A regular person, when making/building something, tends to overbuild it, due to lack of engineering knowledge. My house was built in 1974 by three Albanians who between them overdid the damned thing so much you need artillery to get through the walls. Of course, they used excessive amounts of rebar and concrete for it - my grandfather (one of the Albanians involved) said that the amount of steel they used would probably be enough to make a house three times the size.
Engineering is the art of using just enough materials so it does not fall over immediately.
90% of my civil engineering classes focus on calculating the absolute bare minimum requirements. We will calculate you the _exact_ amount of rebar you will need to withstand the expected forces, and no more.
Not because that's better. It's not. I could construct you a bridge that doesn't fail. It will stand for millenia. I could build you a house that has such good isolation, you could bathe the house in liquid nitrogen and not need a blanket inside
But I'm not paying for any of it, that's the client's job.
I didn't either. I am just saying the Fs is baked into the ACI or AISC code, so the minimum isnt the true minimum. Wasn't arguing with you, just adding on, perhaps needlessly.
Yea, but you engineers have no imagination. In 1940s, “How could there ever be more than 1-2 300 lbs people?” 80 years later and there’s literally tons of them. What about the safety factor once we’ve gone full WALL-E?
Well... It's the bare minimum AND safety factors both for material and loads. Basically the worst batch of material coincides with a 50y maximum snow fall combined with 50y maximum storm which also is magnified 50%.
At one point, Albania had 700,000+ bunkers. Some were just big enough to house a single person and supplies for 1-2 days.
Some estimates say 700,000 and others say 800,000 from the ones I've seen. Either way, it's definitely a lot.
Comes in handy though. We didn't even realize our 1950s house was concrete block. Plaster walls, storm windows. Stucco, outside.
I'll take over enigeered. Even if we had tornadoes wouldn't worry much.
I think a good summary of an engineers job is to find that “minimum” point and add a safety factor if required. Anything above that just costs the client more money. For example, when sizing beams you might have a couple that will do the trick, however one is 24 lbs per foot, and the other is 20 lbs per foot. They are both sufficient however the beam that is 20 lbs per foot will cost less because it is lighter (less steel).
Engineers build based on the budget they are given. They always want more development time and money for materials and processes but the bean counters make the final decisions. This result is products that fail too soon and structures that are not as safe as they could be. Please place the blame where it belongs. Maximizing profits and/or minimizing expenditures is why we can't have nice things.
Ford is making a 7.3l v8 today that only produces 430hp and 450 ft lbs of torque.
It gets 15mpg average and single digits towing, as it's put in pickups.
First year of production was 2020.
They just did this yesterday, in automotive design timelines.
Ford also makes millions of trucks with high output twin turbo six cylinders. The Godzilla engine was a result of demands from fleet customers who don't care about horsepower per liter. They just want something that tows and doesn't need tons of maintaince. Large displacement low revving engines are perfect for that.
Also that godzilla can take a fuckton of boost with basically stock internals and a tune. I think Cleetus got his up to 1300HP/1000ft-lbs or so in McFlurry, looks like they are running a Coyote now so I'm not sure if the Godzilla blew up or what but that thing was a monster and with a more conservative tune it'd probably be fine for at least a few years.
My 3.8 Lambda II is in a few heavier cars and they detune them quite a bit for increased reliability... Mine is ~350HP and in all their other cars/SUVs that use the same exact engine they make 50+HP less.
>Also that godzilla can take a fuckton of boost with basically stock internals and a tune. I think Cleetus got his up to 1300HP/1000ft-lbs or so in McFlurry, looks like they are running a Coyote now so I'm not sure if the Godzilla blew up or what but that thing was a monster and with a more conservative tune it'd probably be fine for at least a few years
With only a tangential understanding of auto-mechanic work. I can say with 100% certainty that those are some of the words of all time.
He's basically saying that 7 liter Godzilla motor can take "boost" or forced air induction (forcibly shoving air into the intake instead of letting the motor just breathe it in on its own) and a tuned fuel map (probably way more fuel to match the extra air) without any other modifications and output triple the power.
Yeah when you aren't pushing all that much from it/straining the internals with maximum power, you can drive the shit out of it constantly and not really hurt reliability
Yeah trucks and commercial vehicles are a different set of requirements.
But an 8 liter engine in a muscle car making like 200hp is just bizarre even 40 years ago
And it replaced a 6.8L V10 that only made 305hp and 420ft/lbs of torque.
The V10 got single digit mpg before you put a trailer on the back.
Last year of production was 2019.
It tows really well and is super low maintenance.
So it's exactly what basically everybody who has to deal with fleet maintenance for vehicles has been asking for for years.
They've tried that several times over the decades, it doesn't really work. They're relatively low maintenance, but their lifespan is pretty average and when they shit the bed you're better off buying a full replacement than rebuilding.
Yeah but to get that power out of that block you have to cut and shim around the cylinders to convert it to a closed deck, not to mention the bigger turbo, intercooler and injectors. And putting that kind of power through the trans and diffs on those cars is not a great time either. About 4-600 ponies is fine for those cars.
As I understand it, basically the entire automotive industry was convinced they had enough lobbying power to keep the emissions laws from ever coming into effect. They were wrong. And as a result, they had to scramble to meet them at basically the last minute, and instead of having smaller, more efficient engines ready to go, they had to nerf the fuck out of the ones they already had.
fords 5.0 liter V8s in the mustang pull 486 hp and 416 ft pounds of torque. Larger engines are de tuned to meet emissions requirements, usually.
Across the pond, the Koenigsegg agera One:1 pulls 1,341 from the same displacement. The jesko gets 1600 from 5.1 liters.
It’s still a goofy time for V8s.
Just like the gentlemen’s agreement in the JDM field. Producers must limit their power, but the consumer can do whatever they want after.
1350 mustang 5.0L V8 coming right up, from the shop down the street.
The numbers were real. It was a combo of 1. Having to switch to NET numbers instead of make believe fairy dust numbers. 2. Being absolutely not prepared for the emissions laws and 3. The switch to unleaded fuel.
Gross horsepower numbers were sometimes understated:
https://www.motortrend.com/features/horsepower-hijinks-story-behind-factory-underrating-muscle-car-power-1960s-1970s/
But in general the numbers were inflated from what you would get from a standard production vehicle. The switch from gross to net horsepower happened in 1972:
https://www.carscoops.com/2022/01/50-year-ago-americas-engines-lost-up-to-130-hp-overnight-heres-how-it-happened/
Emission requirements and unleaded gasoline came around in the mid 70s:
https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/timeline-major-accomplishments-transportation-air
This led to what is commonly called the malaise era of US automobile industry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaise_era
Horsepower number for US vehicles has increased from the malaise era though:
https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-horsepower-of-new-vehicles-in-the-us/
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/trends2020-highlight4.png
Nah 70's and 80's v8's are legit slow. They didn't make power until they had better heads, intakes, and carbs. Even then it was the pinnacle of hot rod shop engineering to the get the same power out of the same amount of cubes as a mid tier modern stock engine.
Modern 4 cylinders blow 70s, 80s, 90s engines completely out of the water for power and efficiency. But the V8s they make today aren’t much different than what they were making then. They just have all the fancy stuff like you said: DOHC, bigger intakes, computers, etc.
"it's got a 302 in it!"
"And that 302 makes 180hp."
Could be worse, you could have had a Fairmont on the same platform with the 1960s era 200 I6 that made a whopping 90hp.
I think my late 80s mustang had a smog pump that was belt drivin. Parasitic loss minimal but still another pully to drive. That and only 2 valves per cylinder vs 4. Also single cam push rods vs dual overhead cam. I never looked up the actual specs but do they use cfm to measure air intake/exhaust per cylinder it would be cool to see. Also the curb weight of my vanilla ice convertible was ridiculous. 3400lb? Something like that. I have seen some clean fox body swaps with modern mustang engines but that's a ton of work but definitely helps HP/weight ratio.
I have a 78 Ford with a 5.7L, I’ve removed some emissions stuff, deleted ac, upgraded hei distributor with tuning advanced quite a bit from stock, bigger carb, mild cam upgrade. It’s noticeably faster than when I got it stock. I also own a bone stock Toyota 86 with a 200 HP 2.0l that would still blow its doors off, do it all day long, getting three times the gas mileage. Old school American v8s are fun and sound cool, but unless you do a lot of work they’re slow as hell. No replacement for displacement, except 40 years of technology.
They also weren't very good at actually benchmarking their engines, dynos today are much better and we literally measure horsepower numbers differently. 1972ish it changed from gross to net. Also rear wheel horsepower was like 30% lower than than the net figure anyways
Not the same engine (very similar) but I drove a friend's RSX (type S?) for a few days and it was absolutely horrible to drive. My car at the time was a Saab with the 2.3T and at highway speeds you basically never had to shift and in theirs I had to drop two gears in the RSX to make it do anything. A lot of people forget that peak power numbers aren't the end all be all and that torque/power curves really do matter.
Not to mention the fact that horsepower is literally a function of torque x RPM… the small high revving engines might have a higher peak output but that doesn’t tell the story of making pipsqueak torque at low RPM.
Now, I will say, I drove one of those twin turbo BMWs and wow, maybe there truly is a replacement for displacement…
Yeah I think having the second turbo is the trick… I’ve been in plenty of single turbo cars that had that notorious turbo lag.
The Bimmer felt wayyyy torquey at any RPM comparatively, much smoother power output. That’s what V8s tend to offer - a very linear power curve with no real jumpiness throughout the pedal travel.
The old JDM turbo thing was more like waiting for the power to kick in, the aggressively tuned cars felt like an afterburner kicked in around 3-4k.
The US restrictions on lightweight cars make it almost impossible to manufacture *and* sell a small sports car.
In order to sell, it needs to perform well and cost a reasonable amount. In order to get made at all, it has hit emissions standards and crash safety standards.
You can cut performance or weight to hit the emissions standard, but then it won't sell because it's either too slow or too deadly. You can make it lightweight and fast, but it won't sell because it'll cost more than a Camarro.
All that considered, it's cheaper for most manufacturers to abandon the concept entirely and focus on SUVs and EVs unless they already have a developed engine and chassis that meets the above criteria.
You joke but that's actually why cars and trucks are getting huge. The emissions requirements scale by vehicle weight so they are all just building them bigger and more expensive instead of making them more efficient. At least in the US
Yup, that's the basis for my joke. I'm clinging desperately to my 20+ year old ten-owner F150 and fleet sedan. Fuck the unaffordable behemoths on the road now with their terrible visibility and awful mileage.
Yes, which is why performance engines moved in that direction until turbocharging became de rigeur. HP/L skyrocketed in the early 2000s, mainly due to the proliferation of variable valve timing.
That said, the whole LS series shits all over OP's meme (which is the first 7L V8 most people think of)- everyone else was making smaller turbo/higher revving NA engine in order to meet MPG and emissions standards while [Chevy decided to they were just going to make bigger and bigger engines that somehow *still* hit 30 MPG on the highway.](https://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/ls7/)
The solution Chevy had was that the engines just... Pull. They're geared very tall and they lug around without any effort. My '18 Camaro SS can make 30mpg going 90mph and just... Relaxing at around 1900rpm. They really don't put any effort in
You're right and wrong- since the C5, they've have that stupid long overdrive 6th for exactly the kind of cruising you're talking about, but they've also incrementally improved the LS an absolutely insane amount in order to make it at as efficient as it is. There's a reason no one else has an engine that compares all around (power, weight, size, efficiency, free revving AND torquey at low rpm) without doubling your budget.
>but they've also incrementally improved the LS an absolutely insane amount in order to make it at as efficient as it is.
Can attest. Technically my Camaro has an LT1, but it's the successor of the LS3 and an improvement every way.
>There's a reason no one else has an engine that compares all around (power, weight, size, efficiency, free revving AND torquey at low rpm) without doubling your budget.
It really does have it all. I don't have a single criticism about the drivetrain. Throw it in the alpha chassis and you have a beautiful machine.
I absolutely hate this kind of thing. I have a 7.5L v8 from 76 on my dent side. And it creates like 200 horsepower how it sits. And it only gets like 5 mpg around town. All that gas and no power
I used to have the same engine/truck. Yep. They were absolutely atrocious on fuel.
The smog systems of that era were pre-catalytic convertors so they just re-injected exhaust into the cylinders to keep the temperatures below where NOx would form. It was terrible for pretty much everything engine-wise
Back in the early 2000's I had a 1990 something Dodge Power Ram with a 308.
I remember doing a standing burnout and watching the fuel gauge drop.
Wild times.
Take all the emissions equipment off of it, replace the emission intake, and retune the carb. You'll be up around 250 horsepower. But that's not what the 460 is for. That engine makes around 400ft/lbs of torque way waaay down in the RPM curve at 2300rpm. It's not a race engine, it's a stump puller.
Remember, horsepower is just a measurement of torque over time.
American cars ( esp those around the 70s ) were detuned to comply with the emission laws passed during the 1973 oil crisis, which is why u see these beefy cars that can barely make 200 HP.
Just 10 years ago, the 60s or even the early 70s models had no problem making engines that could easily reach even 400 HP, so it clearly wasn't an engineering issue
> My dad drag races and he'll take an old 318 and easily triple the original horsepower output without breaking the bank.
I believe it was Hot Rod magazine that did a project on an old 318 they pulled out of the junk yard. They ported the heads, changed the intake, decked the block and heads to bump the compression, and changed to the hei style distributor. Pulled just over 400hp while still on a street safe tune and pump gas.
People in the comments don’t understand the meme. It’s referring to the V8’s in the 80’s being trash due to sudden and strict emissions regulations. A Cadillac coupe Deville had a 488ci V8 making no more than 180hp. Modern American V8’s are absolutely incredible, being reliable while producing insane horsepower and still passing emissions.
Edit: the sudden switch to unleaded gasoline also attributed to the power loss
Edit: the Cadillac had a 8.4 L V8.
people seem to get amnesia too… before the 2010s 400 horsepower was on the high end of power numbers. not to mention tire technology not catching up to reliably and cheaply handle that sort of power either.
- 1986 [Aston Martin Vantage](https://cdn.dealeraccelerate.com/autosport/1/2023/24312/790x1024/1986-aston-martin-v8-vantage-coupe) 380 hp out a 5.3L V8 at 100k in today’s money
- 35k in today’s money got you a Z/28 putting 215hp out a 4.9L V8
adjusting for prices and time things look a lot more normal than just throwing shit around… but memes don’t have room for nuance
Plus, cylinder displacement is kind of a silly metric. Something like a modern LT engine might be lighter and externally smaller than a ~5L DOHC engine making similar power with similar efficiency.
If you look up old engines from the 60s and 70s (like the 427) you'll see the power numbers vary wildly depending on efficiency requirements, carbs used, etc. There were engines in that era perfectly capable of 500HP+. So yes, if you could track down the engine, the performance parts necessary, and tuned it to piss gas out the tailpipe, it'd be pretty fast.
It wouldn't compare to a modern engine design made with modern alloys, though. So basically what I'm saying is, you should go buy an LT6. Be the neighbor you never want to have.
Unlike modern motors, they have a shitton of headroom. An old 7.0 can easily make huge numbers, but a lot of modern small motors making mid numbers would grenade because they're designed exactly for what theyre making
In 1971, the Chrysler 318 was rated for 230hp. In 1978, once it was loaded for emissions, this rating dropped to 150hp. With minor modifications, the 318 will pump out 400hp at the crank.
The 318 is known for being bulletproof, not a powerhouse. That should give you a rough idea of how much head room you can find in these old blocks.
Probably in cahoots with oil companies, they make less fuel efficient engines so the oil companies sell more, and they probably help them lobby for stuff in exchange
Nobody really cared about fuel efficiency back then. So the car manufacturers were just lazy, no need to improve the engine to sell the car. When a conspiracy can also be explained by laziness, assume laziness.
I don't know bro but the c6 vette was making over 500hp back in 2006 with an NA 427. Modern tuning on them easily make over 6 to 750 NA. Turboing them gets even more power. C8 Z06 making 670 NA on a 5.5L is pretty impressive imo.
Any junkyard LS can make 1000hp with a couple of cheap eBay turbos. There are at least 1000000 videos on YouTube if people doing this all the time.
Iron block LS engines are great for tons of boost. Hot Rod magazine did an experiment on a junkyard 4.8 (I think....might have been a 5.3) and just kept adding boost until it broke. They made like 1200hp with a bone stock engine.
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/hrdp-1109-stock-gm-ls-engine-big-bang-theory/
Also, everyone should subscribe to Richard's YouTube channel. He has so much info on there.
So Chevy got 500hp out of 7 liters while ferrari got 510hp out of 4.3 liters in the same year (f430 scuderia)
How exactly is Chevies engineering great?
One is mass produced with common techniques and materials, designed to be easy to service and run for long cycles between service.
The other is a niche product that requires the owner to service it often.
Let's talk when you've owned either of those 2 cars/engines.
The Chevy motor is also half the size and significantly lighter than the Ferrari one, but let's ignore that.
Specific output (HP per liter) is NOT a good measure to compare two engine by unless they are similar in design.
I'd like to see a ferrari that you can fix at your local mom and pops shop. Chevy built an engine that can last 200,000 miles without breaking the bank in maintenance. Plus, if we look at lap times, the Z07s were a huge performance bargain for the price, especially considering how light and tuneable their 427 LS7 was.
Other than being a fraction of the price as already stated, what RPM does that horsepower peak?
Let's not even get into torque numbers. Ferrari doesn't want to talk about that.
Literally doesn't matter. This is a sportscar and not a tractor.
Power determines acceleration and gearing exists to get from high engine rpm to whatever wheel rom you want.
I can't decide if this meme is just ignorant, outdated, or both.
Just imagine doing this same meme for farm tractors:
"Check it out! They made a 13.6L engine that only puts out 429HP. Idiots!"
Or heavy trucks:
"480HP from 12.4L?! How stupid are they? My BMW makes 453HP from only 3L!"
If you completely max a motor out and ask everything out of the 2.0L turbo, it won't last nearly as long as the 7.4L that is barely doing anything. But yah less than 300hp from 7.4L is kinda pathetic
I mean, there is, for most people. The 1.8L to 2.8L range for most I4 engines making around 115-190HP or so is perfect for a ton of cars, SUVs, or even light trucks and usually don't stress the engine a ton. This is true for most vehicles sold in the last 30 years or so.
European milage vs US milage are not the same, European cars experience more maneuvers and operations per mile due to the different nature and size of the road networks.
I remember being in NYC maybe 15 years ago, slowly going down 3rd in a GIANT taxi that sounded like a small truck and struggled to hit the speed limit in between sets of lights. The thing was the size of a boat, roomy as hell inside but the least practical vehicle possible for a city that dense.
My favourite example is The Grand Tour, in the South America episode. Hammond in his great big pick up v may in his fiat panda racing. I think the fiat panda won.
For a few years American car companies had difficulty trying to make large V8s that passed new emissions controls and didn't get 8mpg.
That was decades ago, though.
Any old sap can make a bridge, only an engineer can make a bridge that barely stands -Mr. Stuff
A regular person, when making/building something, tends to overbuild it, due to lack of engineering knowledge. My house was built in 1974 by three Albanians who between them overdid the damned thing so much you need artillery to get through the walls. Of course, they used excessive amounts of rebar and concrete for it - my grandfather (one of the Albanians involved) said that the amount of steel they used would probably be enough to make a house three times the size. Engineering is the art of using just enough materials so it does not fall over immediately.
90% of my civil engineering classes focus on calculating the absolute bare minimum requirements. We will calculate you the _exact_ amount of rebar you will need to withstand the expected forces, and no more. Not because that's better. It's not. I could construct you a bridge that doesn't fail. It will stand for millenia. I could build you a house that has such good isolation, you could bathe the house in liquid nitrogen and not need a blanket inside But I'm not paying for any of it, that's the client's job.
That's why safety factor is baked into the code. Bare minimum not so bare at the end of the day.
Never said it was unsafe
I didn't either. I am just saying the Fs is baked into the ACI or AISC code, so the minimum isnt the true minimum. Wasn't arguing with you, just adding on, perhaps needlessly.
My first reaction was "what about safety factor" as well, so fair to bring up imo.
In class we calculated an iron railing for a stair or balcony to breaking - safety factor became massive after upsizing so people felt safe /s
Yea, but you engineers have no imagination. In 1940s, “How could there ever be more than 1-2 300 lbs people?” 80 years later and there’s literally tons of them. What about the safety factor once we’ve gone full WALL-E?
lol, literally TONS
Well... It's the bare minimum AND safety factors both for material and loads. Basically the worst batch of material coincides with a 50y maximum snow fall combined with 50y maximum storm which also is magnified 50%.
Albania's are well known for making bunkers. They just wanted to be safe.
Don't they have like one bunker for every 50 people or something ridiculous like that?
At one point, Albania had 700,000+ bunkers. Some were just big enough to house a single person and supplies for 1-2 days. Some estimates say 700,000 and others say 800,000 from the ones I've seen. Either way, it's definitely a lot.
Comes in handy though. We didn't even realize our 1950s house was concrete block. Plaster walls, storm windows. Stucco, outside. I'll take over enigeered. Even if we had tornadoes wouldn't worry much.
I think a good summary of an engineers job is to find that “minimum” point and add a safety factor if required. Anything above that just costs the client more money. For example, when sizing beams you might have a couple that will do the trick, however one is 24 lbs per foot, and the other is 20 lbs per foot. They are both sufficient however the beam that is 20 lbs per foot will cost less because it is lighter (less steel).
Engineers build based on the budget they are given. They always want more development time and money for materials and processes but the bean counters make the final decisions. This result is products that fail too soon and structures that are not as safe as they could be. Please place the blame where it belongs. Maximizing profits and/or minimizing expenditures is why we can't have nice things.
"Me do with few rock what you do with many" - Bunga the Builder, inventor of the bridge.
Excellent, good job .
Poly Bridge mfs
As a computer scientist, I can say that I don't like femboys, I am a femboy.
The 70s for V8s was a goofy ass time
Ford is making a 7.3l v8 today that only produces 430hp and 450 ft lbs of torque. It gets 15mpg average and single digits towing, as it's put in pickups. First year of production was 2020. They just did this yesterday, in automotive design timelines.
Ford also makes millions of trucks with high output twin turbo six cylinders. The Godzilla engine was a result of demands from fleet customers who don't care about horsepower per liter. They just want something that tows and doesn't need tons of maintaince. Large displacement low revving engines are perfect for that.
Get out of here with your facts and logic
Listen to [BUTTFUCK\_YOUR\_PUSSY](https://www.reddit.com/user/BUTTFUCK_YOUR_PUSSY/)!
r/rimjobsteve
Also that godzilla can take a fuckton of boost with basically stock internals and a tune. I think Cleetus got his up to 1300HP/1000ft-lbs or so in McFlurry, looks like they are running a Coyote now so I'm not sure if the Godzilla blew up or what but that thing was a monster and with a more conservative tune it'd probably be fine for at least a few years. My 3.8 Lambda II is in a few heavier cars and they detune them quite a bit for increased reliability... Mine is ~350HP and in all their other cars/SUVs that use the same exact engine they make 50+HP less.
>Also that godzilla can take a fuckton of boost with basically stock internals and a tune. I think Cleetus got his up to 1300HP/1000ft-lbs or so in McFlurry, looks like they are running a Coyote now so I'm not sure if the Godzilla blew up or what but that thing was a monster and with a more conservative tune it'd probably be fine for at least a few years With only a tangential understanding of auto-mechanic work. I can say with 100% certainty that those are some of the words of all time.
That doesn't sound right but I don't know enough about Coyotes to dispute it.
He's basically saying that 7 liter Godzilla motor can take "boost" or forced air induction (forcibly shoving air into the intake instead of letting the motor just breathe it in on its own) and a tuned fuel map (probably way more fuel to match the extra air) without any other modifications and output triple the power.
Yeah when you aren't pushing all that much from it/straining the internals with maximum power, you can drive the shit out of it constantly and not really hurt reliability
Yeah trucks and commercial vehicles are a different set of requirements. But an 8 liter engine in a muscle car making like 200hp is just bizarre even 40 years ago
And it replaced a 6.8L V10 that only made 305hp and 420ft/lbs of torque. The V10 got single digit mpg before you put a trailer on the back. Last year of production was 2019.
Is it extra heavy and also extra safe or something?
It tows really well and is super low maintenance. So it's exactly what basically everybody who has to deal with fleet maintenance for vehicles has been asking for for years.
and it'll do that forever on 87 octane
Forever being about 200k miles average, same as any other mildly tuned big block gas burner.
Trucks are the most reliable vehicles made in the US. 300,000 miles easily. I've seen fleet trucks hitting 200k after one-two years of use.
'only' 430/450 hahahahaha the whole point of the 7.3 was that it would be understressed and last forever.
They've tried that several times over the decades, it doesn't really work. They're relatively low maintenance, but their lifespan is pretty average and when they shit the bed you're better off buying a full replacement than rebuilding.
Meanwhile 2.5L volvo inline 5 making 1000hp
Yeah but to get that power out of that block you have to cut and shim around the cylinders to convert it to a closed deck, not to mention the bigger turbo, intercooler and injectors. And putting that kind of power through the trans and diffs on those cars is not a great time either. About 4-600 ponies is fine for those cars.
I know but at least they'll get a million km if you leave em stock
Only produces 430 horsepower? That's pitiful. It's only 300 more horsepower than my truck while getting the same fuel economy
The oil crisis hinder OEM manufacturers however the aftermarket thrived. You could easily turn those detuned motors into powerhouses with little work
As I understand it, basically the entire automotive industry was convinced they had enough lobbying power to keep the emissions laws from ever coming into effect. They were wrong. And as a result, they had to scramble to meet them at basically the last minute, and instead of having smaller, more efficient engines ready to go, they had to nerf the fuck out of the ones they already had.
fords 5.0 liter V8s in the mustang pull 486 hp and 416 ft pounds of torque. Larger engines are de tuned to meet emissions requirements, usually. Across the pond, the Koenigsegg agera One:1 pulls 1,341 from the same displacement. The jesko gets 1600 from 5.1 liters. It’s still a goofy time for V8s.
Just like the gentlemen’s agreement in the JDM field. Producers must limit their power, but the consumer can do whatever they want after. 1350 mustang 5.0L V8 coming right up, from the shop down the street.
Converting gasoline to noise with as little horsepower as possible.
Harley has entered the chat
I think Harley went alternative energy and decided grenades were a good fuel source.
The main output is noise and air pollution. Going forward is the side effect
They detuned them to comply with emission laws back then. Take whatever numbers they give and at least double it.
The numbers were real. It was a combo of 1. Having to switch to NET numbers instead of make believe fairy dust numbers. 2. Being absolutely not prepared for the emissions laws and 3. The switch to unleaded fuel.
Gross horsepower numbers were sometimes understated: https://www.motortrend.com/features/horsepower-hijinks-story-behind-factory-underrating-muscle-car-power-1960s-1970s/ But in general the numbers were inflated from what you would get from a standard production vehicle. The switch from gross to net horsepower happened in 1972: https://www.carscoops.com/2022/01/50-year-ago-americas-engines-lost-up-to-130-hp-overnight-heres-how-it-happened/ Emission requirements and unleaded gasoline came around in the mid 70s: https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/timeline-major-accomplishments-transportation-air This led to what is commonly called the malaise era of US automobile industry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaise_era Horsepower number for US vehicles has increased from the malaise era though: https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-horsepower-of-new-vehicles-in-the-us/ https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/trends2020-highlight4.png
Nah 70's and 80's v8's are legit slow. They didn't make power until they had better heads, intakes, and carbs. Even then it was the pinnacle of hot rod shop engineering to the get the same power out of the same amount of cubes as a mid tier modern stock engine.
Modern 4 cylinders blow 70s, 80s, 90s engines completely out of the water for power and efficiency. But the V8s they make today aren’t much different than what they were making then. They just have all the fancy stuff like you said: DOHC, bigger intakes, computers, etc.
The Civic SI I had in '14 made more power than a 90s Mustang GT
80s-90s Mustangs were the poster-children for underpowered cars from Detroit.
"it's got a 302 in it!" "And that 302 makes 180hp." Could be worse, you could have had a Fairmont on the same platform with the 1960s era 200 I6 that made a whopping 90hp.
I think my late 80s mustang had a smog pump that was belt drivin. Parasitic loss minimal but still another pully to drive. That and only 2 valves per cylinder vs 4. Also single cam push rods vs dual overhead cam. I never looked up the actual specs but do they use cfm to measure air intake/exhaust per cylinder it would be cool to see. Also the curb weight of my vanilla ice convertible was ridiculous. 3400lb? Something like that. I have seen some clean fox body swaps with modern mustang engines but that's a ton of work but definitely helps HP/weight ratio.
I have a 78 Ford with a 5.7L, I’ve removed some emissions stuff, deleted ac, upgraded hei distributor with tuning advanced quite a bit from stock, bigger carb, mild cam upgrade. It’s noticeably faster than when I got it stock. I also own a bone stock Toyota 86 with a 200 HP 2.0l that would still blow its doors off, do it all day long, getting three times the gas mileage. Old school American v8s are fun and sound cool, but unless you do a lot of work they’re slow as hell. No replacement for displacement, except 40 years of technology.
> I have a 78 Ford with a 5.7L I thought Ford reffered to the 351 as a 5.8L?
Yep, along with the cam and compression too. My 73 that's mildly modified likely only has 275ish BHP.
They also weren't very good at actually benchmarking their engines, dynos today are much better and we literally measure horsepower numbers differently. 1972ish it changed from gross to net. Also rear wheel horsepower was like 30% lower than than the net figure anyways
wouldnt making extremely efficient small engines like s2000's cut way more emissions?
[удалено]
Not the same engine (very similar) but I drove a friend's RSX (type S?) for a few days and it was absolutely horrible to drive. My car at the time was a Saab with the 2.3T and at highway speeds you basically never had to shift and in theirs I had to drop two gears in the RSX to make it do anything. A lot of people forget that peak power numbers aren't the end all be all and that torque/power curves really do matter.
Not to mention the fact that horsepower is literally a function of torque x RPM… the small high revving engines might have a higher peak output but that doesn’t tell the story of making pipsqueak torque at low RPM. Now, I will say, I drove one of those twin turbo BMWs and wow, maybe there truly is a replacement for displacement…
It’s called boooooost
Yeah I think having the second turbo is the trick… I’ve been in plenty of single turbo cars that had that notorious turbo lag. The Bimmer felt wayyyy torquey at any RPM comparatively, much smoother power output. That’s what V8s tend to offer - a very linear power curve with no real jumpiness throughout the pedal travel. The old JDM turbo thing was more like waiting for the power to kick in, the aggressively tuned cars felt like an afterburner kicked in around 3-4k.
The US restrictions on lightweight cars make it almost impossible to manufacture *and* sell a small sports car. In order to sell, it needs to perform well and cost a reasonable amount. In order to get made at all, it has hit emissions standards and crash safety standards. You can cut performance or weight to hit the emissions standard, but then it won't sell because it's either too slow or too deadly. You can make it lightweight and fast, but it won't sell because it'll cost more than a Camarro. All that considered, it's cheaper for most manufacturers to abandon the concept entirely and focus on SUVs and EVs unless they already have a developed engine and chassis that meets the above criteria.
That’s not the American way
Skirt emissions laws, and only sell trucks now! Done.
You joke but that's actually why cars and trucks are getting huge. The emissions requirements scale by vehicle weight so they are all just building them bigger and more expensive instead of making them more efficient. At least in the US
Yup, that's the basis for my joke. I'm clinging desperately to my 20+ year old ten-owner F150 and fleet sedan. Fuck the unaffordable behemoths on the road now with their terrible visibility and awful mileage.
Yes, which is why performance engines moved in that direction until turbocharging became de rigeur. HP/L skyrocketed in the early 2000s, mainly due to the proliferation of variable valve timing. That said, the whole LS series shits all over OP's meme (which is the first 7L V8 most people think of)- everyone else was making smaller turbo/higher revving NA engine in order to meet MPG and emissions standards while [Chevy decided to they were just going to make bigger and bigger engines that somehow *still* hit 30 MPG on the highway.](https://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/ls7/)
The solution Chevy had was that the engines just... Pull. They're geared very tall and they lug around without any effort. My '18 Camaro SS can make 30mpg going 90mph and just... Relaxing at around 1900rpm. They really don't put any effort in
You're right and wrong- since the C5, they've have that stupid long overdrive 6th for exactly the kind of cruising you're talking about, but they've also incrementally improved the LS an absolutely insane amount in order to make it at as efficient as it is. There's a reason no one else has an engine that compares all around (power, weight, size, efficiency, free revving AND torquey at low rpm) without doubling your budget.
>but they've also incrementally improved the LS an absolutely insane amount in order to make it at as efficient as it is. Can attest. Technically my Camaro has an LT1, but it's the successor of the LS3 and an improvement every way. >There's a reason no one else has an engine that compares all around (power, weight, size, efficiency, free revving AND torquey at low rpm) without doubling your budget. It really does have it all. I don't have a single criticism about the drivetrain. Throw it in the alpha chassis and you have a beautiful machine.
Yes, and they produced a lot more power per lb. That's why small euro and Japanese cars became popular in the US.
Back... When? ETA: Down voted for asking a question. Typical Reddit.
The 70’s
73/74 is when the detuning took effect.
It can barely pull its own weight.
Then get out of the car, fat ass.
I can accelerate faster on foot than a mustang II (I’m not a good runner)
Hey, mine dyno'd at 59.97 hp. That's at least... no yeah you're probably right.
The mustang 2 was a v6
or a 4, or an 8 (but not for 74)
I absolutely hate this kind of thing. I have a 7.5L v8 from 76 on my dent side. And it creates like 200 horsepower how it sits. And it only gets like 5 mpg around town. All that gas and no power
Well duh it’s from 76 lmao. That’s older than all 4 of my parents and they don’t have good milage these days either
Wow, my mom and dad get into fights, I can't imagine having 4 parents.
Twice the holiday parties!
yeah but 460s get 5mpg whether they're driving around town or towing a 30 car train
Back in the 80's, I got really good at getting 350 hp out of V8's that barely exceeded 300 ci. I could do it for less than $1,000.
I'm proud of you - your dad
you are telling me that your car needs fucking 76l/100km? that is insane. ours needs 6l/100km.
I used to have the same engine/truck. Yep. They were absolutely atrocious on fuel. The smog systems of that era were pre-catalytic convertors so they just re-injected exhaust into the cylinders to keep the temperatures below where NOx would form. It was terrible for pretty much everything engine-wise
It's really is insane. I've heard people who had the same engine and when they floor it, they said that you could watch the fuel gauge start moving.
Back in the early 2000's I had a 1990 something Dodge Power Ram with a 308. I remember doing a standing burnout and watching the fuel gauge drop. Wild times.
Take all the emissions equipment off of it, replace the emission intake, and retune the carb. You'll be up around 250 horsepower. But that's not what the 460 is for. That engine makes around 400ft/lbs of torque way waaay down in the RPM curve at 2300rpm. It's not a race engine, it's a stump puller. Remember, horsepower is just a measurement of torque over time.
American cars ( esp those around the 70s ) were detuned to comply with the emission laws passed during the 1973 oil crisis, which is why u see these beefy cars that can barely make 200 HP. Just 10 years ago, the 60s or even the early 70s models had no problem making engines that could easily reach even 400 HP, so it clearly wasn't an engineering issue
It's actually pretty crazy. My dad drag races and he'll take an old 318 and easily triple the original horsepower output without breaking the bank.
> My dad drag races and he'll take an old 318 and easily triple the original horsepower output without breaking the bank. I believe it was Hot Rod magazine that did a project on an old 318 they pulled out of the junk yard. They ported the heads, changed the intake, decked the block and heads to bump the compression, and changed to the hei style distributor. Pulled just over 400hp while still on a street safe tune and pump gas.
People in the comments don’t understand the meme. It’s referring to the V8’s in the 80’s being trash due to sudden and strict emissions regulations. A Cadillac coupe Deville had a 488ci V8 making no more than 180hp. Modern American V8’s are absolutely incredible, being reliable while producing insane horsepower and still passing emissions. Edit: the sudden switch to unleaded gasoline also attributed to the power loss Edit: the Cadillac had a 8.4 L V8.
people seem to get amnesia too… before the 2010s 400 horsepower was on the high end of power numbers. not to mention tire technology not catching up to reliably and cheaply handle that sort of power either. - 1986 [Aston Martin Vantage](https://cdn.dealeraccelerate.com/autosport/1/2023/24312/790x1024/1986-aston-martin-v8-vantage-coupe) 380 hp out a 5.3L V8 at 100k in today’s money - 35k in today’s money got you a Z/28 putting 215hp out a 4.9L V8 adjusting for prices and time things look a lot more normal than just throwing shit around… but memes don’t have room for nuance
The mid 2000's Mustang GT500 was 500 hp. That was absolutely mind blowing at the time. Now they are pushing 800hp
800hp ... kinda reminded me of this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lWSYxPJYLo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lWSYxPJYLo) Hellcat vs M5.
1985 Lancia Delta S4. 480bhp from 1.8L
For how long?
Just long enough to measure it. That was the Lancia way!
Plus, cylinder displacement is kind of a silly metric. Something like a modern LT engine might be lighter and externally smaller than a ~5L DOHC engine making similar power with similar efficiency.
[удалено]
Fell out of a time machine from 1974
lol I remember my old ‘76 Chevy Scottsdale had a big V8 that was listed as having 190HP. It went for over 300,000 miles though
Ok but if I got my hands on one of those, can they be tuned to something useable or are they maxed out at 180 hp by design?
If you look up old engines from the 60s and 70s (like the 427) you'll see the power numbers vary wildly depending on efficiency requirements, carbs used, etc. There were engines in that era perfectly capable of 500HP+. So yes, if you could track down the engine, the performance parts necessary, and tuned it to piss gas out the tailpipe, it'd be pretty fast. It wouldn't compare to a modern engine design made with modern alloys, though. So basically what I'm saying is, you should go buy an LT6. Be the neighbor you never want to have.
Unlike modern motors, they have a shitton of headroom. An old 7.0 can easily make huge numbers, but a lot of modern small motors making mid numbers would grenade because they're designed exactly for what theyre making
In 1971, the Chrysler 318 was rated for 230hp. In 1978, once it was loaded for emissions, this rating dropped to 150hp. With minor modifications, the 318 will pump out 400hp at the crank. The 318 is known for being bulletproof, not a powerhouse. That should give you a rough idea of how much head room you can find in these old blocks.
Swap the intake & cylinder heads for better flowing parts, add a spicy can, and some headers, and you'll double/triple the power.
you can get some gains by converting to efi and increasing timing, but you're still limited by poorly flowing heads and low compression
Also US carmakers: "Let's make 450 horsepower from a a 3.5 -liter V6."
Probably in cahoots with oil companies, they make less fuel efficient engines so the oil companies sell more, and they probably help them lobby for stuff in exchange
Nobody really cared about fuel efficiency back then. So the car manufacturers were just lazy, no need to improve the engine to sell the car. When a conspiracy can also be explained by laziness, assume laziness.
Ahh yes, [Hanlon's Razor.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor)
Why improve efficiency when you can just add more fuel tanks! '70s truck logic
Flare checks out
I don't know bro but the c6 vette was making over 500hp back in 2006 with an NA 427. Modern tuning on them easily make over 6 to 750 NA. Turboing them gets even more power. C8 Z06 making 670 NA on a 5.5L is pretty impressive imo.
Pretty sure they're talking about the 70's when they had a 7.5L V8 making about 200HP.
Any junkyard LS can make 1000hp with a couple of cheap eBay turbos. There are at least 1000000 videos on YouTube if people doing this all the time. Iron block LS engines are great for tons of boost. Hot Rod magazine did an experiment on a junkyard 4.8 (I think....might have been a 5.3) and just kept adding boost until it broke. They made like 1200hp with a bone stock engine. https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/hrdp-1109-stock-gm-ls-engine-big-bang-theory/ Also, everyone should subscribe to Richard's YouTube channel. He has so much info on there.
So Chevy got 500hp out of 7 liters while ferrari got 510hp out of 4.3 liters in the same year (f430 scuderia) How exactly is Chevies engineering great?
The vette cost literally 19% the price?
And the current Z06 makes more hp per liter than the scuderia. So?
One is mass produced with common techniques and materials, designed to be easy to service and run for long cycles between service. The other is a niche product that requires the owner to service it often. Let's talk when you've owned either of those 2 cars/engines.
The Chevy motor is also half the size and significantly lighter than the Ferrari one, but let's ignore that. Specific output (HP per liter) is NOT a good measure to compare two engine by unless they are similar in design.
I'd like to see a ferrari that you can fix at your local mom and pops shop. Chevy built an engine that can last 200,000 miles without breaking the bank in maintenance. Plus, if we look at lap times, the Z07s were a huge performance bargain for the price, especially considering how light and tuneable their 427 LS7 was.
Other than being a fraction of the price as already stated, what RPM does that horsepower peak? Let's not even get into torque numbers. Ferrari doesn't want to talk about that.
Literally doesn't matter. This is a sportscar and not a tractor. Power determines acceleration and gearing exists to get from high engine rpm to whatever wheel rom you want.
Well, at least you could buy a Ferrari for 300k that was faster than a tractor. Oh wait.....
I can't decide if this meme is just ignorant, outdated, or both. Just imagine doing this same meme for farm tractors: "Check it out! They made a 13.6L engine that only puts out 429HP. Idiots!" Or heavy trucks: "480HP from 12.4L?! How stupid are they? My BMW makes 453HP from only 3L!"
If you completely max a motor out and ask everything out of the 2.0L turbo, it won't last nearly as long as the 7.4L that is barely doing anything. But yah less than 300hp from 7.4L is kinda pathetic
I feel like there might be a happy medium somewhere in there.
I have seen a lot of ~2 liter turbos that are a lot of fun, consume about 6 liters per 100 km (real world driving) and last > 300.000 km.
I mean, there is, for most people. The 1.8L to 2.8L range for most I4 engines making around 115-190HP or so is perfect for a ton of cars, SUVs, or even light trucks and usually don't stress the engine a ton. This is true for most vehicles sold in the last 30 years or so.
There is. A 6.2L LS V8. The most popular crate engine. You can put it anywhere it will fit. And it will make a shit tonne of power.
European milage vs US milage are not the same, European cars experience more maneuvers and operations per mile due to the different nature and size of the road networks.
This isn't remotely true. The American truck V8s are insanely powerful engines that break 5-600 HP and lb-ft of torque.
They are now, but they weren’t.
The power of a shopping cart is pretty vague, I know they had one engine that was 7 or so litres that made less then 150hp though
Is this meme from 1980?
Yep
What
Americans when their 9.0L V8 makes 3 more horsepower than European 4 cylinder
Shopping carts are overpowered
The Testarossa 12 cylinder made the same hp as my 2015 5.0 v8 F150 does 🤷🏻♂️
Laughs in Dodge Viper
In the 80s, yes. Now, we have 3 cylinders making 300hp.
Nice meme from 1970
I remember being in NYC maybe 15 years ago, slowly going down 3rd in a GIANT taxi that sounded like a small truck and struggled to hit the speed limit in between sets of lights. The thing was the size of a boat, roomy as hell inside but the least practical vehicle possible for a city that dense.
Was it one of those iconic yellow taxis ?
Yeah that’s the one, could see it coming a mile away
This meme has to be from 1986 because it doesn’t reflect modern reality in the slightest
“Pollution and inefficiency is my passion”
"7 lider V8 modor!"
i believe the corvette's LS7 was pushing into 500hp
505bhp, but they're referencing the large V8s of the mid-70s
*”og Lancruiser trembling quietly in the corner”*
Emissions, remove them, add boost, the boat pulls like a freight train
2 barrel carbs on anything bigger then a soda bottle be like.
And still only get like 2mpg
I mean. to be fair they were usually pretty indestructible. could run on wrenches and piss in the tank.
Higher cc mean sell mo gas
I bought a 1981(?) Ford Mustang GT. Thing had a 5.0L V8... and about 150 HP. Go figure
Well yeah, 1981 was like the absolute bottom
But how?
Well you see Timmy, the same engine in an EU vehicle that makes 900hp costs $63k to have rebuilt when our cars cost $60k for a whole ass other car.
And I have a V6 today that makes 200+ more HP than my 2001 V8 Corvette did.
Meanwhile german inline 6 engines making 685 HP (looking at you, BMW M5CS)
u/pixel-counter-bot
You have to pay to unlock the engine power.
Yeah, science!
Bro forgot reduction gear exist
Emissions. Thats literally it.
Mfw V8 from the 1940s
On the contrary: "Yeah, folks are safe at 155 mph."
My favourite example is The Grand Tour, in the South America episode. Hammond in his great big pick up v may in his fiat panda racing. I think the fiat panda won.
Meanwhile I'm dying waiting around for more info on the 3 cylinder S-FR
For a few years American car companies had difficulty trying to make large V8s that passed new emissions controls and didn't get 8mpg. That was decades ago, though.
This was due to the oil crisis at the time
Need to go back to the good ol 6 litres , there’s a reason why the trans am was top of the line
Google CAFE standards.
But then ford goes and makes a mustang mach-E with 1500 horsepower for literally no reason cuz the commercial model only has about 500 HP
I just called those american cars in the 60s and 70s boats soft and wobbly, very slow, and 6 meters long despite only having 2 doors