Idle thoughts - survival rate of malaise-era cars?

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Comparing Bostonians to Nikes.  The XJS was twice the price of the Corvette in the late 70's.  

That was then.  I'll grant in 1975 a Jaguar was very expensive.  But aren't we talking about now and affordability now?  
Prices for the comparable Camero, Corvette, Firebird etc today compared to the similar Jaguar XJS?  I mean we can either check asking prices or selling prices to find out relative costs.  

We can use a similar metric to check for parts costs too.  I'm sure there are lucky bargains to be found for everything on any car. But brakes,  wheel bearings, water pumps etc. should be able to be sourced on line at similar places. 

In reply to frenchyd :

I think a lot of the GM malaise cars disappeared because they became drivetrain donors for Jaguars. 

A lot of cars from this era gm were turned into race cars,oval,drags etc.

a body,g body,f body,x body,are all very common cars to see at race tracks over the years.

many of them also had their front clips cut to use in stock clip style late models,super stocks ,modifieds etc. It's also not uncommon for these clips to be used in hot rod and street rod builds.

dculberson said:

Gearheadotaku said:

2. The 70s cars have a lot of plastic parts inside and out that didnt hold up well, are basically unrepairable and not reproduced. Try to find bumper fillers or interior panels, they are gone. 60's cars had metal parts you could fix or fabricate. Interoir trim was largely flat panels covered in vinyl. Easy to copy unlike the plastic molded parts in later cars.

I wonder if anyone's begun trying to reproduce these with 3D printers? It seems like a nice fit for the job.

@Curtis: I love boat tail Rivieras.

Yes, i agree that 3D printing will be the answer for odd parts in the future. It won't be cheap though. And if you don't have an old part to start from.....

Stampie said:

In reply to frenchyd :

I think a lot of the GM malaise cars disappeared because they became drivetrain donors for Jaguars. 

I know they did. I used to pick those V12's up for scrap metal prices from the guys doing the swaps.  Most were in perfect shape. Nothing wrong with them. It's just the owners were terrified of the fuel injection. They were perfectly willing to accept 100 horsepower less in exchange for the familiar carburator. 

Late Malaise or something else?

In reply to Brett_Murphy :

I'd call it post-malaise myself.  I'm inclined to say that electronic port fuel injection is a (usually) a good indicator.  Maybe not-100% accurate, since the lines are definitely blurry.

I think mid-80's in general is a good cutoff point.  85 Mustang GT was still carbed, but broke the 200 HP barrier.  85 Corvette debuted TPI, 86 GN was intercooled. 86 Mustang was port fuel injected.  I also think (but am not completely sure) that by the mid-80's, Japanese car companies had started using electronically (rather than cable/hydraulic/vacuum) controlled transmissions which ushered in another big leap forward in reliability.

frenchyd said:

Stampie said:

In reply to frenchyd :

I think a lot of the GM malaise cars disappeared because they became drivetrain donors for Jaguars. 

I know they did. I used to pick those V12's up for scrap metal prices from the guys doing the swaps.  Most were in perfect shape. Nothing wrong with them. It's just the owners were terrified of the fuel injection. They were perfectly willing to accept 100 horsepower less in exchange for the familiar carburator. 

Or they built up a 300 HP SBC that had 2/3 of the moving parts of the Jaguar mill and could be swapped in less time than it took to set the valve lash on the V12.  

77 Ford Maverick, Mustang ll front suspension, Ford 9" rear end, Ford 302 mildly reworked about 300 hp.

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

Luckily it's rare that valve lash needs adjustment.  
 

But I'm capable of doing a valve adjustment in a few hours.  ( and I'm fat and old). 

Curtis73 said:

 

frenchyd said:

There is a fair number of higher end cars like Jaguar and Mercedes Benz from that era.  A few extra tubes and air pump etc didn't deter ownership and pride in those. 

Same with Corvette although one year the 350 small block had 350 horsepower the next it was 160 horsepower.  Pretty much the same engine except instead of advertised horsepower it was actual horsepower. A lot of people would rather be lied to. 

Two big things killed the whole HP thing, but it's not what most people think.  They think that all the added hoses, air pumps, and emissions helpers can be taken off and they'll gain all the hp back.  They fail to realize that the emissions stuff costs almost zero hp.  It was the neutering of the compression and cams that killed it for EPA regs.

Compound that with the switch from gross hp to sae net and you quickly saw 350 hp muscle cars become 200 hp wheezers even though they didn't lose nearly as much as you think... mostly because the old gross hp rating was ridiculously optimistic.

Agree on the old gross HP numbers being ridiculously optimistic in most cases.  But the early pellet-style converters that GM used for many years certainly did steal power.  A single cat flowing less than 200 cfm @ 25 inches of water hurts everywhere but becomes your basic bottle-cork at anything over about 4000 rpm.

About this time in 1979 I bought a '79 Chevy Malibu (305/4V, 4 speed), which compared to the SS396 versions of its ancestor clearly put it into the 'malaise' category.  But it was a good canvas with plenty of easy room to improve, and room to improve beyond that at somewhat greater expense (ultimately getting a 350 with EFI and a 5-speed).  Got a full 25 years of enjoyment out of it.  It's gone now, sad to say.

Norm

NormPeterson said:

Curtis73 said:

 

frenchyd said:

There is a fair number of higher end cars like Jaguar and Mercedes Benz from that era.  A few extra tubes and air pump etc didn't deter ownership and pride in those. 

Same with Corvette although one year the 350 small block had 350 horsepower the next it was 160 horsepower.  Pretty much the same engine except instead of advertised horsepower it was actual horsepower. A lot of people would rather be lied to. 

Two big things killed the whole HP thing, but it's not what most people think.  They think that all the added hoses, air pumps, and emissions helpers can be taken off and they'll gain all the hp back.  They fail to realize that the emissions stuff costs almost zero hp.  It was the neutering of the compression and cams that killed it for EPA regs.

Compound that with the switch from gross hp to sae net and you quickly saw 350 hp muscle cars become 200 hp wheezers even though they didn't lose nearly as much as you think... mostly because the old gross hp rating was ridiculously optimistic.

Agree on the old gross HP numbers being ridiculously optimistic in most cases.  But the early pellet-style converters that GM used for many years certainly did steal power.  A single cat flowing less than 200 cfm @ 25 inches of water hurts everywhere but becomes your basic bottle-cork at anything over about 4000 rpm.

Norm

Agreed.  I was speaking more to the combination.  People saw a 1968 455 with an advertised 375 hp (gross) and no emissions equipment.  Then they saw a 1976 455 with miles of hoses, air pumps, egr, pcv, charcoal canisters, and an advertised 250 hp (net).  They assumed that the emissions equipment was the cause of the power loss and misguidedly removed it expecting a big power increase.  My assertion was simply that the emissions equipment wasn't costing any hp in the 250hp example.  If you have a 1987 Olds 307 pumping out 125 hp and you remove all the emission equipment, all you've done is turn it into a 125hp engine that now might have detonation, 2mpg worse mileage, and no real benefit.

If you wanted to up the power, yes, the cats were a problem.  I was simply asserting that removing the emissions equipment wasn't a path to magical power.

EGR costs zero tq/hp.  It only operates at cruise.  WOT = no EGR flow
PCV (not entirely emissions equipment) costs zero and drastically improves oil health
Air injection is after combustion so the only thing it costs is drag on the alternator or the belt running the pump
Charcoal canisters cost zero power.
What killed them was the low compression, tiny cams, and (generally) poor heads.

Gearheadotaku said:

dculberson said:

Gearheadotaku said:

2. The 70s cars have a lot of plastic parts inside and out that didnt hold up well, are basically unrepairable and not reproduced. Try to find bumper fillers or interior panels, they are gone. 60's cars had metal parts you could fix or fabricate. Interoir trim was largely flat panels covered in vinyl. Easy to copy unlike the plastic molded parts in later cars.

I wonder if anyone's begun trying to reproduce these with 3D printers? It seems like a nice fit for the job.

@Curtis: I love boat tail Rivieras.

Yes, i agree that 3D printing will be the answer for odd parts in the future. It won't be cheap though. And if you don't have an old part to start from.....

It's not cheap enough yet. I've gotten estimates on scanning and printing unusual shape original plastic parts for 2nd gen F bodies and it was waaaaay to expensive still.

Curtis73 said:

NormPeterson said:

Curtis73 said:

 

frenchyd said:

There is a fair number of higher end cars like Jaguar and Mercedes Benz from that era.  A few extra tubes and air pump etc didn't deter ownership and pride in those. 

Same with Corvette although one year the 350 small block had 350 horsepower the next it was 160 horsepower.  Pretty much the same engine except instead of advertised horsepower it was actual horsepower. A lot of people would rather be lied to. 

Two big things killed the whole HP thing, but it's not what most people think.  They think that all the added hoses, air pumps, and emissions helpers can be taken off and they'll gain all the hp back.  They fail to realize that the emissions stuff costs almost zero hp.  It was the neutering of the compression and cams that killed it for EPA regs.

Compound that with the switch from gross hp to sae net and you quickly saw 350 hp muscle cars become 200 hp wheezers even though they didn't lose nearly as much as you think... mostly because the old gross hp rating was ridiculously optimistic.

Agree on the old gross HP numbers being ridiculously optimistic in most cases.  But the early pellet-style converters that GM used for many years certainly did steal power.  A single cat flowing less than 200 cfm @ 25 inches of water hurts everywhere but becomes your basic bottle-cork at anything over about 4000 rpm.

Norm

Agreed.  I was speaking more to the combination.  People saw a 1968 455 with an advertised 375 hp (gross) and no emissions equipment.  Then they saw a 1976 455 with miles of hoses, air pumps, egr, pcv, charcoal canisters, and an advertised 250 hp (net).  They assumed that the emissions equipment was the cause of the power loss and misguidedly removed it expecting a big power increase.  My assertion was simply that the emissions equipment wasn't costing any hp in the 250hp example.  If you have a 1987 Olds 307 pumping out 125 hp and you remove all the emission equipment, all you've done is turn it into a 125hp engine that now might have detonation, 2mpg worse mileage, and no real benefit.

If you wanted to up the power, yes, the cats were a problem.  I was simply asserting that removing the emissions equipment wasn't a path to magical power.

EGR costs zero tq/hp.  It only operates at cruise.  WOT = no EGR flow
PCV (not entirely emissions equipment) costs zero and drastically improves oil health
Air injection is after combustion so the only thing it costs is drag on the alternator or the belt running the pump
Charcoal canisters cost zero power.
What killed them was the low compression, tiny cams, and (generally) poor heads.

Well said.  Yes from year to year the loss of compression and milder camshafts did cost some power but the real difference was between advertised ( gross) horsepower and net horsepower. 
Plus generally stupid people who heard Chevy 350 and assumed that meant 350 horsepower.  
When you tried to explain the difference their eyes glazed over and it was like you were selling religion or politics. 

frenchyd said:

 

Well said.  Yes from year to year the loss of compression and milder camshafts did cost some power but the real difference was between advertised ( gross) horsepower and net horsepower. 
Plus generally stupid people who heard Chevy 350 and assumed that meant 350 horsepower.  
When you tried to explain the difference their eyes glazed over and it was like you were selling religion or politics. 

Reminds me of the people who think the biggest number on their speedometer is the top speed of the car.

Was it 1972 when measurements went to net?  I think my 71 Cutlass was rated at 250 HP or something like that, and considerably lower the next year, even though I think it had already started to be neutered by lower compression due to unleaded gasoline.

eastsideTim said:

frenchyd said:

 

Well said.  Yes from year to year the loss of compression and milder camshafts did cost some power but the real difference was between advertised ( gross) horsepower and net horsepower. 
Plus generally stupid people who heard Chevy 350 and assumed that meant 350 horsepower.  
When you tried to explain the difference their eyes glazed over and it was like you were selling religion or politics. 

Reminds me of the people who think the biggest number on their speedometer is the top speed of the car.

 

Was it 1972 when measurements went to net?  I think my 71 Cutlass was rated at 250 HP or something like that, and considerably lower the next year, even though I think it had already started to be neutered by lower compression due to unleaded gasoline.

I think gm used both gross and net ratings in 1971. 72 was the year it was all net ratings.

Curtis73 said:

NormPeterson said:

Curtis73 said:

 

frenchyd said:

There is a fair number of higher end cars like Jaguar and Mercedes Benz from that era.  A few extra tubes and air pump etc didn't deter ownership and pride in those. 

Same with Corvette although one year the 350 small block had 350 horsepower the next it was 160 horsepower.  Pretty much the same engine except instead of advertised horsepower it was actual horsepower. A lot of people would rather be lied to. 

Two big things killed the whole HP thing, but it's not what most people think.  They think that all the added hoses, air pumps, and emissions helpers can be taken off and they'll gain all the hp back.  They fail to realize that the emissions stuff costs almost zero hp.  It was the neutering of the compression and cams that killed it for EPA regs.

Compound that with the switch from gross hp to sae net and you quickly saw 350 hp muscle cars become 200 hp wheezers even though they didn't lose nearly as much as you think... mostly because the old gross hp rating was ridiculously optimistic.

Agree on the old gross HP numbers being ridiculously optimistic in most cases.  But the early pellet-style converters that GM used for many years certainly did steal power.  A single cat flowing less than 200 cfm @ 25 inches of water hurts everywhere but becomes your basic bottle-cork at anything over about 4000 rpm.

Norm

Agreed.  I was speaking more to the combination.  People saw a 1968 455 with an advertised 375 hp (gross) and no emissions equipment.  Then they saw a 1976 455 with miles of hoses, air pumps, egr, pcv, charcoal canisters, and an advertised 250 hp (net).  They assumed that the emissions equipment was the cause of the power loss and misguidedly removed it expecting a big power increase.  My assertion was simply that the emissions equipment wasn't costing any hp in the 250hp example.  If you have a 1987 Olds 307 pumping out 125 hp and you remove all the emission equipment, all you've done is turn it into a 125hp engine that now might have detonation, 2mpg worse mileage, and no real benefit.

If you wanted to up the power, yes, the cats were a problem.  I was simply asserting that removing the emissions equipment wasn't a path to magical power.

EGR costs zero tq/hp.  It only operates at cruise.  WOT = no EGR flow
PCV (not entirely emissions equipment) costs zero and drastically improves oil health
Air injection is after combustion so the only thing it costs is drag on the alternator or the belt running the pump
Charcoal canisters cost zero power.
What killed them was the low compression, tiny cams, and (generally) poor heads.

Well in 76 the 455 was actually around 200 hp net ratings however that was only the second year of the catalytic converters which was definitely costing power.

volvoclearinghouse said:

Knurled. said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Malaise era applies generally to the US model cars. Cars were suffering from poorly engineered emissions and safety features by automakers whose attitude was primarily "Berk them, what are people going to do, buy Toyotas? Just make the cars bigger and add more fake leather"  And then people proceeded to buy Toyotas...

Sort of.  Japanese and German cars of the 70's were pretty terrible, too, just less so than American cars.  I had a 1980 Mercedes 450SL.  That pig made like 160 HP out of a 4.5 liter V8, and barely got 14 mpg.  And the maze of vacuum lines and other emissions related crap were a mainenance nightmare.  

Japanese cars rusted back to the Earth before they had a chance to break down.  But while they were still more steel than iron oxide, they were a glimmer of light.  

Was thinking about this today while doing some mindless task, probably putting the timing belt on an Accord or something.

"Malaise era" got its name because there was a definite heyday for American cars in the 1960s.  It was a perfect storm of car culture, low cost of living, and a well-funded public that fed on "win on Sunday, sell on Monday".  A grocery bagger making minimum wage could afford a GTO or a Road Runner, and brag about it with his friends when they got together at night, and go watch people racing cars practically the same as theirs at any drag strip or circle track around the country.

And then, shortly after the 70s started, it went all to E36 M3.  New cars started to suck, and suck bad. The economy startd going to E36 M3.  Dude srsly what is this no-compression 307 you are pushing on me? For HOW much??  I'd rather keep my rusted out '68 327 Chevelle.  And so, the "malaise era" began, which was kind of the automotive equivalent of "Generation X":  it was the first period where new cars were not as good as the used cars you were trading in.

I submit that while Japanese and European cars were maybe not completely awesome, they were still doing better than the cars that came before them, so they do not count as having a "malaise era" like the US cars had.  Japanese cars in particular were doing very awesome relative to the 1960s.

Nobody's going to complain about a '75 911

Back before the internet there was this really good technical how to book called "Camaros That Run".  This guy was swapping V12 Jags into Camaros.  Everybody was doing it.  They even set up a company called CTR.

wait...did I just dream that?

A 401 CJ said:

Back before the internet there was this really good technical how to book called "Camaros That Run".  This guy was swapping V12 Jags into Camaros.  Everybody was doing it.  They even set up a company called CTR.

 

wait...did I just dream that?

We totally need to start that group.  Mrs. VCH has a '68 Camaro with a stupidly unreliable  350 that's so hard to get parts for.  The dang thing never runs right, and is hard to tune, and makes no power.  What parts we can get are insanely expensive.  What that thing needs is a good, dead-nuts simple, reliable Jaguar V12 with fuel injection.  

MotorsportsGordon said:

Curtis73 said:

NormPeterson said:

Curtis73 said:

 

frenchyd said:

There is a fair number of higher end cars like Jaguar and Mercedes Benz from that era.  A few extra tubes and air pump etc didn't deter ownership and pride in those. 

Same with Corvette although one year the 350 small block had 350 horsepower the next it was 160 horsepower.  Pretty much the same engine except instead of advertised horsepower it was actual horsepower. A lot of people would rather be lied to. 

Two big things killed the whole HP thing, but it's not what most people think.  They think that all the added hoses, air pumps, and emissions helpers can be taken off and they'll gain all the hp back.  They fail to realize that the emissions stuff costs almost zero hp.  It was the neutering of the compression and cams that killed it for EPA regs.

Compound that with the switch from gross hp to sae net and you quickly saw 350 hp muscle cars become 200 hp wheezers even though they didn't lose nearly as much as you think... mostly because the old gross hp rating was ridiculously optimistic.

Agree on the old gross HP numbers being ridiculously optimistic in most cases.  But the early pellet-style converters that GM used for many years certainly did steal power.  A single cat flowing less than 200 cfm @ 25 inches of water hurts everywhere but becomes your basic bottle-cork at anything over about 4000 rpm.

Norm

Agreed.  I was speaking more to the combination.  People saw a 1968 455 with an advertised 375 hp (gross) and no emissions equipment.  Then they saw a 1976 455 with miles of hoses, air pumps, egr, pcv, charcoal canisters, and an advertised 250 hp (net).  They assumed that the emissions equipment was the cause of the power loss and misguidedly removed it expecting a big power increase.  My assertion was simply that the emissions equipment wasn't costing any hp in the 250hp example.  If you have a 1987 Olds 307 pumping out 125 hp and you remove all the emission equipment, all you've done is turn it into a 125hp engine that now might have detonation, 2mpg worse mileage, and no real benefit.

If you wanted to up the power, yes, the cats were a problem.  I was simply asserting that removing the emissions equipment wasn't a path to magical power.

EGR costs zero tq/hp.  It only operates at cruise.  WOT = no EGR flow
PCV (not entirely emissions equipment) costs zero and drastically improves oil health
Air injection is after combustion so the only thing it costs is drag on the alternator or the belt running the pump
Charcoal canisters cost zero power.
What killed them was the low compression, tiny cams, and (generally) poor heads.

Well in 76 the 455 was actually around 200 hp net ratings however that was only the second year of the catalytic converters which was definitely costing power.

It wasn't the converter.  About the same time the Mercruiser 350 made 200 horsepower and the 454Mercruiser  made 210  neither had cats.  Or come to think about it air pumps etc.  I don't believe pollution controls applied to boats at the time. 

Solidly in the malaise sticker package era. Still, I like it. 

Malaise

GCrites80s said:

Nobody's going to complain about a '75 911

Didn't those have weak-ass 2.7s that pulled studs out of the engine case, and had lots of issues because of the high exhaust heat due to the thermal reactor?

In reply to Mazdax605 :

Yeah that really speaks to me for no apparent reason. I love it.