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

[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. My uncle has one with a TH350 in it, you put it to the floor and not much happens.

[Fleet 500]

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

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.


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.