User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/19/2023 11:13:42 PM EDT
[#1]
I love 80's and early 90's Trucks...for styling.
But they were slower then fuck and the most inefficient things you would ever believe. my 2022 F-250 7.3 455 CI Gas Job ON 37's gets 13 MPG around town with 430 HP and 500 FT/LB f torque. I had an 84 Square body, I think it got 6 MPG, and couldn't get out of its own way, but damn it looked good lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2023 11:14:28 PM EDT
[#2]
My buddy says:
"As mentioned, Honda had hp in the 1990s, just not much torque. The 1994 B16A3 DOHC VTEC 1.6 liter made 160 hp in US trim. The EDM & JDM versions made even more. Generally the US auto makers didn't care too much about power output then and many of their automatic transmissions were horribly weak. That era pushrod V6 and V8 had no top end due to terrible flowing heads, low compression ratios and valve train optimized for low end torque. A few of the big three's 4 and 6 cylinder engines were exceptions like the Quad 4, and the Yamaha SHO V6." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2023 11:15:24 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pre 1972 cars had higher compression ratios. When they went to Emissions Standards they lowered the compression ratios and got rid of leaded fuel. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Low compression ratios More accurately, today's higher compression ratios. This isn't a backwards looking exercise. Pre 1972 cars had higher compression ratios. When they went to Emissions Standards they lowered the compression ratios and got rid of leaded fuel. Retarded solutions to science need not apply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2023 11:16:45 PM EDT
[#4]
Boomers drool over cars like a '67 Chevy Nova.
275 HP. 0-60 in 6.3. 1/4 mile in 13.9. Those are basically Toyota Camry specs now. You can get that in a pickup truck. All the guys talking about the EPA and emissions are missing the point, this is the gold age of the internal combustion engine, and it isn't close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2023 11:17:35 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My buddy says: "As mentioned, Honda had hp in the 1990s, just not much torque. The 1994 B16A3 DOHC VTEC 1.6 liter made 160 hp in US trim. The EDM & JDM versions made even more. Generally the US auto makers didn't care too much about power output then and many of their automatic transmissions were horribly weak. That era pushrod V6 and V8 had no top end due to terrible flowing heads, low compression ratios and valve train optimized for low end torque. A few of the big three's 4 and 6 cylinder engines were exceptions like the Quad 4, and the Yamaha SHO V6." The engine in its torque band was most efficient. Those ohv engines with the big torque curves were actually efficient. People buy hp but drive torque . |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2023 11:17:49 PM EDT
[#6]
I had a 1995 car that got 255 HP from a stock 1.3L.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2023 11:21:37 PM EDT
[#7]
The U S government , California , and EPA . And also the oil importers .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2023 11:23:52 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryHell yeah man. I love my rotary car, I should open the garage, fire it up and wake up people a mile away lol My 88 fox body stang had around 400whp after some mods. Miss that car, rolled it four times at a buck thirty |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2023 11:35:22 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ford should have gone the GM route instead of the "mod " motor . All aluminum 5.0 , vvt , direct injection (plus port injection) . Could've done the same with the 3.8-4.2. Which, Originally the 3.8 was supposed to have an aluminum block. I wish Ford really hadn't gone modular and overhead cams. Failing tensioners and phasers...what a PITA. Push rods for the win ETA atleast GM did that right with the LSx engines...kept them push rods. They're a better engine than the Ford counter parts |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:29:54 AM EDT
[#10]
Comparatively primitive technology obviously, but also greater cost pressures, where many '90s cars were typically in a lower price bracket than their current equivalents in todays dollars.
https://www.cjponyparts.com/resources/mustang-gt-price-by-year#third |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:33:45 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Honda S2000 came out in 1999. It’s F20C 2.0 litre in-line 4 in it’s US variant produced 234hp, or 117h per litre. I seem to recall the BMW M3 had the highest HP per liter in 99. I can't remember what it was, but damn it would be hard to beat that Honda figure if accurate! Edit: I looked it up. The BMW was nowhere even close to that. In fact, articles I looked at mentioned the S2000 was 240hp, making it 120hp per liter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:38:35 AM EDT
[#12]
I still have an 85 F-150 with an efi 5.0. 225 ish horsepower. I think they actually measured it at the wheels instead of the flywheel back in those days. But yeah cast iron block and heads low compression and early fuel injection just sucked.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:40:29 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The boomers will tell you that the small bock V8's were the pinnacle of engines.... Like the 1995 Chevy 350 that put out 200 horsepower and 310 lb/ft of torque but then bitch about today's turbo 4 cylinders in pickups that put down 310 horsepower a d 430 lb/ft of torque. and tell you it's "weak." Gen Xer here. The Chevy small block, particularly the 350, was second only to the 5.3L Vortec (non-afm). They are the pinnacle of engine design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:43:04 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My 1985 Caprice Classic had a 305 V8. That's a full 5.0. It had 165 horsepower. I could spin the wheels when it rained. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:48:38 AM EDT
[#15]
Honda had a naturally aspirated 4 cyl 1.6 motor making 160hp back in 1989.
And that was in a production Civic, CRXs, and Integras. Even Toyota offered a naturally aspirated 4 cyl 1.6 motor with 5 valves per cyl and individual throttle bodies also making 160hp back in the early 90s. You could go to your local dealer and find it in a Corolla. In Japan though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:50:21 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I had a 1995 car that got 255 HP from a stock 1.3L. RX7? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:53:37 AM EDT
[#17]
I had one of these nice automobiles: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-rt-review-1982-pontiac-j2000-off-to-a-slow-start/
4-speed manual, to accelerate, on the highway (55mph speed limit) would need to downshift to 3rd and turn off the a/c. 0-60 (per the article) over 16 seconds. My 20 year old Craftsman lawnmower has better acceleration. Damn, those were dark times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 12:58:06 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: More accurately, today's higher compression ratios. This isn't a backwards looking exercise. That is not entirely it. Camshafts with rhat emissions requirement combined with the Speed Density or Mass Air for the time played a large role as well. Richard Holdner on youtube plays with a ton of SBF and SBC stuff. A junk yard 5.0 SBF can go north of 300hp with ease with just a cam/heads/intake. Not even touching the pistons and the compression does not change that radically. The late 90s had some decent stuff come out like TrickFlow twisted wedge heads, modding SBFs in the 90s was not hard to make 300+. My 95 Cobra is a rats nest of vacuum lines and bullshit like the EGR valve. Choose the wrong cam and the car wont run for shit as the computer fuckin gets in the way. A simple cam swap woke it up quite a bit compared to stock. Everything else stayed the same save for rear gears being changed to 3.73 and later 3.55. Can do 500hp pretty easy on 9.5:1 compression with something like a 408 Stroker on a 351 block. The SBF started to go distributorless ignition on some of the last Explorers with the 5.0. Having more timing control would have likely helped a ton if they offered heads/intake beyond the GT40 inspired design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 1:08:48 AM EDT
[#19]
Breathing - largely cylinder head design(s) & ever advancing ‘puter-based engine mgmt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 1:13:50 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Boomers drool over cars like a '67 Chevy Nova. 275 HP. 0-60 in 6.3. 1/4 mile in 13.9. Those are basically Toyota Camry specs now. You can get that in a pickup truck. All the guys talking about the EPA and emissions are missing the point, this is the gold age of the internal combustion engine, and it isn't close. To be fair, in 1967, the Nova was the equivalent of a Toyota Corolla. Technology improved. That’s why cars make more power now. It’s not that the engineers who came before were morons. In fact, they are the geniuses whose shoulders we’re now standing on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 1:23:55 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: 215hp from a 5.0L V8? Todays 5.0s are double that. It’s not like there was a progressive increase in HP per liter either. It’s like it just went crazy after 2010. 1960-2005 was about flat. What changed? Computer controls Fuel injection Higher compression Roller camshafts |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 1:31:17 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Computer controls Fuel injection Higher compression Roller camshafts Just 2 of those things and a carb could take a SBF to respectable power levels just fine in the 90s as they all were available. Plenty of people did it if they didnt care about smog. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 1:36:23 AM EDT
[#23]
Cars made in the last 5-15 years are just on a totally different level than cars made say pre 2005-2010.
Not just creature comforts but as a driver just so much better from throttle response to braking to stability at speed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 1:36:50 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The boomers will tell you that the small bock V8's were the pinnacle of engines.... Like the 1995 Chevy 350 that put out 200 horsepower and 310 lb/ft of torque but then bitch about today's turbo 4 cylinders in pickups that put down 310 horsepower a d 430 lb/ft of torque. and tell you it's "weak." ?? So much this |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 1:47:17 AM EDT
[#25]
Getting the shit kicked out of performance engines by Carters oil embargo and the EPA left a long lasting dent.
Then the big 3 got the shit kicked out of them by the Japanese and other imports. Because the MBA geniuses were utterly convinced that selling Americans crap was a winning business model. There was a gangbang of dumbasses with Nader, the big 3 execs, EPA, and congress. That left a mark. Took a few decades for the bullshit to wear off. Now we’re actually where we should have been in 1994. But the interest is no longer there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 1:57:42 AM EDT
[#26]
fuel injection got better is the long and short of it. back in the day turbo honda's made 200 wheel unless you went stupid with it. now 400+ is nothing. same with the V-8 although mainly the V8 got better. the old small blocks were hot garbage compared to what is being made these days. the old 5.0 is embarrassing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 2:11:50 AM EDT
[#27]
My understanding is the first attempts at EFI with federal emissions requirements caused a huge drop in power per liter in the 70s and 80s, then started to recover in the 90s. Further improvements since then have majorly increased the #s with some cars getting in the 200hp/l range with relatively low-priced (< $100k) production cars.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 2:21:40 AM EDT
[#28]
It's called tuning. You can tune an engine to your wants / needs for the most part.
In the little town I grew up in, there were more than a few small block chevy's in Camaro's, Nova's, Vettes , etc. that produced 400 and more HP on the dyno with single 4BBL carbs. Same for a bunch of Pontiac GTO's and Lemans. It wasn't that hard to install a cam, heads, intake, carb, headers , and upgraded ignition. Start with a Chevy 350 SB that put out 350 HP from the factory and 400 HP was easy. My town had cars driven daily on the street that ran in the 11's to low 12's and these were heavy ass cars. A few dipped into the 10's with slicks and ladder bars. My BIL still has his two 69 Z28's that ran high 10's . One is a built 350 and the other a big block 427. Guys used to go to the drag strip every weekend and run their cars then drive around all week showing off their times written on their windshields with white shoe polish. The 60's and 7o's were a great time for hot rodding and tons of fun. So, with all the modern upgrades, computer controls , modern fuel injection, tires, weight reduction , ETC. modern V8's putting out 400 + HP should be the norm with 50 years additional development. Emissions controls, gas milage, even " safety and insurance costs" , etc. were all reasons we got the turds we did. You could make some good HP back in the day and have a shit ton of fun doing it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 2:26:59 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1990 ford mustang curb weight : ~2,800 pounds 2023 ford mustang curb weight : ~3,700 pounds My '84 GT after some weight reduction weighed 2,700lbs with a full tank of gas, that's aluminum heads, and stripped down interior. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 2:27:07 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: fuel injection got better is the long and short of it. back in the day turbo honda's made 200 wheel unless you went stupid with it. now 400+ is nothing. same with the V-8 although mainly the V8 got better. the old small blocks were hot garbage compared to what is being made these days. the old 5.0 is embarrassing. No, they really weren't. They were just detuned choked down versions of a good engine that could be brought back to life if wanted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 2:35:16 AM EDT
[#31]
Answer is the federal government
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 2:46:42 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: More accurately, today's higher compression ratios. This isn't a backwards looking exercise. Much more sophistication in the Electronics (computers) & Fuel delivery systems Moore's law didn't just give you incredible Smart Phones Vs. your old 80's brick mobile phones Bigger_Hammer 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 3:30:35 AM EDT
[#33]
They were learning. It was a few years after the slow painful death of the carburetor and they just didn’t have it figured out yet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 3:47:44 AM EDT
[#34]
With regard to the SBF, airflow is the issue. The flow numbers for E7TE heads are abysmal. Combine terrible heads with a relatively mild cam (because of emissions) and you have a recipe for 225hp.
The relative inefficiency when stock is why those engines responded so well to bolt-ons. How do I know? I have one in the garage.  Attached FileBut for all of us crapping on these cars a fox body like the one pictured will get 16/24mpg in stock form. That's for a car rated at 225hp/300tq. For reference, my 2022 WRX is supposed to get 19/26mpg and is rated at 271hp/258tq. Those numbers aren't too far apart. And the Mustang is still running 32 years after it was made. The WRX isn't even a year old, but if anyone wants to bet a case of PMAGs that it'll make it to 32 years without a new shortblock, I'll take it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 4:23:26 AM EDT
[#35]
Is OP 30yrs old or younger?
Engine management tech was in its early days. Emissions standards were strangling the industry and robbing carbed engines of what little power they made. There was no variable valve timing, direct injection, and installations were chock full of parasitic losses like clutch fans. Emissions tech was so crude that a Chevrolet LG4 305 in a Monte Carlo or Camaro could pick up a no-shit 40hp just by ripping out the exhaust and going to headers, dual pipes and mufflers. De-smog it and replwce the shitty Q-jet and you could get some more power yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 4:26:13 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: With regard to the SBF, airflow is the issue. The flow numbers for E7TE heads are abysmal. Combine terrible heads with a relatively mild cam (because of emissions) and you have a recipe for 225hp. The relative inefficiency when stock is why those engines responded so well to bolt-ons. How do I know? I have one in the garage. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/45990/20230820_034925_jpg-2925859.JPG But for all of us crapping on these cars a fox body like the one pictured will get 16/24mpg in stock form. That's for a car rated at 225hp/300tq. For reference, my 2022 WRX is supposed to get 19/26mpg and is rated at 271hp/258tq. Those numbers aren't too far apart. And the Mustang is still running 32 years after it was made. The WRX isn't even a year old, but if anyone wants to bet a case of PMAGs that it'll make it to 32 years without a new shortblock, I'll take it. The Fox body is probably lighter than the WRX too. An 80s G-Body (monte, cutlass, etc) weighs about what a current Mini Cooper. That is Bananas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 4:38:36 AM EDT
[#37]
Checkout light airplane engines which are basically 1930's tech, but still being made this way today. 9 liter engines that make 230 HP (granted, they do it at about 2500 RPM). 6 liter engines that make 180 HP. In the case of these motors it's because (from what I've been told) of the leaded fuel which prevents oxygen sensors from being used in the engines. This makes it difficult to implement things like electronic, computer controled fuel injection and fuel/air mixture controls because the lead would interfere. The cockpit still has a mixture control and often the engines still use carbs, although most new ones use mechanical fuel injection (so that the engine keeps running in an electrical failure). Until very recently the lead was needed to get the octane high enough (100) to make that kind of power at such a low RPM. Low RPM is needed due the propeller needing to not break the sound barrier. Otherwise you need a gear reduction which adds weight and complexity (although the 1930's and 40's era big piston engines mostly just went ahead and did the gear reduction to swing massive props).
So in the cars of the 90's I'd surmise that electronic fuel injection and computer controlled fuel and ignition systems that today can constantly adjust things like spark timing and mixture, were still in the process of being developed. Today that stuff gives a lot of free horsepower. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 5:17:01 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: With regard to the SBF, airflow is the issue. The flow numbers for E7TE heads are abysmal. Combine terrible heads with a relatively mild cam (because of emissions) and you have a recipe for 225hp. The relative inefficiency when stock is why those engines responded so well to bolt-ons. How do I know? I have one in the garage. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/45990/20230820_034925_jpg-2925859.JPG But for all of us crapping on these cars a fox body like the one pictured will get 16/24mpg in stock form. That's for a car rated at 225hp/300tq. For reference, my 2022 WRX is supposed to get 19/26mpg and is rated at 271hp/258tq. Those numbers aren't too far apart. And the Mustang is still running 32 years after it was made. The WRX isn't even a year old, but if anyone wants to bet a case of PMAGs that it'll make it to 32 years without a new shortblock, I'll take it. All engines are nothing more than air pumps. The more air you flow the better. Short block or turbo or computer components or... something major way before 32 years of ownership. The old v8's like the SB Chevy and Ford were about bullet proof. They may of had a tranny problem now and then but the engines were solid. I have friends that owned and I have owned 283 Chevy's and 289 Fords that you could not kill. Beat the ever loving shit out of them , neglect them and they kept going. That little HO 289 in a mustang was fantastic. Always wanted one. Still do. My friend had one and it rusted to shit and wouldn't pass inspection without major repair. He got a case of beer, started the car and put a brick on the gas pedal. He said the damn thing screamed and smoked but ran a long time before it stopped and this car had hundreds of thousands of miles on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 5:20:40 AM EDT
[#39]
They had the ability to do it way back when.
In 1970 I had a Corvette LT1 which had a 350 cubic inch 370 HP |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 5:50:21 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: 215hp from a 5.0L V8? Todays 5.0s are double that. It’s not like there was a progressive increase in HP per liter either. It’s like it just went crazy after 2010. 1960-2005 was about flat. What changed? The LS1 engine had 345hp for a 5.7L V8 in 1997. And the LS variants just went up from there. A lot had to do with compression, efficiency of design, port fuel injection. Engineering work based upon federal demands of fuel efficiency. The primary causes for lowered horsepower from the mid 1970's through mid 90's were emissions and fuel efficiency requirements that started with catalytic converters. There was an active fear of federal intervention among car manufacturers as well if they pushed hp and top speeds too high in passenger vehicles. GM decided to push the envelope with the LT1 engine in 1992 and then once they had spent $1 billion developing the LS1 they found that they had a large amount of room for further performance in that base design. It is upon that platform which most of their best engine models since have been derived. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 6:04:45 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My 1994 Integra GS-R had 170hp from a 1.8L. My current S2000 makes 240hp from 2.2L. It’s an 06 but it was designed in the 90s. It was only US cars that had such low HP per Litre. It always puzzled me bad in the day. European and jap cars were looking to maximise this. The goal was 100 bhp Per litre Then you had tuners getting 500 bhp out of a 2 litre Ford cosworth Push rods? Or something? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 6:52:08 AM EDT
[#42]
In the mid '70's didn't manufacturer's go from rating horsepower at the fly wheel to hp ratings at the rear end?
A lot of numbers lost through the drive train. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 7:12:05 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: RX7? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I had a 1995 car that got 255 HP from a stock 1.3L. RX7? Yes |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 7:19:44 AM EDT
[#44]
The 90s weren’t even that bad compared to the early 80s. It wasn’t until about 1985 or so that performance started to come back again with the tuned port injected Camaros, Corvettes, 5.0 Mustang, and Buick Grand National.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 7:22:37 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I had an 88' Sentra. Pretty sure it had 88hp. Maybe it was 82, or 28. Got great gas mileage Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: My 1985 Caprice Classic had a 305 V8. That's a full 5.0. It had 165 horsepower. I could spin the wheels when it rained. I had an 88' Sentra. Pretty sure it had 88hp. Maybe it was 82, or 28. Got great gas mileage |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 7:25:54 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I learned to drive in a 1980 Chevy Caprice Classic station wagon with a 305 V8. Gutless wonder, but it was spacious enough to transport you and 27 of your closest friends. And the back seat faced backwards, which was extra fun for those who were prone to car sickness. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: My 1985 Caprice Classic had a 305 V8. That's a full 5.0. It had 165 horsepower. I could spin the wheels when it rained. Did you know you can leave black skid marks in sand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 7:27:10 AM EDT
[#47]
Weirdly a guy from my city made a very comprehensive series on the US auto industry.
In short, and I don't understand how it's even possible: Some US.gov angency really hates car design and i don't understand why there are not more US politicions that have it as a campaign issue.  Ep. 20 The Malaise Era Part III: The Revival of the American Automotive Industry |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 7:31:01 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Computer controls Fuel injection Higher compression Roller camshafts Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 215hp from a 5.0L V8? Todays 5.0s are double that. It’s not like there was a progressive increase in HP per liter either. It’s like it just went crazy after 2010. 1960-2005 was about flat. What changed? Computer controls Fuel injection Higher compression Roller camshafts And, at least with GM LS engines, cylinder head designs with flow numbers that were unimaginable years ago. Also, cross-bolted main caps (hmm, kinda like some "ricer" engines) to hold the power. A stock L96 6.0 truck engine is 380HP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 7:34:06 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:The boomers will tell you that the small bock V8's were the pinnacle of engines.... Anyone else know of a bunch of boomers who go on and on about those small bock V8s? They were shit and eventually they went to small block engines and started to produce real housepower. (with intent  )
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2023 7:35:12 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 96 was yhe first year of the vortec 350 which was 250ish. 97 was the LS1 in the vette with 350hp. Mid 90s in when stuff started improving. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The boomers will tell you that the small bock V8's were the pinnacle of engines.... Like the 1995 Chevy 350 that put out 200 horsepower and 310 lb/ft of torque but then bitch about today's turbo 4 cylinders in pickups that put down 310 horsepower a d 430 lb/ft of torque. and tell you it's "weak." 96 was yhe first year of the vortec 350 which was 250ish. 97 was the LS1 in the vette with 350hp. Mid 90s in when stuff started improving. Hondas had the VTEC yo but most of your average everyday cars/trucks were coming off of OBD I so when OBD II came out along with improved designs (that were for the most part reliable) things changed drastically. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
