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

[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. On the other hand, a baldwin-motion prepped 350 really helps performance out.

[Fleet 500]

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

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.

[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....

My GN will eat that LS6 Lunch

6-Shooter

[6-Shooter]

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

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0F-MdFIuOk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0F-MdFIuOk[/ame]

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....

My GN will eat that LS6 Lunch

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!
The Cosworth Vega certainly was not a muscle car; not with an 18.5 second 1/4 mile.