News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

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

Started by Max Rockatansky, April 30, 2016, 11:49:55 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

catch22

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 06, 2018, 10:31:16 AM
Quote from: Henry on April 06, 2018, 09:14:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 06, 2018, 09:03:15 AMI miss the pop-up headlights, I thought it always gave the Corvette a unique look that other sports cars didn't have.
Not entirely true; there are other sports cars from the era that had pop-up headlights, such as the Pontiac Sunbird GT, Fiero and Firebird, Dodge Daytona/Chrysler Conquest, Dodge Stealth/Mitsubishi 3000GT, Ford Probe, Mazda Miata, Honda Prelude, Nissan Pulsar NX, 240SX and 300ZX, Toyota Celica, Supra, MR2 and Corolla GT-S, Subaru XT, Lamborghini Countach and Diablo, all Ferrari models, BMW 8 Series and Porsche 944, to name a few.

Fair enough, it still is kind of irksome (at least to me) that a styling cue that was present back to the C2 was removed for the C6.  Come to think of it wasn't there some sort of safety regulation that was involved in the pop-up headlight virtually going extinct?   I want to say 1997 was the year GM started daytime headlights?  I remember there used to be commercials about "your lights are on"  for GM vehicles around that time. 

I seem to recall the standard changed at some point to require that the concealing mechanism have a fail-save mode, such that if if malfunctioned it had to do so in the open state.  Looking at FMVSS 108 today, I don't see that but there is a requirement to design the closing mechanism so that it can be manually opened without the use of tools in the event of failure.  I'm guessing it was a GM corporate decision. Here's the relevant section of FMVSS 108:

Quote
S12   Headlamp concealment device requirements.

S12.1   While the headlamp is illuminated, its fully opened headlamp concealment device must remain fully opened should any loss of power to or within the headlamp concealment device occur.

S12.2   Whenever any malfunction occurs in a component that controls or conducts power for the actuation of the concealment device, each closed headlamp concealment device must be capable of being fully opened by a means not requiring the use of any tools. Thereafter, the headlamp concealment device must remain fully opened until intentionally closed.

S12.3   Except for malfunctions covered by S12.2, each headlamp concealment device must be capable of being fully opened and the headlamps illuminated by actuation of a single switch, lever, or similar mechanism, including a mechanism that is automatically actuated by a change in ambient light conditions.

S12.4   Each headlamp concealment device must be installed so that the headlamp may be mounted, aimed, and adjusted without removing any component of the device, other than components of the headlamp assembly.

S12.5   Except for cases of malfunction covered by S12.2, each headlamp concealment device must, within an ambient temperature range of −20 °F to + 120 °F, be capable of being fully opened in not more than 3 seconds after the actuation of a driver-operated control.

S12.6   As an alternative to complying with the requirements of S12.1 through S12.5, a vehicle with headlamps incorporating VHAD or visual/optical aiming in accordance with this standard may meet the requirements for Concealable lamps in paragraph 5.14 of UNECE Regulation 48 page 17 (incorporated by reference, see §571.5), in the English language version.

S12.7   Certification election. Manufacturers of vehicles with headlamps incorporating VHAD or visual/optical aiming must elect to certify to S12.1 through S12.5 or to S12.6 prior to, or at the time of certification of the vehicle, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. The selection is irrevocable.


bugo

Quote from: Henry on March 30, 2018, 09:35:44 AM
Since Renault and Nissan are set to merge, here's the French automaker's last foray into the American market, the AMC-built Alliance, Encore and GTA:


Don't forget the Renault Fuego "sports car". From what I have read, they were great when they ran right. Which was a minority of the time as they were trouble-prone and typically in the shop more than they were out.


bugo

I have always thought the modular V8 was kind of wimpy compared to the 302 that it replaced. The 302/4.9 ("5.0") had gobs of low-end torque while you had to rev the modular engine to get any power out of it. GM stuck to overhead valves, why did Ford think they had to get fancy and use overhead cams? Overhead cams are fine for smaller inline 4 cylinder or V6 engines but I'd rather have pushrods in a V8.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: bugo on April 13, 2018, 09:30:35 PM
I have always thought the modular V8 was kind of wimpy compared to the 302 that it replaced. The 302/4.9 ("5.0") had gobs of low-end torque while you had to rev the modular engine to get any power out of it. GM stuck to overhead valves, why did Ford think they had to get fancy and use overhead cams? Overhead cams are fine for smaller inline 4 cylinder or V6 engines but I'd rather have pushrods in a V8.

It would have been much closer to the LT1 or LS1 if they did the three valves per cylinder from the outset.  It wasn't until the 05 model year that the standard GT got a 4.6 Modular with three valves. 

bugo

I find it interesting that the V6 powered 2011 Mustang was nearly as quick as the V8 in the 2010 and older models.

Takumi

There was a point in the early 2000s where Acura was selling a V6 (in the 3.2 TL and CL Type S) that had 260 HP, close to what the Mustang's V8 was making at the time. Sadly, the car is notorious for transmission problems, because Honda forgot how to build an automatic transmission some time around 1997.
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2021, 07:52:59 AM
Olive Garden must be stopped.  I must stop them.

Don't @ me. Seriously.

bugo

Quote from: Takumi on April 14, 2018, 03:12:28 PM
There was a point in the early 2000s where Acura was selling a V6 (in the 3.2 TL and CL Type S) that had 260 HP, close to what the Mustang's V8 was making at the time. Sadly, the car is notorious for transmission problems, because Honda forgot how to build an automatic transmission some time around 1997.

Could you get a 6 speed manual in that car? If so, problem solved.

Takumi

Quote from: bugo on April 15, 2018, 04:28:03 PM
Quote from: Takumi on April 14, 2018, 03:12:28 PM
There was a point in the early 2000s where Acura was selling a V6 (in the 3.2 TL and CL Type S) that had 260 HP, close to what the Mustang's V8 was making at the time. Sadly, the car is notorious for transmission problems, because Honda forgot how to build an automatic transmission some time around 1997.

Could you get a 6 speed manual in that car? If so, problem solved.
The TL, no...the CL, yes, but good luck finding one.
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2021, 07:52:59 AM
Olive Garden must be stopped.  I must stop them.

Don't @ me. Seriously.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: Takumi on April 14, 2018, 03:12:28 PM
There was a point in the early 2000s where Acura was selling a V6 (in the 3.2 TL and CL Type S) that had 260 HP, close to what the Mustang's V8 was making at the time. Sadly, the car is notorious for transmission problems, because Honda forgot how to build an automatic transmission some time around 1997.


The first year of the 7th Generation Pontiac Grand Prix (2004 had a supercharged 260hp/280ftlb 3.8L Buick engine which was certainly right there with the 16 valve 4.6 Modular V8.  Even the 6th Generation GTPs were no slouches, I seem to recall they ran high 13 quarter mile times as well.  Really the game didn't start changing with Pony Cars until 5th Generation Camaro SS came standard with an LS3 or L99 depending on transmission choice.  The Mustang GT at the time had a 24 valve 4.6 Modular which wasn't much more powerful than the 5th Generation Camaro's 3.6L V6.  The Mustang got an entire new engine line up in 2011 with the 5.0 Coyote and a 3.7L V6.  Even the Challenger got the 3.6L Pentastar V6 and 392 Hemi by 2011, the later of the two is one of my favorite modern engines given it is massive displacement iron block.

Max Rockatansky

#609
Laguna S3, the sad last gasp of the Chevelle:



For what its worth I kind of dig the colonnade body style GM was going for in the mid-1970s.

PHLBOS

Quote from: bugo on April 13, 2018, 09:30:35 PM
I have always thought the modular V8 was kind of wimpy compared to the 302 that it replaced. The 302/4.9 ("5.0") had gobs of low-end torque while you had to rev the modular engine to get any power out of it. GM stuck to overhead valves, why did Ford think they had to get fancy and use overhead cams? Overhead cams are fine for smaller inline 4 cylinder or V6 engines but I'd rather have pushrods in a V8.
Four-letter answer: C - A - F - E.
The intent of the modular engine was two-fold: to offer more power than its pushrod Windsor-block predecessor as well as better fuel economy.  In base form, the 4.6L modular V8 in a Crown Vic/Grand Marquis could actually obtain 27-28 mpg in highway driving; which was higher than what was posted on the EPA sticker.  Such was probably due to the EPA highway testing is done at 40-50 mph vs. 68-72 mph driving in the real world.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Max Rockatansky

The 1982 Turbo T/A with a Pontiac 301 that could have bee:


jon daly

Bookmarking this thread so that I can continue reading it. I made it up to page 3 so far.

Max Rockatansky

1989 Shelby Dakota:



1977 Ford Bronco



1997 Buick Park Avenue


bugo

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 16, 2018, 11:42:38 PM
1989 Shelby Dakota:



The Shelby Dakota wasn't even Dodge's first high performance pickup. That honor goes to the 1963 Dodge HPP. The HPP offered a 365 horsepower 426 "wedge" V8 engine and a push-button automatic Torqueflite transmission. It was a fast truck. Dodge has a history of building high-performance pickup trucks. There was the Dodge Lil Red Express Truck of 1978.  During the dark days the of the malaise era, this truck was a rare bright spot. It had a 225 horsepower 360 V8. It was one of the quickest if not the quickest production vehicle in the United States in 1978. In the 1970s, cars and trucks have different emissions standards. The high output 360 put out too much pollution to pass the test for cars but it was able to pass the truck emissions test. Also, there was the Dodge Ram SRT-10 pickup truck with the Viper based V10 engine and an optional 6-speed manual transmission. These trucks were brutal.

bugo

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 16, 2018, 08:59:33 AM
Quote from: bugo on April 13, 2018, 09:30:35 PM
I have always thought the modular V8 was kind of wimpy compared to the 302 that it replaced. The 302/4.9 ("5.0") had gobs of low-end torque while you had to rev the modular engine to get any power out of it. GM stuck to overhead valves, why did Ford think they had to get fancy and use overhead cams? Overhead cams are fine for smaller inline 4 cylinder or V6 engines but I'd rather have pushrods in a V8.
Four-letter answer: C - A - F - E.
The intent of the modular engine was two-fold: to offer more power than its pushrod Windsor-block predecessor as well as better fuel economy.  In base form, the 4.6L modular V8 in a Crown Vic/Grand Marquis could actually obtain 27-28 mpg in highway driving; which was higher than what was posted on the EPA sticker.  Such was probably due to the EPA highway testing is done at 40-50 mph vs. 68-72 mph driving in the real world.

That argument doesn't hold water because General Motors was able to certify the small block Chevy V8 engine. Chrysler was later able to meet CAFE and emission standards using a pushrod overhead valve Hemi engine. There's no reason why Ford couldn't have continued building an overhead valve V-8 engine. Overhead valve engines are arguably superior to overhead cam engines when it comes to producing low-end torque is required from trucks. I drove a Ford pickup with a 5. 4 L modular V8 engine and it was gutless.

PHLBOS

Bold emphasis added below:
Quote from: bugo on July 17, 2018, 02:05:40 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 16, 2018, 08:59:33 AM
Quote from: bugo on April 13, 2018, 09:30:35 PM
I have always thought the modular V8 was kind of wimpy compared to the 302 that it replaced. The 302/4.9 ("5.0") had gobs of low-end torque while you had to rev the modular engine to get any power out of it. GM stuck to overhead valves, why did Ford think they had to get fancy and use overhead cams? Overhead cams are fine for smaller inline 4 cylinder or V6 engines but I'd rather have pushrods in a V8.
Four-letter answer: C - A - F - E.
The intent of the modular engine was two-fold: to offer more power than its pushrod Windsor-block predecessor as well as better fuel economy.  In base form, the 4.6L modular V8 in a Crown Vic/Grand Marquis could actually obtain 27-28 mpg in highway driving; which was higher than what was posted on the EPA sticker.  Such was probably due to the EPA highway testing is done at 40-50 mph vs. 68-72 mph driving in the real world.

That argument doesn't hold water because General Motors was able to certify the small block Chevy V8 engine. Chrysler was later able to meet CAFE and emission standards using a pushrod overhead valve Hemi engine. There's no reason why Ford couldn't have continued building an overhead valve V-8 engine. Overhead valve engines are arguably superior to overhead cam engines when it comes to producing low-end torque is required from trucks. I drove a Ford pickup with a 5. 4 L modular V8 engine and it was gutless.
Define certify in your above-quote.  Emission standards in & of themselves, and CAFE standards are two completely separate entities.  It's possible to have a fuel efficient vehicle with terrible emissions (think VW diesel scandal) as well as a proverbial gas-guzzler with lower emissions.

While an engine needs certification to meet emission standards; a CAFE figure for said-engine is just that... a figure based on fuel economy ratings.  The posted combined EPA figure on sticker prices (posted since the 2013 model year) is believed to be the CAFE number for that particular vehicle/engine combo that gets factored into manufacturer's fleetwide CAFE average when sold.  The combined figure is a weighted-average between the posted city/highway ratings (55% city/45% highway IIRC).

To date, there is no known gasoline-powered V8 out there that has been capable of averaging 27.5 mpg let alone 30 or 35 in combined city/highway driving.  In short, cars with V8 engines (regardless of whether it's a pushrod or modular design) fall well short of the CAFE standard (sales of more fuel-efficient cars were intended to offset any fuel economy/CAFE drawdowns from sales of vehicles with larger engines).  When the standards were first set circa 1975; it was originally based on the assumption that V8 engines in cars would be all but gone by 1985... the first year the standard hit 27.5 mpg.  I.e. the newer V8 engine offerings from the Big Three during the 90s and beyond weren't originally planned to happen.

While GM & Chrysler made newer pushrod V8s; one needs to keep in mind that those initially rolled out years if not a decade after Ford's first modular V8 (the 4.6L) came out circa 1991 (for its Lincoln Town Cars).  When such (the 4.6L) rolled out, Chrysler had no V8-powered cars in its line-up and GM was planning on eventually pulling the plug on its V8-powered RWD full-size sedans & wagons (which it did circa 1996).

While Ford has since launched a newer 5.0L "Coyote" V8 for its Mustangs & pick-up trucks; they seem heck-bent on offering Ecoboost V6s and 4-bangers for everything else in its current line-up.  So the likelihood of them going back to pushrod V8s at the time of this writing seems nil.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

TheStranger

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2018, 09:36:24 AM
When the standards were first set circa 1975; it was originally based on the assumption that V8 engines in cars would be all but gone by 1985... the first year the standard hit 27.5 mpg.  I.e. the newer V8 engine offerings from the Big Three during the 90s and beyond weren't originally planned to happen.

While GM & Chrysler made newer pushrod V8s; one needs to keep in mind that those initially rolled out years if not a decade after Ford's first modular V8 (the 4.6L) came out circa 1991 (for its Lincoln Town Cars).  When such (the 4.6L) rolled out, Chrysler had no V8-powered cars in its line-up and GM was planning on eventually pulling the plug on its V8-powered RWD full-size sedans & wagons (which it did circa 1996).

In that vein:

I currently own a 1997 Ford Thunderbird with a V8

Back when that generation of the car (the Ford MN-12 platform that also covered the contemporaneous Mercury Cougar) was launched in fall 1988, there was not a single V8 option for that car, just the standard V6 and the Super Coupe supercharged V6, following the seeming industry trend of phasing out V8s at the time. Consumer demand though led to the 5.0 HO engine being added to the model in 1991, followed by the modular 4.6 supplanting it in 1993. 

The supercharged V6 version of the car ceased production in 1995, two years before the end of that era of Thunderbird.  The Lincoln Mark VIII on the similar FN-10 platform always only had the 4.6L V8 as its sole engine option IIRC.
Chris Sampang

PHLBOS

Quote from: TheStranger on July 17, 2018, 10:26:35 AMI currently own a 1997 Ford Thunderbird with a V8

Back when that generation of the car (the Ford MN-12 platform that also covered the contemporaneous Mercury Cougar) was launched in fall 1988, there was not a single V8 option for that car, just the standard V6 and the Super Coupe supercharged V6, following the seeming industry trend of phasing out V8s at the time. Consumer demand though led to the 5.0 HO engine being added to the model in 1991, followed by the modular 4.6 supplanting it in 1993. 

The supercharged V6 version of the car ceased production in 1995, two years before the end of that era of Thunderbird.  The Lincoln Mark VIII on the similar FN-10 platform always only had the 4.6L V8 as its sole engine option IIRC.
IIRC, one supposed-excuse for why the V8 wasn't initially included was due to lack of room under the hood.  The hoods were slightly modified for '91 to allow more room for the 5.0L/302 Windsor V8 to be placed in. 

Such was kind of a repeat, of sorts, for what happened with the Mustang II during the mid-70s.  For '74, no V8 engine was available but when such was added to the options list for '75-'78, Ford had to expand the hood opening in order to accommodate it (again, for the 302 Windsor).
GPS does NOT equal GOD

J N Winkler

I think even the V6 is on its way out.  The future appears to be turbo I4s with combined port and direct injection, the combination being necessary to prevent oil aspirated through the crankcase breather system from coking on the intake valves, and an engine oil specification of SN+ or better to prevent LSPI.  Toyota does offer normally aspirated I4s and V6s in the current-generation Camry, but I expect even those to go away once LSPI and intake valve clogging are deemed to be controlled with sufficient thoroughness that turbo GDI can be risked in model lines that are marketed to value- and reliability-conscious consumers.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

formulanone

Quote from: J N Winkler on July 17, 2018, 11:41:17 AM
I think even the V6 is on its way out.

I'd guess for most vehicles, the V6 is on the way out, but will continue in performance models.

There's a lot of high-output V6s in sportier cars that have replaced the V8 in terms of power outputs (if not always a replacement in torque and visceral sound).

jon daly

Transcript of the PT Cruiser Review. I think I finally understand modernism and post-modernism.

http://regularwiki.com/2004_Chrysler_PT_Cruiser

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: formulanone on July 17, 2018, 06:48:52 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 17, 2018, 11:41:17 AM
I think even the V6 is on its way out.

I'd guess for most vehicles, the V6 is on the way out, but will continue in performance models.

There's a lot of high-output V6s in sportier cars that have replaced the V8 in terms of power outputs (if not always a replacement in torque and visceral sound).

Horsepower yes, but not so much with torque ratings.  I've never really seen a V6 really replicate the low end torque of a V8 all that well.  Granted even V8s on the whole generally have a whole lot less displacement than they used with shorter stroke configurations.  Usually the lengthier stroke the more of that low end power you could generally expect. 

Max Rockatansky

1985 GM lineup, they pretty much start things right off with an Iron Duke to set the mood.  Love the total lack of suspension travel on the N-Bodies:




Max Rockatansky

Mustang II



For what its worth I always thought the Mustang II was a fairly decent looking car.  Had a V8 been offered from the first model year I don't think it would get so much shit from performance car fans playing Monday Morning Quarterback.  The Trans Am definitely was the lone bright point in a dark decade for performance.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.