The Sorry State of Affairs in Automobilia in the 1970s, 80s and 90s

[Max Rockatansky]

The Marauder needed more torque that came at a lower RPM. Fantasizing about a factory 5.4 Marauder. It was a big, heavy car and I'd argue that the early Mod motors didn't even make enough torque to be in a Mustang. I remember going to the dragstrip in 1997 and I lined up against a 1996 Cobra. Assuming the car was running right, and I will since the car was only a year old, the guy was only able to coax 15.5s out of it. I walked him by running a 14.1 in my IROC-Z. I didn't see it since I was messing with tire pressures, but according to my friends afterward the guy flipped out, pulled out of grid and left the facility in a huff. I don't know if the guy wasn't good at driving it (it was only my second time at the strip ever) or if it was a manual or automatic.

The 1996-1998 SN95s were just underpowered for the amount of complexity you had to deal with. A lot of people say to avoid 96-98s and I agree. Granted a '94-'95 only makes "215hp
", but I say they are underrated whereas the 96-98s were overrated. And I just like the 302 better than the pre-'05 non-Terminator Modulars. B-cam, heads and bolt-ons 302 for the win.

I guess it goes back the old adage about "no replacement for displacement," at least with pure torque that seems to ring true even until today.  Even those neutered cam-in-block V8s in the 1970s usually had a huge disparity with torque figures in comparison to horsepower.  That's why this is killing me that I can't find this CHP Interceptor with the super charged 5.4L...I suspect even the non boosted unit would have pushed quarter mile times well into the low or mid 14s.

[SteveG1988]

215-220 hp for a 302 for the 1990s is right on the nose. That engine had some emissions issues going on, they had to run it on a more restrictive tune to keep it in check. The 4.6L just feels differnet on the butt dyno. It will get up and move, and will keep going up to red line, just ford limited them to 5,400 rpm on automatics, to keep the torque converter from blowing itself apart.

[8.Lug]

I can't help but laugh at all of these piss-poor power figures from these supposedly "good" engines. The 302 was garbage, the 4.6 was garbage, the SBC was garbage, the new LS is even garbage. This sorry state of horsepower is only in American cars. Give BMW 4.6 litres and they'll give you 350hp - and it was an SUV motor. GM can't even give you that with 5.3 litres.

And this new Mustang GT that runs a 13 flat - yet supposedly has 400hp - yeah, sure it does. The old M3 from 2000 ran a 13 flat and it only had 330hp. Another thing America is great at doing - inflating numbers.

[cpzilliacus]

Not exactly on-topic but I had to post this here:

I remember reading about this car about 10 years ago in I want to say Hemmings Muscle Machines.   There was also a Crown Vic that CHP had with a 5.4L Supercharged engine out of a Ford GT.

A high school classmate had a Plymouth Fury a few years younger than this Dodge but with that 383 V8 and a 4 bbl carburetor.  Fast off the line and fast at the top end too.

[cpzilliacus]

Not exactly on-topic but I had to post this here:

I remember reading about this car about 10 years ago in I want to say Hemmings Muscle Machines.   There was also a Crown Vic that CHP had with a 5.4L Supercharged engine out of a Ford GT.

More CHP cars from Jay Leno's Garage.

[Max Rockatansky]

I can't help but laugh at all of these piss-poor power figures from these supposedly "good" engines. The 302 was garbage, the 4.6 was garbage, the SBC was garbage, the new LS is even garbage. This sorry state of horsepower is only in American cars. Give BMW 4.6 litres and they'll give you 350hp - and it was an SUV motor. GM can't even give you that with 5.3 litres.

And this new Mustang GT that runs a 13 flat - yet supposedly has 400hp - yeah, sure it does. The old M3 from 2000 ran a 13 flat and it only had 330hp. Another thing America is great at doing - inflating numbers.

Probably has more to do with gearing more than anything else.  Domestic brands are infamous for sloppy slow shifts while all the German makes along with some higher end Japanese models with the GTR have gotten technologies like the PDK transmission or anything twin-clutch.  Besides there has been an inverse rumor about BMW for decades understating the power of the engines they put out, or that they were much closer pretty much to "wheel horsepower" than anyone else in the industry.

[Max Rockatansky]

Not exactly on-topic but I had to post this here:

I remember reading about this car about 10 years ago in I want to say Hemmings Muscle Machines.   There was also a Crown Vic that CHP had with a 5.4L Supercharged engine out of a Ford GT.

More CHP cars from Jay Leno's Garage.

Sweet, some light viewing material for dinner.  Looks like there is a Fox Body pursuit special in that group of cars.

[Max Rockatansky]

Some of the old rest areas on I-10 used to have posters of this CHP Camaro in them:



I was really hoping one would pop on ebay by now but alas...no luck.  Michigan State Police was also a big user of the 3rd Generation Camaro back in the 80s...got me thinking about it when I saw that 82 Mustang Pursuit Car.

[SteveG1988]

I can't help but laugh at all of these piss-poor power figures from these supposedly "good" engines. The 302 was garbage, the 4.6 was garbage, the SBC was garbage, the new LS is even garbage. This sorry state of horsepower is only in American cars. Give BMW 4.6 litres and they'll give you 350hp - and it was an SUV motor. GM can't even give you that with 5.3 litres.

And this new Mustang GT that runs a 13 flat - yet supposedly has 400hp - yeah, sure it does. The old M3 from 2000 ran a 13 flat and it only had 330hp. Another thing America is great at doing - inflating numbers.

Probably has more to do with gearing more than anything else.  Domestic brands are infamous for sloppy slow shifts while all the German makes along with some higher end Japanese models with the GTR have gotten technologies like the PDK transmission or anything twin-clutch.  Besides there has been an inverse rumor about BMW for decades understating the power of the engines they put out, or that they were much closer pretty much to "wheel horsepower" than anyone else in the industry.

It is also all about tolerences. A ford V8 will run for hundreds of hundreds of thousands of miles before needing a rebuild. A German engine will have tighter tolerances, and will need a valve adjustment among other things over time, due to how tight they are. a Ford V8 is designed for longevity not outright power. A understressed engine will last forever. Plus BMW engines run on 91 or 93 octane, ford tunes theirs for 87

[SteveG1988]

[Max Rockatansky]

I can't help but laugh at all of these piss-poor power figures from these supposedly "good" engines. The 302 was garbage, the 4.6 was garbage, the SBC was garbage, the new LS is even garbage. This sorry state of horsepower is only in American cars. Give BMW 4.6 litres and they'll give you 350hp - and it was an SUV motor. GM can't even give you that with 5.3 litres.

And this new Mustang GT that runs a 13 flat - yet supposedly has 400hp - yeah, sure it does. The old M3 from 2000 ran a 13 flat and it only had 330hp. Another thing America is great at doing - inflating numbers.

Probably has more to do with gearing more than anything else.  Domestic brands are infamous for sloppy slow shifts while all the German makes along with some higher end Japanese models with the GTR have gotten technologies like the PDK transmission or anything twin-clutch.  Besides there has been an inverse rumor about BMW for decades understating the power of the engines they put out, or that they were much closer pretty much to "wheel horsepower" than anyone else in the industry.

It is also all about tolerences. A ford V8 will run for hundreds of hundreds of thousands of miles before needing a rebuild. A German engine will have tighter tolerances, and will need a valve adjustment among other things over time, due to how tight they are. a Ford V8 is designed for longevity not outright power. A understressed engine will last forever. Plus BMW engines run on 91 or 93 octane, ford tunes theirs for 87

The M3 in question had a redline of 8,000 RPM.  Those M3s were meant for a limited production and were way, way, WAY more expensive than a SN95 or 4th Gen F-Body.  I would hardly doubt anyone would seriously ever cross shop a LS1 Camaro Z/28, 4.6L Mustang GT and a BMW M3.  But for comparisons sake I found some reading on the subject:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2001-bmw-m3-long-term-road-test

Not quite the comparison I was looking for but the 2002 Camaro SS and 2001 Mustang SVT Cobra

http://www.motortrend.com/news/chevrolet-camaro-ss-ford-mustang-svt-cobra-comparison/

Note the redline on the SS is only 5,500 RPM while the Mustang which in SVT Ford was pretty tricked out is still on 6,800 RPM.  The SS cost about 22K while he SVT was about 28k.  So we're trying to compare these mass production cars to a E46 BMW M3, not exactly an apples to apples view when we're talking about a car with a 46K MSRP at the time.  It should be noted that the E46 was really the pinnacle of when the M3 was a performance oriented car, the Camaro and Mustang despite being higher production have made huge strides in performance while the M3 went more towards luxury.  In fact the 2016 Camaro SS was picked over the 2015 BMW M4 in a comparison test by Motortrend:

http://www.motortrend.com/news/comparison-2015-bmw-m4-vs-2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss/

Now...not that I'm saying people would still cross shop an M3/M4 with a Camaro SS but you're not leaps and bounds above a Pony Car with that 30k price difference as you might think.  I have this argument with my brother all the time in regards to German and American cars.  He always tells me German cars are better and more advanced then the Americans....well they ought to be considering all of them that are sold here with the exception of VW are meant to be high luxury, performance or both.  He got himself a 2016 Porche 911 Carrera S for 100k something that he's making mortgage payments on while I bought a 2016 Challenger R/T Scat Pack for less than 40K which I own outright.  Now, the Challenger out of the three pony cars is the WORST performing overall of the three but it will still match the SS and M4 in straight line performance with it's dinosaur 392 iron block.  I guess at the end of the day it comes down to what you really want and what your tastes out of a car.  For me all I wanted was something that looked really cool, had a really big engine and would go really fast a straight line.  I'm not sure what my brother wanted other than maybe a status symbol...reason being is that he never does any performance much less mountain driving.  My car goes on the road, goes on some of the best highways California has to offer and his 911 drives around Whiskey Row in downtown Prescott, Arizona.  But like I said, to each his own...both cars are trying to accomplish something different for different people.

[SteveG1988]

The 4.6L with a 4R70W is limited to 5,400 for fear of torque converter balooning pushing on the flex plate, and messing up the crankshaft. In the original intended use (Town Car/Crown Vic until 1994) it wasn't an issue, as the 90s went on more cars got it, 1991 it was just the town car, 1992 it was all panther platform, 1994 the t-bird got it, 1996 was the mustang, 1997 was the F150, 2002 was the Explorer. By 1997 they were noticing the power issues and worked on a new head for the 1999 mustang, 260hp vs 225, 300 lbft i think too. A good boost in power just from a redesigned head and intake. Ford could make small, high power engines. SVT focus, 170HP 2.0L just had to have special parts. The Duratec 3.0L, 200HP 200 LbFt all aluminum DOHC. American cars are about bang for the buck. You pay a lot less, and get a good bit of power. It will never live up to a BMW in terms of out right performance but will give you your money's worth.

[GCrites]

With most American V8s, I rarely suspect internal engine trouble when the car isn't running right and the vehicle hasn't been abused or has very high mileage. I've been around them enough to think it's something like dried up intake gaskets, seals, dirty injectors/carb, poor tuning, ham-fisted work or ignition problems rather than flat cams, burnt valves or poor compression/leakdown numbers. I have also seen enough engines apart to not be surprised when cylinders still show crosshatching at 200,000. American V8s last but paper, rubber and gasoline don't.

[Max Rockatansky]

Something a little different:

I really wish Chrysler would try some of the other classic 300 designs other than the "C."  Some really good discussion about the development history of the original generation Chrysler Hemi.

[D-Dey65]

Here's something different:

I remember my Dad had to get rid of the Caravan when it came out in 1985..he actually had to wait until 1987 to not go underwater.  That was actually one of the few mini-vans that actually was somewhat "manly" looking and that along with the 4.3L V6 was the reason he got it.  That thing had a crap ton of utility, we even had a rigged up TV/VHS combo for road trips down south.  Strange to think that Chrysler was so far ahead with the front drive platform back in those days....those vans along with the K Car probably are the reason they are still around.  I would kill to see a RWD bulky Mini-Van like the Astro these days...possibly with a V8 option...but alas I think the CUV crowd has consumed the market.  About the closest we ever really got to the Sports-Van was the R-Class R63 AMG.

Does anybody see the Toyota Van in the middle of that still frame of the video? That was the exact color of an '85 Toyota Van I had back in the 1990's.

[Max Rockatansky]

Here's something different:

I remember my Dad had to get rid of the Caravan when it came out in 1985..he actually had to wait until 1987 to not go underwater.  That was actually one of the few mini-vans that actually was somewhat "manly" looking and that along with the 4.3L V6 was the reason he got it.  That thing had a crap ton of utility, we even had a rigged up TV/VHS combo for road trips down south.  Strange to think that Chrysler was so far ahead with the front drive platform back in those days....those vans along with the K Car probably are the reason they are still around.  I would kill to see a RWD bulky Mini-Van like the Astro these days...possibly with a V8 option...but alas I think the CUV crowd has consumed the market.  About the closest we ever really got to the Sports-Van was the R-Class R63 AMG.

Does anybody see the Toyota Van in the middle of that still frame of the video? That was the exact color of an '85 Toyota Van I had back in the 1990's.

Saw one today up at Yosemite that was black.  I should have taken a picture of it...I thought to since it was a rare sighting.

[GCrites]

Here's something different:

I remember my Dad had to get rid of the Caravan when it came out in 1985..he actually had to wait until 1987 to not go underwater.  That was actually one of the few mini-vans that actually was somewhat "manly" looking and that along with the 4.3L V6 was the reason he got it.  That thing had a crap ton of utility, we even had a rigged up TV/VHS combo for road trips down south.  Strange to think that Chrysler was so far ahead with the front drive platform back in those days....those vans along with the K Car probably are the reason they are still around.  I would kill to see a RWD bulky Mini-Van like the Astro these days...possibly with a V8 option...but alas I think the CUV crowd has consumed the market.  About the closest we ever really got to the Sports-Van was the R-Class R63 AMG.

Does anybody see the Toyota Van in the middle of that still frame of the video? That was the exact color of an '85 Toyota Van I had back in the 1990's.

I think that was a very popular color for those. My 1st grade teacher had one in that color and I remember seeing more.

[Max Rockatansky]

Here's something different:

I remember my Dad had to get rid of the Caravan when it came out in 1985..he actually had to wait until 1987 to not go underwater.  That was actually one of the few mini-vans that actually was somewhat "manly" looking and that along with the 4.3L V6 was the reason he got it.  That thing had a crap ton of utility, we even had a rigged up TV/VHS combo for road trips down south.  Strange to think that Chrysler was so far ahead with the front drive platform back in those days....those vans along with the K Car probably are the reason they are still around.  I would kill to see a RWD bulky Mini-Van like the Astro these days...possibly with a V8 option...but alas I think the CUV crowd has consumed the market.  About the closest we ever really got to the Sports-Van was the R-Class R63 AMG.

Does anybody see the Toyota Van in the middle of that still frame of the video? That was the exact color of an '85 Toyota Van I had back in the 1990's.

I think that was a very popular color for those. My 1st grade teacher had one in that color and I remember seeing more.

Nothing quite says 70s/80s like that weird gold color along with burgundy, that pale yellow in the Aspen regular cars video OR brown...just poop colored brown.    I'm actually surprised that none of those colors has come up as a special edition on one of the three pony cars.  I mean hell we got Synergy Green on the Camaro...Plum Crazy Purple, Commando Green, Sublime Green and Furious Fuchsia on the Challenger.  Really we get a pink but no brown or gold option?...orange oddly seems to have become somewhat common.

[Max Rockatansky]

Modified the title of the thread to include the 1970s...  Something a little different on Youtube today:

I always been kind of fond of Model Ts.  The market price on them really has come down over the last couple decades (relative to inflation) which makes it one of the cheaper vintage cars to get into. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Regular Cars take on the PT, didn't the whole Modernism and Post Modernism rant:

[Takumi]

I kinda glossed over the modernism/postmodernism part of the review. Mr. Regular was an English major (and IIRC was/is an English teacher), so it's in his wheelhouse.

[GCrites]

Here's something different:

I remember my Dad had to get rid of the Caravan when it came out in 1985..he actually had to wait until 1987 to not go underwater.  That was actually one of the few mini-vans that actually was somewhat "manly" looking and that along with the 4.3L V6 was the reason he got it.  That thing had a crap ton of utility, we even had a rigged up TV/VHS combo for road trips down south.  Strange to think that Chrysler was so far ahead with the front drive platform back in those days....those vans along with the K Car probably are the reason they are still around.  I would kill to see a RWD bulky Mini-Van like the Astro these days...possibly with a V8 option...but alas I think the CUV crowd has consumed the market.  About the closest we ever really got to the Sports-Van was the R-Class R63 AMG.

Does anybody see the Toyota Van in the middle of that still frame of the video? That was the exact color of an '85 Toyota Van I had back in the 1990's.

I think that was a very popular color for those. My 1st grade teacher had one in that color and I remember seeing more.

Nothing quite says 70s/80s like that weird gold color along with burgundy, that pale yellow in the Aspen regular cars video OR brown...just poop colored brown.    I'm actually surprised that none of those colors has come up as a special edition on one of the three pony cars.  I mean hell we got Synergy Green on the Camaro...Plum Crazy Purple, Commando Green, Sublime Green and Furious Fuchsia on the Challenger.  Really we get a pink but no brown or gold option?

The Jim Rockford Edition

[Max Rockatansky]

Here's something different:

I remember my Dad had to get rid of the Caravan when it came out in 1985..he actually had to wait until 1987 to not go underwater.  That was actually one of the few mini-vans that actually was somewhat "manly" looking and that along with the 4.3L V6 was the reason he got it.  That thing had a crap ton of utility, we even had a rigged up TV/VHS combo for road trips down south.  Strange to think that Chrysler was so far ahead with the front drive platform back in those days....those vans along with the K Car probably are the reason they are still around.  I would kill to see a RWD bulky Mini-Van like the Astro these days...possibly with a V8 option...but alas I think the CUV crowd has consumed the market.  About the closest we ever really got to the Sports-Van was the R-Class R63 AMG.

Does anybody see the Toyota Van in the middle of that still frame of the video? That was the exact color of an '85 Toyota Van I had back in the 1990's.

I think that was a very popular color for those. My 1st grade teacher had one in that color and I remember seeing more.

Nothing quite says 70s/80s like that weird gold color along with burgundy, that pale yellow in the Aspen regular cars video OR brown...just poop colored brown.    I'm actually surprised that none of those colors has come up as a special edition on one of the three pony cars.  I mean hell we got Synergy Green on the Camaro...Plum Crazy Purple, Commando Green, Sublime Green and Furious Fuchsia on the Challenger.  Really we get a pink but no brown or gold option?

The Jim Rockford Edition

But what year?....many to choose from, wasn't a new one every for each model year or something?

[Max Rockatansky]

[Takumi]

Their judgmental car show videos are hilarious.

https://youtu.be/oMDcIApBtL8

(NSFW)
https://youtu.be/qy38UGt8n5c

https://youtu.be/P_GJGLy3EVE