 LS-6 VS 1986 Buick Regal Grand National Turbo

[Fleet 500]

Here is a fun comparison test from MuscleCars magazine (1986).
A 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS 454 (LS-6) VS a 1986 Buick Grand National Turbocharged 231-cu-in V-6:

[johnnynumfiv]

Good read, thanks for posting it.

[Turbo.Jenkens]

Thanks Fleet.

My mother drove a Chevelle 396 back in the good old days. She traded it in on a Vega:(

[henk4]

Thanks Fleet.

My mother drove a Chevelle 396 back in the good old days. She traded it in on a Vega:(

very early awareness of the fuel price developments....commendable move.

[Fleet 500]

Thanks Fleet.

My mother drove a Chevelle 396 back in the good old days. She traded it in on a Vega:(
Oh, no. I bet she regretted that! She probably found out real quick that the 396 Chevelle was a lot more reliable.

[Kitdy]

very early awareness of the fuel price developments....commendable move.

Pffff. Have you no taste?

[henk4]

Pffff. Have you no taste?

yes I would never have bought a Vega, it is too thirsty...

[Fleet 500]

yes I would never have bought a Vega, it is too thirsty...
Have I mentioned that my dad used to own a '75 Vega? This was back in the 1980s. I did ask him once what mpg he was getting and he said "22-24." I suppose that is pretty good back then, but certainly not these days (my '95 Lincoln averages 21 mpg).

I did drive that Vega a few times and it was pretty bad. A quite stiff ride, noisy, seating position too low and no power!

I was glad when he sold it.

[johnnynumfiv]

Have I mentioned that my dad used to own a '75 Vega? This was back in the 1980s. I did ask him once what mpg he was getting and he said "22-24." I suppose that is pretty good back then, but certainly not these days (my '95 Lincoln averages 21 mpg).

I did drive that Vega a few times and it was pretty bad. A quite stiff ride, noisy, seating position too low and no power!

I was glad when he sold it.

My uncle collects the early 70's GT's. Fun little cars to bomb around in. The engines had a lot of problems, as the cylinder walls would sink into the block.:eek:

[Kitdy]

yes I would never have bought a Vega, it is too thirsty...

Well said old man.

[Fleet 500]

My uncle collects the early 70's GT's. Fun little cars to bomb around in. The engines had a lot of problems, as the cylinder walls would sink into the block.:eek:
They were also prone to overheating.

I remember when I was driving my dad's '75. I made a right turn onto a street with a slight, gradual uphill. It was going about 30 mph (speed limit is 40 mph) and I thought I better go a little faster. So when I attempted to push the accelerator down more, I realized that it was already at full throttle! Pretty sad when a car is at full throttle and you don't realize it! :eek:

[johnnynumfiv]

They were also prone to overheating.

I remember when I was driving my dad's '75. I made a right turn onto a street with a slight, gradual uphill. It was going about 30 mph (speed limit is 40 mph) and I thought I better go a little faster. So when I attempted to push the accelerator down more, I realized that it was already at full throttle! Pretty sad when a car is at full throttle and you don't realize it! :eek:

Automatic?
The 4spd GT's were pretty peppy.

[Fleet 500]

Automatic?
The 4spd GT's were pretty peppy.
Yes, automatic. It also had A/C and when that was on, it really stressed the engine!

Except for the Cosworth Vega, I don't think I've seen any run faster than 18s in the 1/4 mile and most were more like 19-20 seconds.

[Turbo.Jenkens]

Oh, no. I bet she regretted that! She probably found out real quick that the 396 Chevelle was a lot more reliable.


Actually it wasn't that bad, It was my Dad's daily driver until 1986. He has always put my Mom's transportation needs before his.

[Turbo.Jenkens]

yes I would never have bought a Vega, it is too thirsty...


In her defense, my My Grand father was a WWII vet (Pacific theater.) No one in the family was allowed to own a Japanese car until after his death in 2001. My fathers experiences with the MGB he owned at the time surely didn't help her view of small European cars.

[johnnynumfiv]

Yes, automatic. It also had A/C and when that was on, it really stressed the engine!

Except for the Cosworth Vega, I don't think I've seen any run faster than 18s in the 1/4 mile and most were more like 19-20 seconds.

Thats why it was a dog. That 4 cyl was using a tranny designed for a v8.:p My uncle has one with a TH350 in it, you put it to the floor and not much happens.:p

[Fleet 500]

Thats why it was a dog. That 4 cyl was using a tranny designed for a v8.:p My uncle has one with a TH350 in it, you put it to the floor and not much happens.:p
A manual trans didn't help the Vega much.
Cosumer Reports tested a '74 and got these figures:

'74 Chevy Vega
Engine/hp................ 140-cu-in/75
Axle ratio................. 2.92:1
Transmission............. 4-speed manual
Curb weight............. 2,542 lbs
Wheelbase............... 97"
Overall length........... 175"

0-60 mph................. 17 seconds
Speed at end of 1/4 mile.. 67 mph
Passing: 35-55 mph.... 9 seconds
-------- 45-65 mph.... 10.5
Fuel mileage (ave.)..... 25 mpg

[fisetdavid26]

I reckon burning all the remaining Vega's would be a great thing for the American car industry history.

[Fleet 500]

I reckon burning all the remaining Vega's would be a great thing for the American car industry history.
I certainly wouldn't miss them!

[Kitdy]

Well they sold well, were great on gas, and cheap - a good runabout car if you ask me.

You don't have to like it (I don't) but they did their job rather well actually.

[Fleet 500]

They wouldn't have been so bad if they were reliable.
They probably would not make the "10 worst cars" list if they were reliable.

[Ferrer]

A manual trans didn't help the Vega much.
Cosumer Reports tested a '74 and got these figures:

'74 Chevy Vega
Engine/hp................ 140-cu-in/75
Axle ratio................. 2.92:1
Transmission............. 4-speed manual
Curb weight............. 2,542 lbs
Wheelbase............... 97"
Overall length........... 175"

0-60 mph................. 17 seconds
Speed at end of 1/4 mile.. 67 mph
Passing: 35-55 mph.... 9 seconds
-------- 45-65 mph.... 10.5
Fuel mileage (ave.)..... 25 mpg
75bhp from 2.3-litres? That's really catastrophically bad. Even for the 70's.

[henk4]

75bhp from 2.3-litres? That's really catastrophically bad. Even for the 70's.

but the torque must have been great (:)), and 25 mpg on average for that time wasn't bad either.

[Kitdy]

75bhp from 2.3-litres? That's really catastrophically bad. Even for the 70's.

I dunno, in the 70s at one point the 5.7 L 350 in the Corvette made 165 hp, and the 7.4 L 454 made 270.

Keeping in mind, these are meant to be performance engines.

So that's 33 hp/L for the Vega, a stunning 29 hp/L in the 350, and 36 hp/L in the supposedly epic 454. So essentially, you had a Corvette with a heavy paperweight in the front of it.

Now that's real power, eh Fleet?

EDIT: I can't get over it. 29 hp per litre is absolutely atrocious. Sure they switched to NET, unleaded fuel, and had more emissions controls, but that is utterly pathetic for a performance engine. 165 hp? Miserable, a joke really for an engine of that size. The benefit of revving high becomes apparent at this time.

[clutch-monkey]

but the torque must have been great (:)), and 25 mpg on average for that time wasn't bad either.

25mpg doesn't seem that bad even now, for an american car (given the proliferation of SUV's..)

[P4g4nite]

25mpg doesn't seem that bad even now, for an american car (given the proliferation of SUV's..)
25MPG is downright unAmerican.
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd35/elrond_halfelven/6000SUX.jpg

Anyone remember Robocop?

[Fleet 500]

but the torque must have been great (:)), and 25 mpg on average for that time wasn't bad either.
I'll look up the torque. For some reason, in 1974, Consumer Reports didn't list the torque figures or the 1/4 mile time (just the trap speed).

Yes, 25 mpg was good for the time; compact cars like the Nova or Valiant with 6-cylinders were only getting about 18-20 mpg.

[Kitdy]

I'll look up the torque. For some reason, in 1974, Consumer Reports didn't list the torque figures or the 1/4 mile time (just the trap speed).

Yes, 25 mpg was good for the time; compact cars like the Nova or Valiant with 6-cylinders were only getting about 18-20 mpg.

Got nothing to say about he Corvette's miserable performance numbers I see.

[Fleet 500]

Got nothing to say about he Corvette's miserable performance numbers I see.
I hope you're not trying to compare the 'Vettes performance to the Vegas!

Even at their slowest (probably around 1977-1980), 'Vettes could easily outrun a Vega. A '77 'Vette could run 1/4 miles in the 16-second bracket. Nowhere near like the 13s and 14s they used to run, but far better than the Vega's 18-20 seconds!

And the '72 and '73s, with their big drop in power, did better than expected.
From Motor Trend, Jan., 1973

Corvette

-------------------- '72 454---- '73 454----- '72 350---- '73 350
Engine/hp----------- 454/270--- 454/275---- 350/255--- 350/250
Torque-------------- 390------- 395--------- 280-------- 285
Transmission-------- 3-spd auto- 3-spd auto-- 4-spd man- 4-spd man
Axle ratio----------- 3.08:1----- 3.08:1------- 3.70:1---- 3.70:1
Curb weight--------- 3,725 lbs-- 3,725-------- 3,356----- 3,356
0-30 mph----------- 3.8 secs--- 2.7---------- 2.9------- 2.9
0-60 mph----------- 6.8-------- 6.8---------- 6.9------- 7.3
0-75 mph----------- 10.1------- 9.7---------- 10.2------ 10.2
1/4 mile------------ 14.1@93--- 14.1@93----- 14.3@92-- 14.3@92
Passing:40-60 mph-- 2.8-------- 2.8---------- 2.8------- 2.8
------- 50-70 mph-- 3.3-------- 3.3---------- 3.6------- 3.6

[Kitdy]

0-60 mph in just short of 7 seconds in the 70s with a 7.4L engine is still unacceptable in my books - it took the Corvette and American manufactures in general till the 90s to start getting some big figures again.

EDIT: They really shoulda considered DOHC and revving higher to eek more power out of the engines at th is point and just designing them better in general.

[Fleet 500]

0-60 mph in just short of 7 seconds in the 70s with a 7.4L engine is still unacceptable in my books - it took the Corvette and American manufactures in general till the 90s to start getting some big figures again.

EDIT: They really shoulda considered DOHC and revving higher to eek more power out of the engines at th is point and just designing them better in general.
Chevy really couldn't do much about it.
The engines had to pass emissions and they were trying to increase fuel economy. Both of those things really cut the horsepower. And the '72-'73 big-block 'Vettes weighed several hundred pounds more than the '60s 'Vettes. However, the 14.1 sec 1/4 mile is better than expected. Most muscle cars which ran a 0-60 mph of 6.8 seconds would run mid-to-high 14s for the 1/4 mile.

That is why the '70s were not looked upon with admiration regarding the "high-performance" cars of the era.

[Kitdy]

Chevy really couldn't do much about it.

If they wanted to get good performance, they coulda adopted DOHC engines, revved them higher, and supercharged them even - the slowness of cars for the better part of 20 years on the American manufacturers part with few exceptions is pretty pathetic.

They woulda cost more yes, but they woulda had more power.

[Fleet 500]

If they wanted to get good performance, they coulda adopted DOHC engines, revved them higher, and supercharged them even - the slowness of cars for the better part of 20 years on the American manufacturers part with few exceptions is pretty pathetic.

They woulda cost more yes, but they woulda had more power.
As you said, it would have cost a lot.
And they still had to pass emissions standards. And fuel mileage was a concern, too. The American manufacturers certainly knew how to make powerful engines... just look at all of the wild '60s engines... 426-Hemis, LS-6 454s, 427 Chevy and Ford, Stage 1 Buick 455s, etc.
But the party was over by the mid-'70s due to emission standards, fuel economy concerns and the high insurance rates for hi-po cars.

Fortunately, the cut in performance came back in the mid-'80s. Both the Corvette and Camaro started getting some real power by then.

[Kitdy]

As you said, it would have cost a lot.
And they still had to pass emissions standards. And fuel mileage was a concern, too. The American manufacturers certainly knew how to make powerful engines... just look at all of the wild '60s engines... 426-Hemis, LS-6 454s, 427 Chevy and Ford, Stage 1 Buick 455s, etc.
But the party was over by the mid-'70s due to emission standards, fuel economy concerns and the high insurance rates for hi-po cars.

Fortunately, the cut in performance came back in the mid-'80s. Both the Corvette and Camaro started getting some real power by then.

Some real power? Z/28 late 80s Camaros had 225 hp or so tops. That's not that impressive coming from a 350. The real power was back well into the 90s when the SS Camaros had 320 odd hp and Corvettes 350 odd hp - finally back to roughly 1 hp/ci again.

Yeah yeah it's hp/volume so what, it is s decent easy way to see the effectiveness of a motor in my eyes.

[Fleet 500]

Some real power? Z/28 late 80s Camaros had 225 hp or so tops. That's not that impressive coming from a 350. The real power was back well into the 90s when the SS Camaros had 320 odd hp and Corvettes 350 odd hp - finally back to roughly 1 hp/ci again.

Yeah yeah it's hp/volume so what, it is s decent easy way to see the effectiveness of a motor in my eyes.
The muscle car mags at the time were praising the 1984 or '95 IROC Camaro because it ran low-14s (compared to high-15s/low 16s of the earlier Camaros).

[Turbo.Jenkens]

I'm just glad the Corvette survived the 70s

[johnnynumfiv]

A manual trans didn't help the Vega much.
Cosumer Reports tested a '74 and got these figures:

'74 Chevy Vega
Engine/hp................ 140-cu-in/75
Axle ratio................. 2.92:1
Transmission............. 4-speed manual
Curb weight............. 2,542 lbs
Wheelbase............... 97"
Overall length........... 175"

0-60 mph................. 17 seconds
Speed at end of 1/4 mile.. 67 mph
Passing: 35-55 mph.... 9 seconds
-------- 45-65 mph.... 10.5
Fuel mileage (ave.)..... 25 mpg

The manual trans makes it feel peppy.:p On the other hand, a baldwin-motion prepped 350 really helps performance out. :D

[Fleet 500]

The manual trans makes it feel peppy.:p On the other hand, a baldwin-motion prepped 350 really helps performance out. :D
Hey, I forgot about the Baldwin-Motion Vegas. You would still have the big rust issue which Vegas had.

I'd rather get a (427) Yekno Chevelle or Camaro. :)

[johnnynumfiv]

Hey, I forgot about the Baldwin-Motion Vegas. You would still have the big rust issue which Vegas had.

I'd rather get a (427) Yekno Chevelle or Camaro. :)

I would too. My uncle had one the B-M vegas, pretty much undrivable. It liked to lift the front wheels and not go straight.:D

[jcp123]

If they wanted to get good performance, they coulda adopted DOHC engines, revved them higher, and supercharged them even - the slowness of cars for the better part of 20 years on the American manufacturers part with few exceptions is pretty pathetic.

They woulda cost more yes, but they woulda had more power.

Pontiac had the OHC straight six in the 60's - sales bomb. Chevy had the Cosworth Vega - even before problems surfaced, the Twin-Cam Vega was another bomb. They did what the public was buying at the time, and stuck with it. If you'd had buyers in the 70's who bought into that in even greater numbers, then maybe a seed would have been planted back then that would have spurred OHC development far sooner.

As for the cars...I'd pick the Velle just because it was my first automotive love, plus it's not injected. If I were going for pure speed, though, the Grand Nasty would be it.

[6-Shooter]

Here is a fun comparison test from MuscleCars magazine (1986).
A 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS 454 (LS-6) VS a 1986 Buick Grand National Turbocharged 231-cu-in V-6:

The Turbo 3.8L GNX would have destroyed the Big 454 LS6....:eek:

My GN will eat that LS6 Lunch :p

6-Shooter

[6-Shooter]

Let's not forget that the 87 Grand National GNX was faster than the Corvette Callaway Twin turbo 350 :eek: Running 13:30s while to a loosing 13:60s in the Vette.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0F-MdFIuOk


As you said, it would have cost a lot.
And they still had to pass emissions standards. And fuel mileage was a concern, too. The American manufacturers certainly knew how to make powerful engines... just look at all of the wild '60s engines... 426-Hemis, LS-6 454s, 427 Chevy and Ford, Stage 1 Buick 455s, etc.
But the party was over by the mid-'70s due to emission standards, fuel economy concerns and the high insurance rates for hi-po cars.

Fortunately, the cut in performance came back in the mid-'80s. Both the Corvette and Camaro started getting some real power by then.

[Fleet 500]

Here is a fun comparison test from MuscleCars magazine (1986).
A 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS 454 (LS-6) VS a 1986 Buick Grand National Turbocharged 231-cu-in V-6:

The Turbo 3.8L GNX would have destroyed the Big 454 LS6....:eek:

My GN will eat that LS6 Lunch :p

6-Shooter
In the magazine test, the Chevelle 454 LS6 ran the 1/4 mile faster than the Buick GN 231 V-6

[Magnum9987]

Why does no one remember the cosworth vega?
It had a Cosworth 4-Banger with DOHC, common rail injection, and a chassis modified by lotus. It had a less than spectacular 18.5 second quarter mile, but those who've driven it all claim it was a joy to drive. Perhaps it was the only 4 cylinder muscle car.

[Fleet 500]

Why does no one remember the cosworth vega?
It had a Cosworth 4-Banger with DOHC, common rail injection, and a chassis modified by lotus. It had a less than spectacular 18.5 second quarter mile, but those who've driven it all claim it was a joy to drive. Perhaps it was the only 4 cylinder muscle car.
I'm trying to forget the Cosworth (and any) Vega! :eek:
The Cosworth Vega certainly was not a muscle car; not with an 18.5 second 1/4 mile.

[Magnum9987]

I'm trying to forget the Cosworth (and any) Vega! :eek:
The Cosworth Vega certainly was not a muscle car; not with an 18.5 second 1/4 mile.

That makes it the fastest 4 cylinder in an American car.

[Ferrer]

That makes it the fastest 4 cylinder in an American car.
Surely the Mustang SVO was faster...

[kingofthering]

That makes it the fastest 4 cylinder in an American car.

https://www.allpar.com/photos/dodge/neon/neon-srt4.jpg

Ahem... Does a 14.2 mean nothing to you people? :D

[dog ear]

Vega bashing? Let me tell you something about Vegas. I drove lots of them in the seventies. First Vega I ever (consciously) seen was a cute gold w black strip GT back in 1972. At that time, the owner, Wade Jones, drove a 1970 Vitamin C over black Duster 340 automatic & 3.55.1 Sure-Grip as daily transportation. Like most every other hot rodder at the time, his was modified with headers, 650 Holley, and an Edelbrock LD intake; pretty standard stuff back then. His brother Rick ran a 1969 silver over maroon Barracuda Formula S 340 with the exact same drivetrain, mods included.

After having briefly owned a 1969 Chevelle SS 396-325 auto / 3.08.1 car Wade bought the Vega on a whim. Everyone around the East End of Toronto used to laugh good- naturedly at Wade, and jokingly chided him for buying the ‘little shitter.’

However, it had one caveat that only was to later bring smiles to people’s faces. This little baby had a transplanted 283-2V V8 installed very early on in its life. It was the first time I even heard of a V8 swap in a Vega. I believe that this car already had the swap before Hot Rod and Car Craft even published their articles on the same thing.

Nothing else was modified on this car save the engine. Drivetrain was stock Vega. It was fairly quick for such a tame combo and the ride was not that bad. Yes, there was inevitable gear whine from the factory 4-spd / rear-end. Handling was not that bad either; Wade and most others who drove combos like this were not interested in cornering forces and such. Nobody ever talked much about auto-crossing, gymkhanas, or road-racing. It was about straight-line acceleration, baby!

Out on Highway 401 the Vega was in its element. You drove it wisely and it never came back to bite you. Wade’s father-in-law eventually bought it and was still driving it back in the early Eighties. I left Toronto and that time and headed for ‘college’ as the story goes, so I lost track of all things in the area for years to come.

It was said that the V8 got about the same as the original 4-cylinder job, but, I do not know for certain. It was an entertaining little machine at the time. Later, as the seventies grew on, a lot of Vegas were seen with small and big block swap combos, all hairier than the ‘little’ 283 ever intended to be.

In 1974, my Uncle Percy bought a new Vega demonstrator with a few kinks thrown in for good measure. It was originally painted burgundy with black hounds-tooth interior. Before Percy took delivery, he had the dealership, Robertson Motors, on Danforth Ave., paint it in Fathom Green metal-flake lacquer, with Lime Green, Cherry Red, and Gold chips. He custom ordered American Magnesium ET Wheels and shod them with G-50-13 B.F. Goodrich Radial T/As on the back and B70-13s on the front. What a looker!

For laughs, Percy told everyone that it had a 350 ‘fuelie’ ‘Vette engine installed, but, only the foolhardy believed that with the single exhaust hanging out the back. Nonetheless, we managed to have a lot of laughs in that car and heads turned everywhere we went. Chicks dug it and the ‘man’ hated it, because it was a ‘heat-score.’ More than once Percy had pulled ‘brake-burns’ with the little sucker, leaving people to believe that it just might be more than meets the eye.

Our friend, Wade, intrigued Percy into contemplating an even swop for his second 340 Duster, after an accident into the local elementary school totaled the first. Or was it the hydro pole incident? Hmm…so many unfortunate collisions to ponder…

Eventually, Wade offered six-hundred dollars plus a trunk full of speed goodies, including a perfect out-of-site 950 Holley 3-barrel carb, to which Percy, in all his foolishness, out-right refused, solemnly petitioning Wade for an even grand plus the Duster. Wow!

Every rainbow has its lining and Percy’s Vega soon lost its shine. Within three years the thing had rusted to pieces. Two left fenders, one tranny, two rear-ends, and a bottomless pit of and engine that drank oil as fast as you poured it in the breather cap. In short, he scrapped it for junk, down at Booth’s Auto Wreckers for chump change and a coffee.

In 1975, my father was so impressed with Percy’s little wanker that he went out and bought a brand new bright yellow pisser at the very same dealership. Dad drove it hard until 1980, and then sold it to me for a paltry $100.00 certified. I immediately pulled the carb and replaced it with a 350 cfm 2-V Holley, an old camshaft out of a GT, and circumvented the cat exhaust system in search for more power. It worked brilliantly. Within a year, I ditched it into a ravine at 95 mph. That’s the story of the Vega trio. In their time, they were baby Camaro look-a-like throw-away playthings. …and they did indeed get about 22-24 mpg, perhaps 25-26, if you were very judicious with your right foot.

[dog ear]

https://www.allpar.com/photos/dodge/neon/neon-srt4.jpg

Ahem... Does a 14.2 mean nothing to you people? :D

In what? My 70 Buick GS?