"Money Hustard" (moneyhustard)
06/17/2014 at 23:55 • Filed to: None
1
6|
"Money Hustard" (moneyhustard)
06/17/2014 at 23:55 • Filed to: None | 1
| 6 |
I'm gobsmacked after fully taking this old Trans Am ad in. How had GM never even tested a car with a lower drag coefficient than .299 by 1984? The '69 Dodge Charger Daytona had a .28, and that was a production car. GM hadn't even tested a slicker body style in the intervening 15 years?
Apart from that, why are those gold wheels so un-aerodynamic, and how was anyone everyone OK getting to 60 in 7.2 seconds with a "high-output" 5.0 V8? The '70 Chevelle LS6 did it in 5 seconds flat, and 14 years later, one of GM's top performance vehicles was a few seconds slower to 60. That must of felt like such a regression for the gearheads of that day!
JasonStern911
> Money Hustard
06/18/2014 at 00:12 |
|
I wouldn't read into the drag coefficient too much...
http://chrisoncars.com/2010/09/drag-c…
And the lack of performance of a car running on emission-friendly unleaded gas with primitive emission control devices when compared to the golden age of muscle cars when cities would never fill up with smog and America will never run out of oil should be expected.
lone_liberal
> Money Hustard
06/18/2014 at 00:17 |
|
Comparing a high compression 454 with no emission controls whatsoever to a 305 emasculated by crude emission controls and CAFE requirements isn't exactly comparing apples to apples. It's just a reminder to be very thankful for computer controlled fuel injection and other advances in engine design.
Birddog
> Money Hustard
06/18/2014 at 00:25 |
|
It's hard to describe the Malaise era to someone that wasn't there.
The best I could say is that we all rejoiced when the 82 Mustang GT made it's debut with a whopping 157hp from the H.O. 5.0.
We took our victories where we could.
HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles
> Money Hustard
06/18/2014 at 00:43 |
|
Emissions ruined performance for decade or so. It took companies a long time to figure out how to squeeze power out of an engine, and at the same time get good emissions ratings, and decent MGPs.
BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
> Money Hustard
06/18/2014 at 01:57 |
|
A: this is marketing material. I doubt GM is going to give any press whatsoever to any other brand, unless it can demonstrate a distinct advantage to itself over it's competition, then-present, or past.
B: most aerodynamic isn't just coefficient of drag. You have to multiply a coefficient into another factor, in this case, frontal area. The coefficient is the adjustment to account for how blunt that frontal area is or is not. It also doesn't account for trailing drag, under-body turbulence, or a myriad of other factors. It may have a higher Cd, but an F-body trans am has much less frontal area, and probably better trailing drag, and underbody air management than just putting a spear-nose and a wing above the trunk lid on a B-C body full-size Mopar, which is a BIG car with a relatively upright windscreen, and less of a fastback profile, and that spear point nascar nose is nicely tapered, but also seems to push a lot of frontal airmass under the body, not just over the top. There may be rear downforce, but I wonder how much aerodynamic lift it is having to counteract.
C: as others have pointed out... government regulations on emissions and fuel economy changed a LOT in those 15 or so years.... cut that in half... 7 years before this, cars in 1977 sucked significantly worse than this. It was a sharp fall through the 1970s due to the gas crisis, and significant economic recession during the Carter years.
D: leaded gas vs. unleaded. SAE Net horsepower vs. gross horsepower measurements, overdrive gearing and lower final drive ratios, wider acceptance of computerized fuel injection, electronic ignition, and increasing reliability with less maintenance, faster steering ratios, and stable, grippy, taut suspension tuning all made seemingly little peak horsepower do more on the road, more easily and comfortably.
E: Peak horsepower doesn't tell the whole story. It was also much easier for cars to maintain their state of tune, where older cars would lose power with dirty points, dirty plugs, fiddly carburetor adjustments and maintenance, looser tolerances, less advanced metallurgy and lubrication lead to leaking valve seals and piston rings, and less reliable ignition and cooling systems.... any of which could lead to power loss in old cars. 80's and 90's cars are much more consistent, and maintain their integrity if kept in good repair.
F: this is marketing material. by it's very definition, it is hyperbolic. however, 1980s cars have significant weight, build quality, handling and ride quality advances that overcame the abysmal hole that was the 1970s, and began to surpass the height of the american car industry in the 1960s and early 70s, and actually started to approach the build quality and efficiency of the japanese imports by the end of the 198os. Times when an econo-box had well under 100hp, and high performance was anything over 200hp, and on the high side of 150 was doing fairly well, especially with a carburetor, when most cars in F-body and Fox-body Mustangs were going fuel injected on their mainstream V8 engines around 1986.
briannutter1
> Money Hustard
06/18/2014 at 10:18 |
|
http://www.motorsport.com/general/news/l…
