How Times and Our Vehicles Have Changed...

LOWDOWN · 05-28-2010, 01:21 PM

This I found "interesting"...

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/25/h...her-fun-facts/

For those of us who have lived through this progression, it's "old news", but for those just now "coming of age", you may now understand just how fortunate we've become as enthusiasts AND as gas consumers...

A word of caution: the 227 hp/average of 1967 was GROSS ponies, not the Net we enjoy today which, with a factor of roughly 20%, would be the equivalent of approx. 300 Gross, today...

Rogue Leader · 05-28-2010, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

This I found "interesting"...

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/25/h...her-fun-facts/

For those of us who have lived through this progression, it's "old news", but for those just now "coming of age", you may now understand just how fortunate we've become as enthusiasts AND as gas consumers...

A word of caution: the 227 hp/average of 1967 was GROSS ponies, not the Net we enjoy today which, with a factor of roughly 20%, would be the equivalent of approx. 300 Gross, today...

I think you have that backwards. We don't enjoy net today, it decreases HP. 227hp average of 1967 would be about 160 HP today. Back then they tested engines at the flywheel with no accessories and open exhaust. Now they are tested will full factory parts (accessories, exhaust etc).

LOWDOWN · 05-28-2010, 01:55 PM

Brick, today's 247 + 20% would be "approx. 300 Gross", as stated...

And "yesterday's" 227 - 20% would be your 160-something...

Methodology, as stated: results, inversely...

If you go to www.hairsplitters.com, you'll find what you're missing...

Rogue Leader · 05-28-2010, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

Brick, today's 247 + 20% would be "approx. 300 Gross", as stated...

And "yesterday's" 227 - 20% would be your 160-something...

Methodology, as stated: results, inversely...

If you go to www.hairsplitters.com, you'll find what you're missing...

Sorry, my mistake, the way you wrote it I interpreted differently.

LOWDOWN · 05-28-2010, 02:09 PM

The advent of, and constant improvements to, electronic fuel management systems has paid sterling results. Driveability improvements, too, across the board.

cab2g · 05-28-2010, 03:19 PM

Yeah, we have some powerful cars on the road these days. It does piss me off when I get tailgated by the civic behind me because my 10 year old pickup truck can't accelerate fast enough

But then again 150HP with 4wd drive-train loss for 4600lbs really was too little even back then, and to think I got the mid-level engine. They actually had a 2.5L engine for my truck which pumped out a whopping 130HP...

AZCamaroFan · 05-28-2010, 05:23 PM

people are spoiled these days with how much hp there is in new cars.

Number 3 · 05-29-2010, 08:18 AM

The next 15 years will be more amazing than the last 15 for sure.

Right or wrong, Fuel Economy standards will drive the auto industry more than ever in the past. The 2016 standards will require engineering and technology roll outs of small displacmenet engines and turbo charging to get that HP.

The technology first implemented by GM on the Solstice and Sky (2.0 L SIDI with turbo charging) will be much more prevalent. Look at the Cruze, a 1.4 L Turbo, the uplevel Regal (2.0 L Turbo) both very driveable and enjoyable cars that will get great fuel economy. Would you have ever imagined the Ford Explorer with a 2.0 L Turbo???? And by the way, ask the members on this site how much it cost them to add a turbo to their Camaro. It's not a cheap technology.

And when Obama gets his 2025 plan in place you will see REEV, EV and Hybrids even more than you do today. And a 16 to 20 kW battery costs more than our beloved internal combustion engine, at least today with current battery technology.

Lots of change coming, and if all goes as it has over the last 15 years, exciting, fun to drive cars will still be a part of the equation. That I don't see changing in my lifetime, even if Bob Lutz says the future is automated pod like vehicles that take you were you want to go.

rocketman · 06-01-2010, 06:25 PM

Technology improves engine efficiency and horsepower but we have squandered it of late with inflated curb weights for no apparent reason or benefit.

If the drivetrain technology of today was combined with the downsizing of the 80's and the style of the 50's and 60's we would all be the better for it.

Example: The other day I pointed out to my girlfriend that the '87 Monte Carlo SS passing by was like the kind I had in high school. She replied "That old tank?" To which I replied that full framed, 5 passenger, iron engine block car weighs less then the honda we are driving in now." She couldnt believe it as most people can't.

Number 3 · 06-02-2010, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketman

Technology improves engine efficiency and horsepower but we have squandered it of late with inflated curb weights for no apparent reason or benefit.

If the drivetrain technology of today was combined with the downsizing of the 80's and the style of the 50's and 60's we would all be the better for it.

Example: The other day I pointed out to my girlfriend that the '87 Monte Carlo SS passing by was like the kind I had in high school. She replied "That old tank?" To which I replied that full framed, 5 passenger, iron engine block car weighs less then the honda we are driving in now." She couldnt believe it as most people can't.

The benefit is your car can now drive 35 mph into a wall and you can survive, and you can get hit from the side with a MDB traveling even faster and survive, and your car can now slide sideways into a pole and yep, survive that.

Don't think the mass is for nothing. Go back to the Gen 4 Camaro and count the number of airbags.............now how many on the Gen 5?

Sorry, just couldn't let it go. A lot of work goes into making car lighter. It improves FE which is no mandated by law. But light weight and crashing cars are nearly opposites, unless you are willing to pay for exotic materials. And the safety performance of a car is also mandated by law. And both FE and Safety Performance are heavily advertised so even without Government intervention, there would be market pressures to deliver.

This is engineering..................finding the best balanced solution. If all I had to do was deliver the lightest Camaro possible without having to meet FE and safety regulations or emissions regulations in the U.S. and even worse in California and reuse architecutural components and subsystems from existing cars to save investment and piece cost........................well that would just simply be easy.

ron10 · 06-02-2010, 10:12 AM

interesting reading.thanks for sharing.

05-28-2010, 01:21 PM	#1
LOWDOWN Downright Upright Drives: Daily Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Cruisin'... Posts: 4,145	How Times and Our Vehicles Have Changed... This I found "interesting"... http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/25/h...her-fun-facts/ For those of us who have lived through this progression, it's "old news", but for those just now "coming of age", you may now understand just how fortunate we've become as enthusiasts AND as gas consumers... A word of caution: the 227 hp/average of 1967 was GROSS ponies, not the Net we enjoy today which, with a factor of roughly 20%, would be the equivalent of approx. 300 Gross, today... Last edited by LOWDOWN; 05-28-2010 at 01:38 PM.

05-28-2010, 03:19 PM	#6
cab2g love. my. car. Drives: 2011 2SS/RS Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Chicago Posts: 3,372 View My Garage	Yeah, we have some powerful cars on the road these days. It does piss me off when I get tailgated by the civic behind me because my 10 year old pickup truck can't accelerate fast enough But then again 150HP with 4wd drive-train loss for 4600lbs really was too little even back then, and to think I got the mid-level engine. They actually had a 2.5L engine for my truck which pumped out a whopping 130HP... __________________

05-29-2010, 08:18 AM	#8
Number 3 Hail to the King baby! Drives: '19 XT4 2.0T & '22 VW Atlas 2.0T Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Illinois Posts: 12,310 View My Garage	The next 15 years will be more amazing than the last 15 for sure. Right or wrong, Fuel Economy standards will drive the auto industry more than ever in the past. The 2016 standards will require engineering and technology roll outs of small displacmenet engines and turbo charging to get that HP. The technology first implemented by GM on the Solstice and Sky (2.0 L SIDI with turbo charging) will be much more prevalent. Look at the Cruze, a 1.4 L Turbo, the uplevel Regal (2.0 L Turbo) both very driveable and enjoyable cars that will get great fuel economy. Would you have ever imagined the Ford Explorer with a 2.0 L Turbo???? And by the way, ask the members on this site how much it cost them to add a turbo to their Camaro. It's not a cheap technology. And when Obama gets his 2025 plan in place you will see REEV, EV and Hybrids even more than you do today. And a 16 to 20 kW battery costs more than our beloved internal combustion engine, at least today with current battery technology. Lots of change coming, and if all goes as it has over the last 15 years, exciting, fun to drive cars will still be a part of the equation. That I don't see changing in my lifetime, even if Bob Lutz says the future is automated pod like vehicles that take you were you want to go. __________________ "Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley

06-01-2010, 06:25 PM	#9
rocketman Drives: Black 2010 Camaro SS Join Date: May 2010 Location: Philly, D.C. areas Posts: 28	Excited about the future but should look to the past. Technology improves engine efficiency and horsepower but we have squandered it of late with inflated curb weights for no apparent reason or benefit. If the drivetrain technology of today was combined with the downsizing of the 80's and the style of the 50's and 60's we would all be the better for it. Example: The other day I pointed out to my girlfriend that the '87 Monte Carlo SS passing by was like the kind I had in high school. She replied "That old tank?" To which I replied that full framed, 5 passenger, iron engine block car weighs less then the honda we are driving in now." She couldnt believe it as most people can't.

05-28-2010, 01:55 PM	#3
LOWDOWN Downright Upright Drives: Daily Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Cruisin'... Posts: 4,145	Brick, today's 247 + 20% would be "approx. 300 Gross", as stated... And "yesterday's" 227 - 20% would be your 160-something... Methodology, as stated: results, inversely... If you go to www.hairsplitters.com, you'll find what you're missing...

05-28-2010, 02:09 PM	#5
LOWDOWN Downright Upright Drives: Daily Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Cruisin'... Posts: 4,145	The advent of, and constant improvements to, electronic fuel management systems has paid sterling results. Driveability improvements, too, across the board.

05-28-2010, 05:23 PM	#7
AZCamaroFan Camaro6 2016-2018 Drives: sometimes Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Phoenix Posts: 18,469	people are spoiled these days with how much hp there is in new cars.

06-02-2010, 10:12 AM	#11
ron10 Drives: 2010 2SS IOM L99 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: LOUISVILLE,KY.. Posts: 7,545	interesting reading.thanks for sharing.