I don't know. I'd much rather drive one of those old boats with a 455 or caddy 500 than about 80% of what's on the road today. All these little 4 poppers these days don't impress me at all.
Automotive swill from the '70s and '80s
- Thread starter slo town
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: SLO_Town
WTH, the "wire wheels" were really just hubcaps!!??? My Gawd, who would have thunk it!
I bet those are Vogue brand tires too. The ones with the textured surface.
Scott
Hahaha! Yeah, you didn't know that? Pretty funny huh? Ive put tires on a few of those old caddys. Anymore if you find one that still has a few left, they are all dented and beat up.
WTH, the "wire wheels" were really just hubcaps!!??? My Gawd, who would have thunk it!
I bet those are Vogue brand tires too. The ones with the textured surface.
Scott
Hahaha! Yeah, you didn't know that? Pretty funny huh? Ive put tires on a few of those old caddys. Anymore if you find one that still has a few left, they are all dented and beat up.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I don't know. I'd much rather drive one of those old boats with a 455 or caddy 500 than about 80% of what's on the road today. All these little 4 poppers these days don't impress me at all.
I'm sure the Honda Civic crowd is really sorry to not have your approval. I'm happy the technology has improved as breathing is really important to me.
I don't know. I'd much rather drive one of those old boats with a 455 or caddy 500 than about 80% of what's on the road today. All these little 4 poppers these days don't impress me at all.
I'm sure the Honda Civic crowd is really sorry to not have your approval. I'm happy the technology has improved as breathing is really important to me.
Originally Posted By: Joshua_Skinner
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I don't know. I'd much rather drive one of those old boats with a 455 or caddy 500 than about 80% of what's on the road today. All these little 4 poppers these days don't impress me at all.
I'm sure the Honda Civic crowd is really sorry to not have your approval. I'm happy the technology has improved as breathing is really important to me.
Pollution has nothing to do with it. You can put cats on big engines and they're just as clean as a honda sewing machine. My 70s corvette is cleaner than your brand new Nissan on e85. Think outside the box sometime.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I don't know. I'd much rather drive one of those old boats with a 455 or caddy 500 than about 80% of what's on the road today. All these little 4 poppers these days don't impress me at all.
I'm sure the Honda Civic crowd is really sorry to not have your approval. I'm happy the technology has improved as breathing is really important to me.
Pollution has nothing to do with it. You can put cats on big engines and they're just as clean as a honda sewing machine. My 70s corvette is cleaner than your brand new Nissan on e85. Think outside the box sometime.
If you start with a modern V8, sure. GM made an 8.1L for a while, and still makes 6L (6.2? I don't keep up). Those have to meet modern emission specs.
Seems like little market for a low rev'ing big engine in a big boat though--I mean, if there was a market, wouldn't someone be exploiting it?
Seems like little market for a low rev'ing big engine in a big boat though--I mean, if there was a market, wouldn't someone be exploiting it?
Originally Posted By: supton
If you start with a modern V8, sure. GM made an 8.1L for a while, and still makes 6L (6.2? I don't keep up). Those have to meet modern emission specs.
Seems like little market for a low rev'ing big engine in a big boat though--I mean, if there was a market, wouldn't someone be exploiting it?
They're not low reving. Its all in the tuning. I could take a 60s or 70s car, use a wideband tuner to dial the carb in and get the emissions way down. Run alcohol and they instantly become a clean vehicle.
Look at how clean and efficient the big 6.2 engines in the camaro and corvette are.
Anyway I was initially just expressing a personal opinion. I'd rather drive one of these old boats than a Camry or some little buzz bomb.
If you are happy with your four cylinder,great.
Somebody has to drive boring stuff.
If you start with a modern V8, sure. GM made an 8.1L for a while, and still makes 6L (6.2? I don't keep up). Those have to meet modern emission specs.
Seems like little market for a low rev'ing big engine in a big boat though--I mean, if there was a market, wouldn't someone be exploiting it?
They're not low reving. Its all in the tuning. I could take a 60s or 70s car, use a wideband tuner to dial the carb in and get the emissions way down. Run alcohol and they instantly become a clean vehicle.
Look at how clean and efficient the big 6.2 engines in the camaro and corvette are.
Anyway I was initially just expressing a personal opinion. I'd rather drive one of these old boats than a Camry or some little buzz bomb.
If you are happy with your four cylinder,great.
Somebody has to drive boring stuff.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: supton
If you start with a modern V8, sure. GM made an 8.1L for a while, and still makes 6L (6.2? I don't keep up). Those have to meet modern emission specs.
Seems like little market for a low rev'ing big engine in a big boat though--I mean, if there was a market, wouldn't someone be exploiting it?
They're not low reving. Its all in the tuning. I could take a 60s or 70s car, use a wideband tuner to dial the carb in and get the emissions way down. Run alcohol and they instantly become a clean vehicle.
Look at how clean and efficient the big 6.2 engines in the camaro and corvette are.
Anyway I was initially just expressing a personal opinion. I'd rather drive one of these old boats than a Camry or some little buzz bomb.
If you are happy with your four cylinder,great.
Somebody has to drive boring stuff.
Yeah, sure 285 HP SE Camrys are REAL boring.
Originally Posted By: supton
If you start with a modern V8, sure. GM made an 8.1L for a while, and still makes 6L (6.2? I don't keep up). Those have to meet modern emission specs.
Seems like little market for a low rev'ing big engine in a big boat though--I mean, if there was a market, wouldn't someone be exploiting it?
They're not low reving. Its all in the tuning. I could take a 60s or 70s car, use a wideband tuner to dial the carb in and get the emissions way down. Run alcohol and they instantly become a clean vehicle.
Look at how clean and efficient the big 6.2 engines in the camaro and corvette are.
Anyway I was initially just expressing a personal opinion. I'd rather drive one of these old boats than a Camry or some little buzz bomb.
If you are happy with your four cylinder,great.
Somebody has to drive boring stuff.
Yeah, sure 285 HP SE Camrys are REAL boring.
What is your definition of clean? Cleaner than what it was, or as clean as today's cars?
I'd be quite impressed if you could take a 30 year old V8 design, super-tune the carb, slap on a cat and meeting today's Tier-whatever. While making 15-20mpg.
I'd be quite impressed if you could take a 30 year old V8 design, super-tune the carb, slap on a cat and meeting today's Tier-whatever. While making 15-20mpg.
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Yeah, sure 285 HP SE Camrys are REAL boring.
Its a Camry. Why is more explanation needed. There are also minivans with 300+ HP. Are they interesting and exciting?
Yeah, sure 285 HP SE Camrys are REAL boring.
Its a Camry. Why is more explanation needed. There are also minivans with 300+ HP. Are they interesting and exciting?
Originally Posted By: supton
What is your definition of clean? Cleaner than what it was, or as clean as today's cars?
I'd be quite impressed if you could take a 30 year old V8 design, super-tune the carb, slap on a cat and meeting today's Tier-whatever. While making 15-20mpg.
There's a guy on the corvette forum, a retired GM engineer that thinks so. He had his c1 corvette getting 24mpg.
What is your definition of clean? Cleaner than what it was, or as clean as today's cars?
I'd be quite impressed if you could take a 30 year old V8 design, super-tune the carb, slap on a cat and meeting today's Tier-whatever. While making 15-20mpg.
There's a guy on the corvette forum, a retired GM engineer that thinks so. He had his c1 corvette getting 24mpg.
Originally Posted By: supton
What is your definition of clean? Cleaner than what it was, or as clean as today's cars?
I'd be quite impressed if you could take a 30 year old V8 design, super-tune the carb, slap on a cat and meeting today's Tier-whatever. While making 15-20mpg.
There's nothing to it. I'd have to find the article, but one of the hot rod mags used a cat converter based on an industrial design, strategic air injection, and tuning to completely blow away California emissions testing.
This was done with a well-tuned Q-jet, and did pull over 20 on the highway, and something in the high-teens in the city. Car had an aggressive cam, long tubes, and a performance intake manifold.
The air injection system was reportedly far more advanced in execution than anything the OEMs ever cobbled together (multiple injection points strategically placed, and high-flow) and the cat of a higher quality than the OEM would ever purchase. Resistance was almost nonexistent, and had major capacity for converting gases.
The engine operated with no EGR due to camshaft profile (as with the LT4 engine that appeared in the 90s).
What is your definition of clean? Cleaner than what it was, or as clean as today's cars?
I'd be quite impressed if you could take a 30 year old V8 design, super-tune the carb, slap on a cat and meeting today's Tier-whatever. While making 15-20mpg.
There's nothing to it. I'd have to find the article, but one of the hot rod mags used a cat converter based on an industrial design, strategic air injection, and tuning to completely blow away California emissions testing.
This was done with a well-tuned Q-jet, and did pull over 20 on the highway, and something in the high-teens in the city. Car had an aggressive cam, long tubes, and a performance intake manifold.
The air injection system was reportedly far more advanced in execution than anything the OEMs ever cobbled together (multiple injection points strategically placed, and high-flow) and the cat of a higher quality than the OEM would ever purchase. Resistance was almost nonexistent, and had major capacity for converting gases.
The engine operated with no EGR due to camshaft profile (as with the LT4 engine that appeared in the 90s).
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: supton
What is your definition of clean? Cleaner than what it was, or as clean as today's cars?
I'd be quite impressed if you could take a 30 year old V8 design, super-tune the carb, slap on a cat and meeting today's Tier-whatever. While making 15-20mpg.
There's a guy on the corvette forum, a retired GM engineer that thinks so. He had his c1 corvette getting 24mpg.
mpg =/= clean emissions
Originally Posted By: supton
What is your definition of clean? Cleaner than what it was, or as clean as today's cars?
I'd be quite impressed if you could take a 30 year old V8 design, super-tune the carb, slap on a cat and meeting today's Tier-whatever. While making 15-20mpg.
There's a guy on the corvette forum, a retired GM engineer that thinks so. He had his c1 corvette getting 24mpg.
mpg =/= clean emissions
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: supton
What is your definition of clean? Cleaner than what it was, or as clean as today's cars?
I'd be quite impressed if you could take a 30 year old V8 design, super-tune the carb, slap on a cat and meeting today's Tier-whatever. While making 15-20mpg.
There's nothing to it. I'd have to find the article, but one of the hot rod mags used a cat converter based on an industrial design, strategic air injection, and tuning to completely blow away California emissions testing.
This was done with a well-tuned Q-jet, and did pull over 20 on the highway, and something in the high-teens in the city. Car had an aggressive cam, long tubes, and a performance intake manifold.
The air injection system was reportedly far more advanced in execution than anything the OEMs ever cobbled together (multiple injection points strategically placed, and high-flow) and the cat of a higher quality than the OEM would ever purchase. Resistance was almost nonexistent, and had major capacity for converting gases.
The engine operated with no EGR due to camshaft profile (as with the LT4 engine that appeared in the 90s).
Sounds like Crusher Camaro. I will have to dig that up.
But color me dubious about it meeting today's standards. I'll eat crow if I'm wrong, but I have a very tough time believing a Q-Jet, no matter what is downstream, and 60/70's vintage combustion chambers with deep ring lands on the pistons, pass today's Tier whatever gram/mile limits.
Hey, if I can be proven wrong--actually, I'd like to be proven wrong. I wouldn't mind duplicating the result, actually. I've been perfectly fine driving around "gutless" I4's but if I could hit mid 20's on something with 300+ hp I'd be fine with that.
Originally Posted By: supton
What is your definition of clean? Cleaner than what it was, or as clean as today's cars?
I'd be quite impressed if you could take a 30 year old V8 design, super-tune the carb, slap on a cat and meeting today's Tier-whatever. While making 15-20mpg.
There's nothing to it. I'd have to find the article, but one of the hot rod mags used a cat converter based on an industrial design, strategic air injection, and tuning to completely blow away California emissions testing.
This was done with a well-tuned Q-jet, and did pull over 20 on the highway, and something in the high-teens in the city. Car had an aggressive cam, long tubes, and a performance intake manifold.
The air injection system was reportedly far more advanced in execution than anything the OEMs ever cobbled together (multiple injection points strategically placed, and high-flow) and the cat of a higher quality than the OEM would ever purchase. Resistance was almost nonexistent, and had major capacity for converting gases.
The engine operated with no EGR due to camshaft profile (as with the LT4 engine that appeared in the 90s).
Sounds like Crusher Camaro. I will have to dig that up.
But color me dubious about it meeting today's standards. I'll eat crow if I'm wrong, but I have a very tough time believing a Q-Jet, no matter what is downstream, and 60/70's vintage combustion chambers with deep ring lands on the pistons, pass today's Tier whatever gram/mile limits.
Hey, if I can be proven wrong--actually, I'd like to be proven wrong. I wouldn't mind duplicating the result, actually. I've been perfectly fine driving around "gutless" I4's but if I could hit mid 20's on something with 300+ hp I'd be fine with that.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Comically, my '87 GT passed (barely) the emissions dyno roller test with nothing but EGR. It had no cats on it (unbeknownst to me at the time). It also had something like 280,000Km on it at the time, LOL!
Wondering why it was so close to failing I pulled the H-pipe to check the cats and they were completely hollow. I had already deleted the smog pump because it was seizing up.
Wondering why it was so close to failing I pulled the H-pipe to check the cats and they were completely hollow. I had already deleted the smog pump because it was seizing up.
The high-output air injection system allowed for a complete burn of even large amounts of unburned hydrocarbons, and the industrial cat took care of the rest of the excess.
An import rag did the same thing to a tuned RX7 turbo. That overfueled, thermally inefficient engine is far dirtier than any GM V8 probably ever. In between the giant overlap, over fueling to prevent detonation, giant inefficient combustion chambers, and apex seal trapping, I can tell you this from personal experience this is one ferociously dirty engine, even at stock levels. They load enough unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust that if run without a cat and the "anti-afterburn" dash pot to slow down throttle closure, they will eject a 3 foot ball of fire on throttle lift.
Feeding air into multiple points of the exhaust on this 400+ rwhp beast and using a Bonez industrial based cat, they passed Cali emissions with flying colors.
No EGR. Excess Nox was scrubbed entirely by the cat, similar to the strategy GM used to deal with extra Nox on the previous LS6 engine.
An import rag did the same thing to a tuned RX7 turbo. That overfueled, thermally inefficient engine is far dirtier than any GM V8 probably ever. In between the giant overlap, over fueling to prevent detonation, giant inefficient combustion chambers, and apex seal trapping, I can tell you this from personal experience this is one ferociously dirty engine, even at stock levels. They load enough unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust that if run without a cat and the "anti-afterburn" dash pot to slow down throttle closure, they will eject a 3 foot ball of fire on throttle lift.
Feeding air into multiple points of the exhaust on this 400+ rwhp beast and using a Bonez industrial based cat, they passed Cali emissions with flying colors.
No EGR. Excess Nox was scrubbed entirely by the cat, similar to the strategy GM used to deal with extra Nox on the previous LS6 engine.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
My 70s corvette is cleaner than your brand new Nissan on e85. Think outside the box sometime.
No, it's not. Cat light-off is later, there's no closed loop, etc, etc. Also, my Nissan isn't flex fuel so no E85, not even E15.
My 70s corvette is cleaner than your brand new Nissan on e85. Think outside the box sometime.
No, it's not. Cat light-off is later, there's no closed loop, etc, etc. Also, my Nissan isn't flex fuel so no E85, not even E15.
Originally Posted By: supton
What is your definition of clean? Cleaner than what it was, or as clean as today's cars?
I'd be quite impressed if you could take a 30 year old V8 design, super-tune the carb, slap on a cat and meeting today's Tier-whatever. While making 15-20mpg.
You can't. Not with any reliability and not across wide load and speed variations. This is why fuel delivery went from regular carburetors, to feedback carburetors, then throttle body injection and finally port injection. With domestic trucks this was all done in the span of a decade. Most European cars went straight from SU/Zenith carbs to Bosch injection much earlier.
What is your definition of clean? Cleaner than what it was, or as clean as today's cars?
I'd be quite impressed if you could take a 30 year old V8 design, super-tune the carb, slap on a cat and meeting today's Tier-whatever. While making 15-20mpg.
You can't. Not with any reliability and not across wide load and speed variations. This is why fuel delivery went from regular carburetors, to feedback carburetors, then throttle body injection and finally port injection. With domestic trucks this was all done in the span of a decade. Most European cars went straight from SU/Zenith carbs to Bosch injection much earlier.
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
The high-output air injection system allowed for a complete burn of even large amounts of unburned hydrocarbons, and the industrial cat took care of the rest of the excess.
An import rag did the same thing to a tuned RX7 turbo. That overfueled, thermally inefficient engine is far dirtier than any GM V8 probably ever. In between the giant overlap, over fueling to prevent detonation, giant inefficient combustion chambers, and apex seal trapping, I can tell you this from personal experience this is one ferociously dirty engine, even at stock levels. They load enough unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust that if run without a cat and the "anti-afterburn" dash pot to slow down throttle closure, they will eject a 3 foot ball of fire on throttle lift.
Feeding air into multiple points of the exhaust on this 400+ rwhp beast and using a Bonez industrial based cat, they passed Cali emissions with flying colors.
No EGR. Excess Nox was scrubbed entirely by the cat, similar to the strategy GM used to deal with extra Nox on the previous LS6 engine.
That's interesting, but what does the industrial catalytic converter cost and can you package it in the car without loosing the back seat?
The high-output air injection system allowed for a complete burn of even large amounts of unburned hydrocarbons, and the industrial cat took care of the rest of the excess.
An import rag did the same thing to a tuned RX7 turbo. That overfueled, thermally inefficient engine is far dirtier than any GM V8 probably ever. In between the giant overlap, over fueling to prevent detonation, giant inefficient combustion chambers, and apex seal trapping, I can tell you this from personal experience this is one ferociously dirty engine, even at stock levels. They load enough unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust that if run without a cat and the "anti-afterburn" dash pot to slow down throttle closure, they will eject a 3 foot ball of fire on throttle lift.
Feeding air into multiple points of the exhaust on this 400+ rwhp beast and using a Bonez industrial based cat, they passed Cali emissions with flying colors.
No EGR. Excess Nox was scrubbed entirely by the cat, similar to the strategy GM used to deal with extra Nox on the previous LS6 engine.
That's interesting, but what does the industrial catalytic converter cost and can you package it in the car without loosing the back seat?
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: gman2304
'This one runs a bit better than the ones the OP posted.
*0-60 in 4 seconds.
*Quarter mile e.t's in the 11's
*1.02 lateral G's on the skidpad
*It will do 150 mph.
And it's still Cadillac powered'.
Just think how fast it would be if it didn't weigh 5,000 lbs!
Actually, curb weight on the '82 Coupe Deville (which I believe is what is shown above) is 3,924 lbs, so lighter than both my Chargers and my previous M5.
Since the car is heavily modified, wouldn't that include removing some weight? Those cars had thick layers of insulation everywhere to make them quiet, removing that stuff might be a good place to start.
Originally Posted By: gman2304
'This one runs a bit better than the ones the OP posted.
*0-60 in 4 seconds.
*Quarter mile e.t's in the 11's
*1.02 lateral G's on the skidpad
*It will do 150 mph.
And it's still Cadillac powered'.
Just think how fast it would be if it didn't weigh 5,000 lbs!
Actually, curb weight on the '82 Coupe Deville (which I believe is what is shown above) is 3,924 lbs, so lighter than both my Chargers and my previous M5.
Since the car is heavily modified, wouldn't that include removing some weight? Those cars had thick layers of insulation everywhere to make them quiet, removing that stuff might be a good place to start.
I don't know how old you are, but I have that very issue of C+D.
I also actually drove those Eldos when they were new, along with their sister Rivs and Toros.
They were actually nice drivers and decent handling cars that would suck the headlights out of the emissions-strangled big Benz and BMW cars of the era in any stoplight drag race.
I found those photos hard to believe then and I still do.
The only explanation that occurs to me is that you can get cars to do things in hard transients that can't be done steady state.
If that El were in a steady state mode in either photo, it would have shortly been on its roof.
OTOH, maybe that did happen.
I also actually drove those Eldos when they were new, along with their sister Rivs and Toros.
They were actually nice drivers and decent handling cars that would suck the headlights out of the emissions-strangled big Benz and BMW cars of the era in any stoplight drag race.
I found those photos hard to believe then and I still do.
The only explanation that occurs to me is that you can get cars to do things in hard transients that can't be done steady state.
If that El were in a steady state mode in either photo, it would have shortly been on its roof.
OTOH, maybe that did happen.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
