General LSX Automobile Discussion - 350s and 289 anyone notice.....

Lol boy I have alot of errors in what my thread was about, im having a hard time typing.

281 Motors"


Older guys think there cars were god back then, but really if you compare what we have now, there pretty slow.

The problem is, they "think" all these new" cars would get smoked by there older much heavyer lower powerd cars.

Theres a fair amount of ignorance in the old car people........


They are amazed at what LS1 cars can do...

Edit..............

:confused:

454s are GODS!!!

:werd:

WTF is this thread about, I may be a new guy but really now am I the only one that dont get it?

I think he's just pointing it out? it is pretty funny when old people think their gargantuan engine back in the day was a beast.

I think he was trying to say that some old timers that used to have 454s etc are telling him that becuase our newer hot rods are smaller displacement they are saying that they are slower.....I think, but yeah, slow down and type a little clearer next time :devil:

well in that case displacement owns

The baby boomers hold enormous sway in the automotive world, hence the huge prices on 64-72 muscle cars.

For a lot of older enthusiasts, performance died in 73 and never returned. Try to show them that the new cars are faster and they'll spew out a bunch of crap that newer cars have no "soul". I guess an LS1 and 4.6 engine has no soul because it doesn't spew coolant at every stoplight and need the points adjusted every week.

Sometimes I can just get by telling some of them that my LS1 is a 350 and they'll just nod and go about their business, but if I said its a 346 I get the deer in the headlights look. I don't think I can get by telling people I have a Boss 429 in the cobra (because the DOHC 4.6 is almost physically as big and even looks similar if you squint put away a few beers) they'll probably see right through that.

Not really. Take a stock LS-6 454 Chevelle and put it up against a stock LS1 F-body and the F-body will win 9 times out of 10. 13.3's were average for LS-6 Chevelles. Not saying they're not awesome cars, but technology marches on.

I think the boomers are confused when it comes to computer controled cars. ignition, timming control have come a long way even sense hei . if they only knew the ease of dialing in. and for displacement like they say theres no replacement for displacement .

Take the tech of today and apply it to a gen III or gen IV crate big block fully built n/a vs a fully built n/a ls1 346 or ls2 364 and the big block will win. A engine is a air pump, anytime you can pump more air the better.

People tend to forget that tires sucked in the original muscle car era. Many of the larger displacement muscle cars would trap at similar MPHs as stock LS1 4th gens will, but their ETs stayed in the 14s due to poor traction on the tires of the day.

As for the displacement thing (346ci vs 350ci), LS1s are not the first time that people (even GM) have called a motor something it isn't. By the end of the original "big power" muscle car era, the "396ci" motors were actually 402ci, but GM continued to call them 396 since it was a popular and accepted displacement.

People tend to forget that tires sucked in the original muscle car era. Many of the larger displacement muscle cars would trap at similar MPHs as stock LS1 4th gens will, but their ETs stayed in the 14s due to poor traction on the tires of the day.

As for the displacement thing (346ci vs 350ci), LS1s are not the first time that people (even GM) have called a motor something it isn't. By the end of the original "big power" muscle car era, the "396ci" motors were actually 402ci, but GM continued to call them 396 since it was a popular and accepted displacement.

True, I think GM thought of a nice little work around to LS1 heritage problem by calling it a "5.7 liter" engine, a moniker they gave to the Gen I and II 350's. As far as I know, GM never intentionally refers to the LS1 in cubic inch terms, they just list the CI displacement on their spec charts.

Even when arguing new vs. old, I have enormous respect for the old muscle cars, I love seeing them on the road. It wasn't until about 15 years after '72 when the '87 Fox came out that domestic performance really came back.

I really don't think the old timers frown on the cars that are out there nowadays. I think it is mostly cause they can't work on them like they could the old ones. Fuel injection and an engine that does not have a distributor is probibly scary for them, Cause they don't know what to do with that.

But I would have to give those people alot of respect, cause even though most people think the old engines are out of date, I bet 9 times out of 10 they would still build a better engine than the newer guys out there. THey know the secrets....

It wasn't until about 15 years after '72 when the '87 Fox came out that domestic performance really came back.


Performance was still alive and well until the end of 1974, at least at Pontiac anyway. The '73 and '74 SD455 Trans Ams were still hauling ass even though their power ratings didn't look like the monster numbers of the '67-'70 cars. They could still run similar times as the popular '68-'72 big block cars when stock, even in 1974 with the 290hp/395tq rating. In '73 they still had 310hp.

As for the return of power, IMO that started in 1986 with the first year of the intercooled LC2/3.8L EFI Turbo Buicks. These cars had no problem running low 14s stock. The 5.7L TPI C4 Corvettes were also running low 14s in that era, reaching 270hp by 1987 with the addition of aluminum heads on the L98 motor. And the '87 GNX, with a "rated" 276hp, was running mid-low 13s. Also low 13s at 104ish MPH coming from the '89 TTA that shared the LC2 motor from the '86-'87 GNs and the turbo from the '87 GNX.

I agree that tires are a factor. But so is weight. I LOVE old muscle cars. However, this is the new muscle car era. And to not give modern muscle its props only shows ignorance. There are only a handfull of 60-early 70s cars that could run w LS1 F-bodies, even on modern tires. Plus most the old guys that actually think thier old 307 3 speed Novas were faster than LS1s are truely just ignorant. I would think guys (like my dad and uncles) that actually had fast stuff back in the day appreciate the modern eras technology/performance. They know what a 12 et and 100 plus trap means.

As for the displacement thing (346ci vs 350ci), LS1s are not the first time that people (even GM) have called a motor something it isn't. By the end of the original "big power" muscle car era, the "396ci" motors were actually 402ci, but GM continued to call them 396 since it was a popular and accepted displacement.
for example the ls7 being called a 427 when it is actually a 428

i'll take a "little" 346 with a little boost ANYDAY over a 454

and I'll take that 454 with boost over your 346

My buddy with a 69' camaro is looking at a custom 632 making around 1000hp/850t

oh big displacement are beasts alright. that pretty much takes any 3200lb ready car and makes it run 8's.


on the other hand, in the early "turbo" years of F1 racing, didn't they use really small 1.5liter cars and blow them to like 750+hp?

I think they were around 3.0's or 3.5's

My buddy with a 69' camaro is looking at a custom 632 making around 1000hp/850t

I have nothing aganist big displacement motors at all. But having said that, you can make 1000hp with a lot less than 632 cubes in the world of SEFI motors. Granted, you'd be talking about using some sort of FI to do it, but on the same note I can't recall ever seeing an NA carbed 632ci motor make 1000hp either.....

For a lot of older enthusiasts, performance died in 73 and never returned.

Actually, performance died in 1970. That was the last year of a true high compression car, but the first year of the 454. The LS-6 mentioned earlier came in 1970 with 10.5.1 compression, and in 71 it was backed way off and the motors began to lose horsepower due to the valves being made smaller and no compression. 1976 was pretty much the bottom of the barrell on horsepower and performance.

1976 was pretty much the bottom of the barrell on horsepower and performance.

:judge:

Again, I think the '73-'74 455-SD T/As were the last of the true performance motors until 1986. Even with only 290-310hp ratings, they were still turning comparable track times to their '67-70 competition.

IMO, the "dark ages" of performance was '75-'85. In that era, there was really nothing that resembled performance. The only honorable mentions might be the '79 10th ann T/As, when optioned with a 4-speed they received the old pontiac 400ci motor rather than the Olds 403ci that went into all the other V8 'birds. Also the "hot air" turbo buicks of '84-'85 at least made 200hp. But still these are sad examples of performance.

1986 was a HUGE step forward with the introduction of the intercooled 3.8L EFI Turbo Buick LC2 motor. And 1987 was a decent step forward for the pushrod V8 motor, with the aluminum headed L98s making 270hp.

I have nothing aganist big displacement motors at all. But having said that, you can make 1000hp with a lot less than 632 cubes in the world of SEFI motors. Granted, you'd be talking about using some sort of FI to do it, but on the same note I can't recall ever seeing an NA carbed 632ci motor make 1000hp either.....


He's in his 30's, nearing 40, so thats what he's into.

here's one he showed me

http://www.shafiroff.com/pro/images/565_1000_engine.jpg

^^^^ Damn. Wonder what sort of compression that motor has to make 1000hp NA with those sort of cubes (I'm guessing 565ci?). LOL, probably can't idle at less than 1500rpm either. :D

:judge:
The only honorable mentions might be the '79 10th ann T/As, when optioned with a 4-speed they received the old pontiac 400ci motor rather than the Olds 403ci that went into all the other V8 'birds.

No...400s were available from 67 through 79, in different variations. it was not 'all other V8 birds', because my 78 Trans Am has a 400, high performance option W72 with 220hp and a 4spd. in california, all V8s were the 185hp 403 Olds. up till 78, you could get any engine/trans option you want. in 79, if you wanted an auto, you got the 403. if you wanted a stick, you got the 400. it wasnt just for the 10th aniv. editions. 400s were also NOT made in 79. they were left over from 78, and saved just for the stick cars.

also......its 'my olds 455', NOT 454....jesus, come on. 454 is chevy.....455 is Pontiac, Buick, and Olds.

This thread has gone way off what has allready been said and what needs to be taken into account. I am a ls1/ls2 fan but these small blocks in the end can still only make so much power without spray or some sort of FI and that power level is nowhere near what a big block can do in most cases. There is absolute no replacement for displacement in the N/A world and N/A IMO is where you tell a engines abilities as any engine can make massive power with boost(hell there are 1.5 honda engines turning over 500whp with it).

You can preach technology all you want but it is now also available for the bigger displacement engines. More air moved equals more oxygen in the cyl, more oxygen allows more fuel and the combo of them plus timing equal more power period no matter how you look at it. I am not trying to come off as a know it all ass but the truth is the truth and anyone who disputs cold hard fact is a platform nutrider.

it wasnt just for the 10th aniv. editions. 400s were also NOT made in 79. they were left over from 78, and saved just for the stick cars.


That is what I was refering to about the 10th ann cars. These were the only ones in '79 that still got the 400ci (when optioned with a 4-speed), thus being an honorable mention because it was the last year you could get the left over 400 motor. I think you missed my point. ;)

^^^^ Damn. Wonder what sort of compression that motor has to make 1000hp NA with those sort of cubes (I'm guessing 565ci?). LOL, probably can't idle at less than 1500rpm either. :D

that one is not bad for under 15k.

yeah I think that company is in IL also. They make a ton of sweet looking motors. sportman, pro series, nitrous series, ultra street, etc.

go check it out if you feel like it, they list all the parts and stuff.. you probably know more about this than me

I was kinda stunned at the ultra street he was mentioning, its on the site 635ci making 1000hp/865t

http://www.shafiroff.com/

in 79, if you wanted an auto, you got the 403. if you wanted a stick, you got the 400. it wasnt just for the 10th aniv. editions.

I was just looking up the production figures for '79 and here is what I found:

211,454 Firebirds were built in 1979. 117,109 were Trans Ams.

8,800 400ci motors were stored/left over from 1978 to be used in the 4-speed '79 cars. 1,817 of these L78 400ci motors were used in the 10th ann cars. That leaves only 7000 of the L78 400s left for other 4-speed Trans Ams and Formulas. I think there were likely more than 7,000 4-speed V8 Firebirds built to be sold outside of CA considering a production run of 211,454 total units. So some of the 4-speed '79 T/As must have been 403ci motors later in the '79 model year. I can't find the breakdown for auto vs manual in my records though.

im not arguing, but im 95% positive that in 79, all sticks were 400, and all autos were 403. im also fairly sure that in 79, there were still 2 different versions of the 400. W72 and L78, L78 being the base 200hp i believe, and W72 the high performance 220hp. and as the years went on, there became less and less sticks.

Im not talking about built drag cars, Of couse BBC and BBFs and Mopars blah blah can be built to do anything...


Im talking about there 68 camaros with 350s, or 340 dusters etc....

They really werent that fast..........

im not arguing, but im 95% positive that in 79, all sticks were 400, and all autos were 403. im also fairly sure that in 79, there were still 2 different versions of the 400. W72 and L78, L78 being the base 200hp i believe, and W72 the high performance 220hp. and as the years went on, there became less and less sticks.

I checked through all my old Pontiac records again, here is everything I have on 1979 V8 motor options:

L78 = 400ci Pontiac motor with 220hp @4000rpm and 320tq @2800rpm
L80 = 403ci Olds motor with 185hp

Also, the 150hp 301ci motor offered with the auto or manual for CA.

The L78 seems to be the "HiPo" V8 of the year, with the 220hp rating. I can't find anything about a 200hp "base" 400ci motor. Not sure what "W72" is, but it's not the 220hp 400ci for '79.

Considering there were only 8,800 400ci blocks left for 1979, I just find it hard to beleive that only 8,800 of the 117,109 Trans Ams were manuals, and that's not even counting the Formulas with manuals either. Looking at the ratio of auto trans to manual trans in the 10th ann cars (1817 with M4 vs 5683 with A3), thats 25% being manual. If you apply that ratio to the entire production run of Trans Ams only (since all T/As were V8s), that would be 29,277 units built with a manual trans, not counting the Formulas. So with only 8,800 400ci motors to use, well over 20,000 units would have received either the 301 V8 (for CA residents) or the Olds 403ci.

Found more info:

LD5 = Buick 231ci V6

L27 = Pontiac 301ci V8 (140hp)

L37 = Pontiac 301ci V8 (150hp)

LG3 = Chevy 305ci V8

LM1 = Chevy 350ci V8

L78 = Pontiac 400ci V8

L80 = Olds 403ci V8

All these motors were optional in the 1979 Firebirds or Trans Am.

24,851 Formulas were built and 117,109 Trans Ams. So that's 141,960 V8s at a minimum. There had to be more than 8,800 manuals though (obviously subtracting the 301ci cars from CA) looking at the 25% manual to auto ratio in the 7,500 10th ann cars, but I can't find the build numbers on that for some reason. The catalog does state that only approximately 8,800 400ci motors were stored for use in 1979.

on the other hand, in the early "turbo" years of F1 racing, didn't they use really small 1.5liter cars and blow them to like 750+hp?
BMW eventually got 1500hp in qualifying trim out of a 1.5 liter block. they got the blocks from production cars that had put over 100,000 miles on them as all the stresses in the block were worked out.

There not up there with " MY OLDS 454"

Or when Older guys think" there junk boxes with headers back then were FLYN!


There older cars would SMOKE any of the new age cars, were just to long and dont know anything about real" cars......


i beg to differ there. i talked to my fair share of older fellas who grew up around muscle cars in the 60's and 70's and when i told him what stock 4th gens can run from the factory and then with some basic bolt on performance parts, he said i was bullshitting him, then he went online and did some reading up on them. the next day he told me "we needed motorwork to get into the 12s or faster; you younger kids have fuelinjection, computers and all that Technology on your side"

Another thing to remember is that your average hot rodder with the weight of cars back then and tires were happy with 13's, 12's were a rare thing, and people who used thier cars as strip only ran 11's
I remember the first time I went to the track and told my dad I ran a 13 flat and was pissed b/c I didnt get in the 12's and he said that ALMOST ALL cars back in his day were happy with 13's and most were in the 14's. He even told me that one of his buddies had a camaro that was fully striped out with 4:10's huge cam and slicks that was only doin 11's, now you put a 150 shot on a stock LS1 you got 11's, its just some of them have been out of the game for a while and dont understand new technology

I experience this all the time. People see my engine and immediately declare "Man those 5.0's are badass". When I correct them they are like "What!?!". Oh, and OP the newer 4.6 Stangs are 281 cubes not 289 :). I cant wait to get my Camaro so I can do the same thing with LS1.

Actually, performance died in 1970. That was the last year of a true high compression car, but the first year of the 454. The LS-6 mentioned earlier came in 1970 with 10.5.1 compression, and in 71 it was backed way off and the motors began to lose horsepower due to the valves being made smaller and no compression. 1976 was pretty much the bottom of the barrell on horsepower and performance.
Performance did not DIE in 1970...It got very ill, started losing compression, and gaining worthless emision devices. But luckily 4 us all, w modern medicine it is now very much alive and healthier than ever! :judge:

well i dont know where i got W72 from....i know its a code for something, but at least i was half right. though i have yet to see an original 79 400 auto.