Sure they had turbo's in the 80's the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe was one of my favorite cars. But they just didn't work as well as they do today. There were now dual scroll turbo's no direct injection. The computers in those cars were so slow they didn't respond the way they do today. Remember the size of the intercooler on a SVO Mustang? What a joke such a tiny little thing. The difference in speed of the computers and multiple o2's is dramatic for performance. I had a Buick Regal T-Type, Grand Nationals cousin. It was all stock ran 14.4. Not real fast by today's standards but back then it was some what fast.
The Second Golden Age of Horsepower
- Thread starter sciphi
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: rodinator1234
Sure they had turbo's in the 80's the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe was one of my favorite cars. But they just didn't work as well as they do today. There were now dual scroll turbo's no direct injection. The computers in those cars were so slow they didn't respond the way they do today. Remember the size of the intercooler on a SVO Mustang? What a joke such a tiny little thing. The difference in speed of the computers and multiple o2's is dramatic for performance. I had a Buick Regal T-Type, Grand Nationals cousin. It was all stock ran 14.4. Not real fast by today's standards but back then it was some what fast.
The 80s had some really cool turbo cars! I loved the turbo Trans Am and turbo Chrysler Laser (was that a Mitsubishi in disguise?).
Sure they had turbo's in the 80's the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe was one of my favorite cars. But they just didn't work as well as they do today. There were now dual scroll turbo's no direct injection. The computers in those cars were so slow they didn't respond the way they do today. Remember the size of the intercooler on a SVO Mustang? What a joke such a tiny little thing. The difference in speed of the computers and multiple o2's is dramatic for performance. I had a Buick Regal T-Type, Grand Nationals cousin. It was all stock ran 14.4. Not real fast by today's standards but back then it was some what fast.
The 80s had some really cool turbo cars! I loved the turbo Trans Am and turbo Chrysler Laser (was that a Mitsubishi in disguise?).
Originally Posted By: HangFire
When comparing to old musclecars, remember that a few years ago Car & Driver tacitly admitted to "enhancing" the 0-60 and quarter mile times during the good old days.
Also talk to any old drag racer, and get them to tell you what it really took to get a then-new old musclecar down into the 11's and 12's- ladder bars, slicks, a new cam, carb, fuel pump, shift kit, lots of tuning, etc., etc. Few to none of the old muscle cars were really drag strip ready from the showroom. They were more potential than reality.
I had a brand new 1970 LS6 Chevelle. Never under 13 seconds even with minor mods. My Chrysler would embarrass it at the strip.
Most of those older cars were slower than their memories...
When comparing to old musclecars, remember that a few years ago Car & Driver tacitly admitted to "enhancing" the 0-60 and quarter mile times during the good old days.
Also talk to any old drag racer, and get them to tell you what it really took to get a then-new old musclecar down into the 11's and 12's- ladder bars, slicks, a new cam, carb, fuel pump, shift kit, lots of tuning, etc., etc. Few to none of the old muscle cars were really drag strip ready from the showroom. They were more potential than reality.
I had a brand new 1970 LS6 Chevelle. Never under 13 seconds even with minor mods. My Chrysler would embarrass it at the strip.
Most of those older cars were slower than their memories...
SNip!
The same engine in my Regal does fine -- though I have to put my foot in it sometimes; the engine doesn't really get the bit between its teeth until it's turning 3K rpm. But the Regal weighs some 3600 lbs., the Equinox about 3925. So yes, I can see the Equinox w/ 2.4 as underpowered. [/quote]
Tried the N/A Regal,really preferred the turbo. The transmission did its best to keep things rolling when you matted it,but I'm addicted to manifold pressure
The same engine in my Regal does fine -- though I have to put my foot in it sometimes; the engine doesn't really get the bit between its teeth until it's turning 3K rpm. But the Regal weighs some 3600 lbs., the Equinox about 3925. So yes, I can see the Equinox w/ 2.4 as underpowered. [/quote]
Tried the N/A Regal,really preferred the turbo. The transmission did its best to keep things rolling when you matted it,but I'm addicted to manifold pressure
Think about the future though. If your a Formula 1 fan this might be old news but the modern F1 engine will make it to the public car world soon. Rumored to be as soon as 2016 with a Mercedes hybrid. The turbo is used as a generator/motor so if the car is at low rev's and the engine is calling for maximum available power then the e-turbo spools up with the motor providing immediate boost as well as immediately scavenging air out of the cylinder it's the best of both worlds. When the turbo has exhaust gas to spin it freely then the motor turns to a generator to help power the electric power system. The Ferrari LaFerrari uses a system similar but not with the turbo, as does the P1.
Then there is the cam less engine which has always been a pipe dream of the engine world. Well there are running prototypes now. Watch Christopher Konezegg's video inside Konezegg. Its freaking amazing. The possibilities are endless with this. Infinitely variable valve timing, immediate valve opening, no ramp up as with a cam. This is the future.
http://jalopnik.com/the-future-of-the-internal-combustion-engine-is-camless-369015485
Then there is the cam less engine which has always been a pipe dream of the engine world. Well there are running prototypes now. Watch Christopher Konezegg's video inside Konezegg. Its freaking amazing. The possibilities are endless with this. Infinitely variable valve timing, immediate valve opening, no ramp up as with a cam. This is the future.
http://jalopnik.com/the-future-of-the-internal-combustion-engine-is-camless-369015485
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
My dad is buying a new Chevy Equinox. He test drove one with the 182-HP 2.4L I4, and complained that it felt underpowered. He would only go for the V6 with ~300-HP.
I can't believe it's the same dad that would NEVER buy the high-powered engine option 40 years ago. His 1972 Blazer with the 307 had about 140HP and weighed more than the Equinox.
My good buddy has an '11 Equinox 182 hp/4 cyl, 2WD ONLY, and we both agree that it's enough power in our opinions!
Although, we also both agree that the auto trannys(6spd) programming is setup more for maximum mpg. So, during some instances(or RPM's), the engine "can feel" lethargic and underwhelming.
But overall, when you put your foot into it, she moves well!
My dad is buying a new Chevy Equinox. He test drove one with the 182-HP 2.4L I4, and complained that it felt underpowered. He would only go for the V6 with ~300-HP.
I can't believe it's the same dad that would NEVER buy the high-powered engine option 40 years ago. His 1972 Blazer with the 307 had about 140HP and weighed more than the Equinox.
My good buddy has an '11 Equinox 182 hp/4 cyl, 2WD ONLY, and we both agree that it's enough power in our opinions!
Although, we also both agree that the auto trannys(6spd) programming is setup more for maximum mpg. So, during some instances(or RPM's), the engine "can feel" lethargic and underwhelming.
But overall, when you put your foot into it, she moves well!
Last edited:
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2024
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
My dad is buying a new Chevy Equinox. He test drove one with the 182-HP 2.4L I4, and complained that it felt underpowered. He would only go for the V6 with ~300-HP.
I can't believe it's the same dad that would NEVER buy the high-powered engine option 40 years ago. His 1972 Blazer with the 307 had about 140HP and weighed more than the Equinox.
My good buddy has an '11 Equinox 182 hp/4 cyl, 2WD ONLY, and we both agree that it's enough power in our opinions!
Although, we also both agree that the auto trannys(6spd) programming is setup more for maximum mpg. So, during some instances(or RPM's), the engine "can feel" lethargic and underwhelming.
But overall, when you put your foot into it, she moves well!
I have one, moving well and adequate or two different things.
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
My dad is buying a new Chevy Equinox. He test drove one with the 182-HP 2.4L I4, and complained that it felt underpowered. He would only go for the V6 with ~300-HP.
I can't believe it's the same dad that would NEVER buy the high-powered engine option 40 years ago. His 1972 Blazer with the 307 had about 140HP and weighed more than the Equinox.
My good buddy has an '11 Equinox 182 hp/4 cyl, 2WD ONLY, and we both agree that it's enough power in our opinions!
Although, we also both agree that the auto trannys(6spd) programming is setup more for maximum mpg. So, during some instances(or RPM's), the engine "can feel" lethargic and underwhelming.
But overall, when you put your foot into it, she moves well!
I have one, moving well and adequate or two different things.
No, it's the same meaning!
This is my buddy's first 4 cyl engine. He's always had V8's and V6's. He was going to buy the V6 Nox but, after a test drive and me telling him my experiences with 4 cyl's, he bought the 4 cyl w/FWD ONLY!
After more than 3 years with the '11 Nox, he never seems to want for more power and he is enjoying the MPG(ave. 26 mpg) for an over 4000 lb vehicle.
This is my buddy's first 4 cyl engine. He's always had V8's and V6's. He was going to buy the V6 Nox but, after a test drive and me telling him my experiences with 4 cyl's, he bought the 4 cyl w/FWD ONLY!
After more than 3 years with the '11 Nox, he never seems to want for more power and he is enjoying the MPG(ave. 26 mpg) for an over 4000 lb vehicle.
- Status
