Low Power Output and High Displacement, a big debate.

[Mr. CoolFiat]

I have a question which has long been unanswered in my many sources of car knowledge:
Why did 1973-1990 cars (not just American cars) have such low power output per liter?
For example: I have a consumer reviews book by Daniel Heraud (1988) and it states that the 1988 Monte Carlo SS with the 5 liter V8 had ONLY 200 horsepower? And it has 4 carburetors! You call that HO (High Output), Chevy!?
And here is another example: The Volvo 760 or the 780 from 1988 had a huge (PRV engine, it was used in the 505 V6 too! PRV = Peugeot / Renault / Volvo) 2849cc V6 with Electronic Fuel Injection had ONLY 145 horsepower? I reckon you could get at least 60 more horsepower out of such a big engine?
And for one final example: The 560 SL from 1988 had a very big 5.6 Liter V8 (Naturally Aspirated) which was fuel injected... and it only got 227 Horsepower? Isn't that just a big waste?

And I do acknowledge that maybe they had those low power outputs to meet some stringent fuel economy regulations, and maybe it was for the flexibility and the big powerband that they had those low power outputs.... But think about this:
A BMW 5 Series from 1988... the M5 actually, has less power than my dad's Kia Sedona, and it has the same displacement, and uses fuel injection! (Around 270 horsepower for the Kia, and 256 for the M5... THE M5!!!)

This is a question that has been bothering me a lot. And I hope some car engineers can look unto this and answer the Pandora's Box of all unopened chests of knowledge... at least for me

 

[Tornado]

Lack of technology and difficulty meeting emissions regulations with the lack of technology (which meant displacement was the easy answer).



Also, see this thread and this thread.

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

Lack of technology and difficulty meeting emissions regulations with the lack of technology (which meant displacement was the easy answer).



Also, see this thread and this thread.

Well pardon my ignorance, but I thought that this would have been a bit more centralized on a specific era more than the whole range of cars since genesis?

 

[SpartanG]

Mostly the advancements of technology, as mentioned. Think about the m3. From the e36 to 46 generation, the 3.2 liter inline 6 bumped up 30 horsepower. numbers from wikipedia.

Also as mentioned, back then they did not know how to meet the emissions regulations while still making peak output. R&D departments tried to figure out how to make minimal impact emissions protections. Take the catalytic converter. I'm sure the first cats were like trying to push air through a brick wall, which took a huge hit on power. But now they have less restrictive cats which allow easy flow.

 

[itsbenjibrand]

Yes Toronado is right. Basically the fuel crisis in the 1970's alongside the EPA's introduction of a large emissions reduction resulted in car companies trying to make their cars more fuel efficient and these emission control devices (O2 sensor, catylitic converter etc.) obstructed air flow and such, made cars performance decrease significantly. It has taken extensive development of engines in 20 years to get the horsepower figures we have today. Innovations like computer controlled firing-order for cylinders (no distributor), fuel injection and alike have played a big role. For example a 1990 Chevy Cavalier with a 4 cylinder had 90 horsepower, a 2003 model with a 4 cylinder had 140 horsepower. The lack of engineering when the EPA regulations were implemented were what caused the dramatic reduction in horsepower.

 

[Tornado]

Well pardon my ignorance, but I thought that this would have been a bit more centralized on a specific era more than the whole range of cars since genesis?

1973 was the gas crisis. Horsepower went tumbling down to save fuel economy.

1973 was also around the time where countries around the world started enacting emissions legislation. Horsepower went tumbling down even more, because those fire breathing performance engines from 5 years prior hadn't a chance in hell of passing emissions without huge drops in power. That's why Cadillacs could be had with 500 cubic inch V8s, because those were the type of engines that could get you power while simultaneously spinning so slowly that they didn't crap out during emissions testing. There was never a period of time in the 1970s/1980s where Chevrolet couldn't have developed a SBC derivative that produced 400 horsepower, but there was never a period of time in the 1970s/1980s where Chevrolet could have actually put it into anything.


It took about 15 years for power to start creeping back up, because it took about 15 years for technology to advance enough that power could start creeping back up without emissions going back up and fuel economy going back down.

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

1973 was the gas crisis. Horsepower went tumbling down to save fuel economy.

1973 was also around the time where countries around the world started enacting emissions legislation. Horsepower went tumbling down even more, because those fire breathing performance engines from 5 years prior hadn't a chance in hell of passing emissions without huge drops in power. That's why Cadillacs could be had with 500 cubic inch V8s, because those were the type of engines that could get you power while simultaneously spinning so slowly that they didn't crap out during emissions testing.


It took about 15 years for power to start creeping back up, because it took about 15 years for technology to advance enough that power could start creeping back up without emissions going back up and fuel economy going back down.

So Cadillac was making Tractor Engines? I saw that the 307 Cubic inch Cadillac Brougham had less than 140 horsepower... and 307cid = 5 liters!
Not to mention other Luxury Cars from America: Chrysler had this monstrous 5212cc V8 with the same output as the Brougham... :S

I think I get it now, so cat converters was the antagonist to high output? Hmm... interesting.

The Camaro with the IROC-Z Optional 350cid engine had about 225 Horsepower... Couldn't they just have used a turbocharged V6? I mean... it isn't so hard to Turbo a car for increased Fuel Economy.

 

[JCE]

The Camaro with the IROC-Z Optional 350cid engine had about 225 Horsepower... Couldn't they just have used a turbocharged V6? I mean... it isn't so hard to Turbo a car for increased Fuel Economy.

They did, it was called the Trans-Am GTA. Used a 3.8L Turbo V6. GM killed it (along with the T-Type and GN) because it stepped on the Corvette's territory and frankly were much better.

This is precisely why the V8 guys (and even some V6 guys) back in the day re-used the classic term "no replacement for displacement". It was simply easier for car makers (GM was the worst) and garage mechanics to just simply increase the size of the displacement to gain power instead of spending money with R&D to develop the existing power plants. There was a huge amount of money spent researching and developing the 3.8L Turbo--before you even consider dealing with McLaren to assist with GNX project. It makes me sick that my 5.0L V8 in my Camaro only produced an advertised 170hp, even with 255tq it still was under powered for the size of the engine. This is a prime reason why simple intake, cams, exhaust and smog-delete mods added such a huge amount of power.

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

They did, it was called the Trans-Am GTA. Used a 3.8L Turbo V6. GM killed it (along with the T-Type and GN) because it stepped on the Corvette's territory and frankly were much better.

This is precisely why the V8 guys (and even some V6 guys) back in the day re-used the classic term "no replacement for displacement". It was simply easier for car makers (GM was the worst) and garage mechanics to just simply increase the size of the displacement to gain power instead of spending money with R&D to develop the existing power plants. There was a huge amount of money spent researching and developing the 3.8L Turbo--before you even consider dealing with McLaren to assist with GNX project. It makes me sick that my 5.0L V8 in my Camaro only produced an advertised 170hp, even with 255tq it still was under powered for the size of the engine. This is a prime reason why simple intake, cams, exhaust and smog-delete mods added such a huge amount of power.

Wow! Thanks for the info sir!

 

[itsbenjibrand]

Not really, because when using a turbo most of the power is at high rpm, which isn't adequate for city drivers or the morning gridlock. However superchargers were used in some cars because you get your horsepower at lower rpm and there is little to no lag in acceleration.

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

Not really, because when using a turbo most of the power is at high rpm, which isn't adequate for city drivers or the morning gridlock. However superchargers were used in some cars because you get your horsepower at lower rpm and there is little to no lag in acceleration.

Not at all, turbos can also be used for all around increased output.
Superchargers take a big bite out of the engine's output to move the darn thing.... There are also turbos that have no lag

 

[Tornado]

Not at all, turbos can also be used for all around increased output.
Superchargers take a big bite out of the engine's output to move the darn thing.... There are also turbos that have no lag

You are talking about how turbochargers work today. 1980s turbochargers were on-off switches compared to the turbochargers of today. A SBC would weigh basically the same and wasn't really any slower (Grand National vs. Monte Carlo notwithstanding), was much cheaper for GM to make and got basically the same fuel economy. There was no reason to use a turbo V6.

They could have used superchargers, but a supercharged 3.8 would probably have worse mileage and a normally aspirated 5.7 and would have the same power, so still there wasn't any point.

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

1980s turbochargers were on-off switches compared to the turbochargers of today. A SBC would weigh basically the same and wasn't really any slower (Grand National vs. Monte Carlo notwithstanding), was much cheaper for GM to make and got basically the same fuel economy. There was no reason to use a turbo V6.

They could have used superchargers, but a supercharged 3.8 would probably have worse mileage and a normally aspirated 5.7 and would have the same power, so still there wasn't any point.

They were fudged.... GM is a cheap company.

 

[itsbenjibrand]

I'm talking about 70s-mid 80s turbos Mr. CoolFiat.

 

[Tornado]

They were fudged.... GM is a cheap company.

No. GM was a smart company. They had basically three engines (Iron Duke, 3800, SBC) that, in varying states of tune, could fit any role that they would need them to. So they used them. Why would they blow wads of money developing and putting turbochargers on the V6 to make it fit a role that the V8 filled better? Especially when most of the cars GM made back then would happily take any of the three engines with little fuss?


Also keep in mind that the Trans Am GT-A and Buick GNX were limited edition vehicles with high markup that weren't sustainable as long term models.

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

No. GM was a smart company. They had basically three engines (iron Duke, 3800, SBC) that, in varying states of tune, could fit any role that they would need them to. So they used them. Why would they blow wads of money developing and putting turbochargers on the V6 to make it fit a role that the V8 filled better?


Also keep in mind that the Trans Am GT-A and Buick GNX were limited edition models with high markup that weren't sustainable as long term models.

For the time they were probably smart, but if they do the same now they'll get castrated.

Sustainable as long term, all because that is what GM was perceived as: Cheap, works, kind of quick, easy to maintain, lots of parts... american!

 

[Tornado]

What difference does now make? And why would they be "castrated" in the first place?

 

[Greycap]

And here is another example: The Volvo 760 or the 780 from 1988 had a huge (PRV engine, it was used in the 505 V6 too! PRV = Peugeot / Renault / Volvo) 2849cc V6 with Electronic Fuel Injection had ONLY 145 horsepower? I reckon you could get at least 60 more horsepower out of such a big engine?

The main problem is in the PRV itself as it wasn't a brilliant design by any means and certainly not designed as a high strung engine. It was more of the luxury choice.

Already several years earlier Volvo had had a turbocharged version of their bulletproof red block, the B19ETIC (1986cc) putting out 170 bhp and 184 lb/ft from a two litre inline four because the base engine was actually good for something. That was an European spec engine though. However, even the '85 US spec B21FT (2127cc) produced 162 bhp and 181 lb/ft with all the required emission stuff attached.

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

The main problem is in the PRV itself as it wasn't a brilliant design by any means and certainly not designed as a high strung engine. It was more of the luxury choice.

Already several years earlier Volvo had had a turbocharged version of their bulletproof red block, the B19ETIC (1986cc) putting out 170 bhp and 184 lb/ft from a two litre inline four because the base engine was actually good for something. That was an European spec engine though. However, even the '85 US spec B21FT (2127cc) produced 162 bhp and 181 lb/ft with all the required emission stuff attached.

But IIRC, those engines were used in the Venturi Atlantique? So, they could be tuned to make more power?

 

[JCE]

Also keep in mind that the Trans Am GT-A and Buick GNX were limited edition vehicles with high markup that weren't sustainable as long term models.

Maybe so in regards to the GNX and GTA, but, the regular GN and T-Type power plants without the McLaren modifications were easily feasible for long term use and were sticking it to the V8's at the time. It was GM's wondrous intelligence (lack thereof) to ditch the idea of a legitimate Turbo V6 which would hang (and beat) with the V8's on economy and power. That and they also sold out and went the way of FWD for sedans after the G-body was retired in 1987 (minus Caprice). This bugs me because they could of still stuffed the Turbo V6 mill in the F-Bodies and removed the 305 engine option altogether and gotten away with it. This was the start of GM's epic fail as far as I'm concerned. A fail that they have not fully recovered from especially after taking a ton of my tax money and they promptly flush it down the toilet. R&D makes you money long term, Ford's proven that fact the last 8-10 years or so. GM, just only barely has a legitimate trace of technology in today's market with the turbo Ecotec.

You're being too nice to GM, they really do not deserve it.

 

[Tornado]

The turbo 3800 could never have been the midlevel engine for the Camaro. It would have made the car more expensive to actually produce than the 5.7 but wouldn't have sold as well, and the failure of the SVO made it clear that they wouldn't have gotten away with the positioning it as the top model like Ford tried either.

 

[Greycap]

But IIRC, those engines were used in the Venturi Atlantique? So, they could be tuned to make more power?

The original 12V version was turbocharged to around 260 bhp and a later 24V version to around 280 bhp, still far from good figures for a three litre V6 mounted in a supercar. On top of that, the main issue - heavy camshaft wear thanks to insufficient lubrication - probably wasn't as much of an issue in a car that does less miles in its entire life than a Volvo 760 or a Peugeot 505 may do in a year. I guess that may have been a noticable reason for the low power levels as it wouldn't have withstood more too well.

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

The original 12V version was turbocharged to around 260 bhp and a later 24V version to around 280 bhp, still far from good figures for a three litre V6 mounted in a supercar. On top of that, the main issue - heavy camshaft wear thanks to insufficient lubrication - probably wasn't as much of an issue in a car that does less miles in its entire life than a Volvo 760 or a Peugeot 505 may do in a year. I guess that may have been a noticable reason for the low power levels as it wouldn't have withstood more too well.

Wow! Thanks, never knew that! Keep fueling the fire Toronado and Co. I want more info!!

 

[JCE]

The turbo 3800 could never have been the midlevel engine for the Camaro. It would have made the car more expensive to actually produce than the 5.7 but wouldn't have sold as well, and the failure of the SVO made it clear that they wouldn't have gotten away with the positioning it as the top model like Ford tried either.

I disagree actually, but I think you're confusing the 3800 Series I with the LD5 3.8L. For the 3800 Series I or II engine you would be quite correct as that was originally designed for FWD applications (1988), however the LD5 (1978?) was already a staple in the GM engine lineup and it already had the technology needed for GM to use this engine with a turbo in RWD applications in the FBody permanently. The cost would of been no more than a 305 with all that extra smog equipment added. The 350 would of still been the top performance model followed by the LD5 turbo and then they could of still used the 2.8L/3.1L (and later 3.4L) for the bargain basement base model.

But this is all just theory since it never happened and will never happen.

 

[Cano]

For example: I have a consumer reviews book by Daniel Heraud (1988) and it states that the 1988 Monte Carlo SS with the 5 liter V8 had ONLY 200 horsepower? And it has 4 carburetors! You call that HO (High Output), Chevy!?

Man, watch what you write. 4 carburetors? We all wish. It didn't even had carburetors by 1988, it was a TPI engine.

Basically what has been said by Toronado, specially for the Monte Carlo, holds true. GM didin't want to spend bucketloads of money by producing new fuel efficient engines, so they just chocked the ones that they had lying around with emmision-regulation devices and beared with the loss of power. By 1988 however, 200 hp was a lot. The real disaster came right after the start of the 70s, when big blocks went from having 400+ hp to only 200 -if you were lucky- practically overnight... that is, of course, until they died by 1976.

And here is another example: The Volvo 760 or the 780 from 1988 had a huge (PRV engine, it was used in the 505 V6 too! PRV = Peugeot / Renault / Volvo) 2849cc V6 with Electronic Fuel Injection had ONLY 145 horsepower?

I am also a bit surprised by what you consider big, but that might have to do with the fact that I'm too accustomed to reading about the really big engines in american cars of years past. A 2,800 V6 is pretty damn small if you ask me, witness the 3,800 series in GM cars that we had up until some years ago. THAT was proper V6 sizing in my book.

Also, you called a 5-liter V8 in a Cadillac monstruous. In the 70s, Cadoos had the largest engine ever offered in a street car, a 500 cubic inch V8, which translates to about 8 liters of displacement. And yes, it was an inefficient engine, pumping out like... 220 hp, but also making more than 400 lb/ft or torque... needed to move a 5,000 pound land yatch around.

And in it's defense I'll say that, no, they weren't boat anchors, they are in fact very light for an engine of that size and very modern -by 70s standards- in design. They just were chocked up by emmision-regulations stuff, too.

 

[JCE]

Man, watch what you write. 4 carburetors? We all wish. It didn't even had carburetors by 1988, it was a carb/TBI engine.

Fixed that for you. There was never a stock SS with the TPI engine. TBI yes, TPI no.

 

[Tornado]

I disagree actually, but I think you're confusing the 3800 Series I with the LD5 3.8L. For the 3800 Series I or II engine you would be quite correct as that was originally designed for FWD applications (1988), however the LD5 (1978?) was already a staple in the GM engine lineup and it already had the technology needed for GM to use this engine with a turbo in RWD applications in the FBody permanently. The cost would of been no more than a 305 with all that extra smog equipment added. The 350 would of still been the top performance model followed by the LD5 turbo and then they could of still used the 2.8L/3.1L (and later 3.4L) for the bargain basement base model.

But this is all just theory since it never happened and will never happen.

I can't imagine a 3800 (I wasn't confusing the RWD version of the engine with the FWD version. They are just all 3800s to me ), regardless of whether the tooling had been paid for a decade prior with the Regal T-Type, wouldn't be more expensive purely from a parts perspective than the 305. And I have no doubt that it would have sold worse, because it is a Camaro, and thus a V6 model would have had the same stigma that six cylinder Camaros have always had. A stigma that the 305, smog equipped and emissions strangled as it was, didn't have to deal with.

I mean, Chrysler abandoned the Turbo-K motor for that crappy Mitsubishi V6 in most of their lineup for that reason, so I don't see why it wouldn't apply to GM even more because of the car in question.

 

[Cano]

Fixed that for you. There was never a stock SS with the TPI engine. TBI yes, TPI no.

Ah, thanks. That was the doubt that assaulted me when I finished posting. I was actually looking for that. No need to now.

 

[CSLACR]

Dodge Daytona Turbo Shelby Z - 174 hp
Pontiac Sunbird Turbo - 150 hp
Dodge Omni Turbo - 175 hp
Pontiac Grand Am Quad 4 - 150/160/180 hp

All 4 cylinders from the 80's making today's power rates, and I believe most capable of up to around 30mpg highway.
From these, technology trinkled upwards to V6's, then V8's through the 90's.

 

[Mr. CoolFiat]

Dodge Daytona Turbo Shelby Z - 174 hp
Pontiac Sunbird Turbo - 150 hp
Dodge Omni Turbo - 175 hp
Pontiac Grand Am Quad 4 - 150/160/180 hp

All 4 cylinders from the 80's making today's power rates, and I believe most capable of up to around 30mpg highway.
From these, technology trinkled upwards to V6's, then V8's through the 90's.

Those were all high performance engines. But where are the displacement figures eh?

And @ Cano: the 1987 model year SS, the one that was replaced in Spring of 1988... had a 5 liter 4 carb HO engine that made 200 horsepower.