Were 1980s cars really that bad?

[Lynn]

I believe the low water mark was 1976. Yes, most bread and butter cars into the 80's were crap. Computer controlled carbs? What a joke. Like trying to put wheels on a horse. One technology did not go well with the other. Pontiac gave it a go for as long as they could. At least they kept the Trans Am name afloat, trying to get some performance out of the smogger motor. Chevy made some progress starting with the 77 Z/28, but both of them were really fighting an uphill battle. Apparently Ford and Mopar had given up on muscle by 76-77.

Road & Track ran an article on the fastest cars (as in observed top speed) in America, 1976. They hinted that it might be a pick up (454 Chevy, as the truck was the only vehicle available with a big block in 1976). I will dig up the article to make sure I get the numbers correct, but I believe it went something like this:

Corvette 126 mph
Chevy Truck with 454 121 mph
Mopar with a 360 dual exhaust (can't remember if it was a Duster, or what, but midsize car) 112 mph.
And the "mighty" Ford Mustang II with the "high performance" 302 topped out at 105 mph. (crap, I had a 70 Opel Rallye with a 1.9 4 banger that would top 105!!!)
Seems there was a 5th car in there, but can't remember what it was.
What a bunch of slugs. I probably should not have listed mph numbers, as my fuzzy memory surely got some of them (maybe all of them) incorrect. If anyone is intersted, I can dig out the old rag and look it up.

Mind you, this bunch of turds is what fueled the first muscle car craze, and is reason that as early as 1977 guys were craving a bit of nostalgia in the form of a car with real power. That is when a lot of our cars started being cared for.... many for the first time.

[novadude]

Originally Posted by Lynn

Computer controlled carbs? What a joke.

A CCC Q-jet worked very well and required minimal maintenance. The "dancing needle" concept they incorporated was pretty ingenious, given the technology of the time (in development in the late 1970s, released in 1980-1981).

It's easy to bash the 1980s cars looking through a 2017 window, but many of the 60s muscle cars weren't all that great either.

Don't forget that the 325hp 396 was a slug with the little 198 deg @ 0.050 cam and .398 lift, stock, as-delivered 302 Camaros weren't exactly fast, etc. The 1984 HO 305 in the ad above could give either one of these cars a good run. A '79 Z28 responds to typical heads / cam / exhaust bolt-ons just like the 2 examples above.

[Lynn]

Originally Posted by novadude

A CCC Q-jet worked very well and required minimal maintenance. The "dancing needle" concept they incorporated was pretty ingenious, given the technology of the time (in development in the late 1970s, released in 1980-1981).

It's easy to bash the 1980s cars looking through a 2017 window, but many of the 60s muscle cars weren't all that great either.

Don't forget that the 325hp 396 was a slug with the little 198 deg @ 0.050 cam and .398 lift, stock, as-delivered 302 Camaros weren't exactly fast, etc. The 1984 HO 305 in the ad above could give either one of these cars a good run. A '79 Z28 responds to typical heads / cam / exhaust bolt-ons just like the 2 examples above.

We may just have to agree to disagree on that. Yes, the dancing needle was ingenious, and it worked well... for about 18 months. The it turned to crap. I owned a small four bay independent shop in the 80's. I rebuilt one or two A DAY for several years. Most shops at the time wouldn't touch them. I don't understand why they didn't just bite the bullet and go to computer controlled fuel injection. The cost difference wasn't that huge. The computer (first c in ccc) was the biggest cost involved. They were just clinging to the old technology

You are absolutley correct about late 70's Z and espcially into the 80's. No doubt, they could keep up with most of the 60's muscle as delivered with bias ply tires.