(first posted 4/24/2018) A while back, Paul wrote a very enlightening article about the 250 six powered 1975 Ford Granada winning the dunce cap award for having Ford Model A levels of power per cubic inch as well as a few other dubious distinctions. Cars with such attributes simply don’t come about every day.
But the premise of Paul’s article prompted me to be curious about the opposite; what was the best of this era? Nothing is as clear-cut for good as the Granada was for ridiculous, and this question could be likened to asking who had the least bothersome case of small pox. Any determination of what is “best” is a dicey proposition.
Let’s break this down by make for better enlightenment, of which there is a considerable amount.
Jumping into the the 1979 Motor Repair Manual, and continuing forward to 1983, I started scouring engine outputs. It’s pretty depressing in some cases as any engine having more than one-half horsepower per cubic inch was nearly a spectacular enough event to prompt a federal holiday. In many cases, it is obvious the drop in power after 1974 is a reflection of the advent of catalytic convertors and only American cars are being examined as they were the ones who most struggled with their game.
Note that some engines, such as those in Cosworth Vegas, Corvettes, and anything specifically for law enforcement were excluded due to being speciality pieces. We’re looking at an epidemic among the masses!
AMC
The Best of the Worst: 1977 and 1978 Gremlin 2.5 liter
Output: 0.66 hp / cid
So the ever awkward Gremlin wins an award four decades later. Who said the car was all bad? However, just don’t let this fire breathing 0.66 hp per cubic inch lure you into thinking it’s some form of drag racer. At 2,654 pounds, the poor Gremlin’s 2.5 liter still had to pack around 33 pounds per pony. A rocket sled it was not.
Dishonorable Mention: 1975, 1976, and 1977 258 straight-six
Output: 0.37 hp / cid
While still not quite in the depths of despair the Granada was, at 90 horsepower the aroma was getting rather putrid. For having nearly two liters more displacement than the 2.5 four, the 258 only provided an additional 10 horsepower.
Imagine how delightful a stuffed to the brim 3,900 pound Matador wagon with the 90 horsepower (or 100 according to the Standard Catalog, which is still nothing to brag about) 258 would be to drive in hilly terrain. That makes for the type of horror story about the bad old days you tell your grandchildren.
Buick
The Best of the Worst (naturally aspirated, tie): 1974 350 and 455 V8s
Output: 0.56 hp / cid
As mentioned earlier, 1974 was before the belly of output was scraping the bottom of the barrel but it was close. Extra credit is given for Buick being consistent in output between two different series of engine.
Give Buick a pat on the back.
Honorable Mention (naturally aspirated): 1979 305 V8 (5.0 liter)
Output: 0.52 hp / cid
Since 1974 could be considered a smidgeon too early, 1979 should not prompt such sentiments. This is also a reflection of GM’s engine sharing gaining momentum as this is a Chevrolet powerplant.
The Best of the Worst (turbocharged): 1979 231 (3.8 liter) V6
Output: 0.80 hp / cid
It took a turbocharger, but Buick obtained the second highest output per unit of displacement of any car mentioned here. When placed in the 1979 Regal Sport Coupe, weighing a click over 3,000 pounds, the 231 had only 16.6 lbs per horsepower to tote around. The Century, as seen just above, was also available with the turbo 3.8 but weighed a few pounds more than the Regal, thus the Regal getting the nod here.
Inclusion of a turbocharged engine cannot be used as a direct comparison against naturally aspirated engines. Or can it? It’ll be used for another comparison later.
Blackout trim, black wall tires, and wire wheel covers – all on one car!!!
The turbocharged 3.8 was a peek into the future, with a better glimpse being provided with the much refined 1987 Regal Grand National and GNX, perhaps the most awesome American cars of the 1980s.
Cadillac
The Best of the Worst: 1977 Cadillac Seville
Output: 0.51 hp / cid
It took fuel injection for Cadillac to succeed in that herculean feat of blasting through that seemingly insurmountable barrier of 0.5 hp per cubic inch. With the carbureted engines, one can figure output being mostly in the 0.45 range.
But there were exceptions.
Dishonorable Mention (tie): 1975 500 cid V8 and 1981 368 cid V8
Output: 0.38 hp / cid
It takes some work to obtain only 190 horsepower from 8.2 liters of gasoline engine, just like it does to squeeze 140 from 6 liters. If you really want to put this unmitigated misery in some form of perspective, let’s think about how Cadillac put a naturally aspirated diesel engine in the Seville for 1978; output was not much worse at 0.34 hp per cid.
Let’s also not forget the legendary HT4100 engine, that suicidal wonder, had a higher output per unit displacement than either of these two.
Torque, however, is a much different story.
Chevrolet
The Best of the Worst: 1982 2.5 liter four
Output: 0.60 hp / cid
Chevrolet deserves credit for being relatively consistent across its line but nothing was outstanding. Output for the ultra smooth and refined (okay, maybe it’s just durable) 2.5 liter Iron Duke was 0.01 hp per cubic inch more than the 2.8 liter V6 available in many of the same cars. One could consider it a tie, but the hair needs to be split somewhere.
Dishonorable Mention: 1975 350 cid V8
Output: 0.41 hp / cid
If ever an engine has had a more bountiful history than the Chevrolet 350, it would be hard to pinpoint. From being the weakling seen here to the much more potent LT1 of the 1990s, the 350 has seen and done it all, having been placed at some point or another in nearly anything powered by an internal combustion engine.
But with this type of output it’ll take a while for it to do much of anything, especially when planted in a 4,500 pound Impala as many of them were for 1975. Chevrolet may have made sense for America, but 145 horsepower from 5.7 liters didn’t.
Although with 1975 being the first year for catalytic converters, maybe it did make some degree of sense.
Oldsmobile
The Best of the Worst: 455 V8 from 1974
Output: 0.60 hp / cid
Despite their size, weight, and fuel appetite, these big Oldsmobiles still had something going for them by having the highest output per unit of displacement of any Oldsmobile for a long time. It makes one realize there is indeed a silver lining in every cloud.
(Dis?)Honorable Mention: 403 V8 from 1977
Output: 0.50 hp / cid
In comparison to some engines seen here, this 403 is toward the bottom of the heap. In relation to Oldsmobiles, it was toward the top. Intriguing, is it not?
Pontiac
The Best of the Worst: 455 V8 from 1974
Output: 0.55 hp / cid
Much like Oldsmobile, there wasn’t much earth-shattering at Pontiac. The Trans Am only SD455 from 1974 did produce 0.64 hp / cubic inch, which wasn’t too far from regular Olds 98 territory, seen above, and it’s pretty close to the average of another brand soon to be discussed.
Dishonorable Mention: 1976 350 (5.7 liter) V8 (Ventura only)
Output: 0.40 hp / cid
When the 350 found elsewhere at Pontiac had an additional 20 to 25 prancing ponies, somebody saw fit to shortchange the two barrel carbureted Ventura. Go figure. Opting for a four-barrel 350 in your Ventura gained fifteen horses, but was still noticeably short of the B-body Catalina.
Ford / Lincoln / Mercury
The Best of the Worst: 1975 2.8 V6
Output: 0.64 hp / cid
Did you really think Ford would have any of their straight sixes or V8s being proclaimed a winner? Output was so bad for those engines, generally less than 0.5 hp / cubic inch but with one exception seen below, I generally didn’t figure their output per displacement – why bother? We already know the 1975 Granada with the 250 handily wins the championship in the dishonorable mention category.
Honorable Mention: 1974 351 (5.8 liter) Cleveland
Output: 0.66 hp / cid
One Ford V8 engine did jump off the old spreadsheet. While making a hair more power per cubic inch than the 2.8 V6, the Cleveland was on its way out and the 2.8 was on its way in.
Chrysler / Plymouth / Dodge / Imperial
The Best of the Worst: 2.2 liter from 1983
Output: 0.70 hp / cid
Gaining 10 galloping ponies for 1983, the 2.2 liter was starting its attempt in living up to Carroll Shelby’s claim about how it had the potential to kick a lot of fanny out on the streets. There were no stipulations for where this engine was installed as it was now the regular 2.2 found throughout the Mopar line. The prime reason for the power increase was a bump in compression from 8.5:1 to 9.0:1.
Honorable Mention Number One: 1974, 1975, 1976 360 (5.9 liter) V8
Output: 0.68, 0.64, and 0.61 hp / cid, respectively
This was the engine found in the Dart 360, Duster 360, and Valiant 360 but there is one exception.
The 1974 Challenger could be found with this engine. So equipped, the Challenger had 13.1 lbs / hp, a power-to-weight ratio that is still admirable in contemporary times.
Honorable Mention Number Two: 1976 400 V8
Output: 0.60 lbs / hp
For this time period Chrysler products generally had the highest power per unit of displacement of anyone, which is admirable given how many engines were generally emasculated during the 1970s. There won’t even be a dishonorable mention for Mopar as their larger engines all stayed above the magical 0.5 hp per cubic inch mark which helps eclipse the 318 taking a larger relative hit.
The Stand Up & Shout, Good Golly Miss Molly, Look at the Grand Champion Winner
1983 Ford Escort
Output: 0.90 hp / cid
There was no way to see this coming. While this fuel injected 1.6 liter four-banger was standard on the Escort GT, it was optional on both the regular Escort and the EXP providing a broad availability. Has this engine helped Ford atone for the convergence of sins that was the 1975 Granada? Or is this simply blind luck by Ford?
For perspective, this output per unit of displacement ties with the Cosworth Vega and its sixteen valve heads from 1975 and 1976.
The original Escort was many things – rough, crude, and packing a lot of (relative) power.
Looking at these “winners” and “losers” one thing becomes apparent; four-cylinder engines typically provide a higher specific output as they are often able to rev better.
An example of this is the VW Rabbit from 1977 and 1978 having a specific output of 0.82 horsepower per cubic inch. That’s better than the turbocharged Buick 3.8 mentioned earlier. And examples having higher specific outputs than nearly anything discussed continue as a 1977 Honda Accord produced 0.74 horsepower per cubic inch.
The sunset of what many have described as the Malaise Era brought about many things, particularly smaller engines that packed more punch per inch than the old engines had realized in quite some time – if ever. It was a time of altering needs and requirements, a time of growth with the inherent struggles that brings about. But what was learned certainly was retained as engines now possess more power for their displacement than many thought imaginable not that long ago.
That’s a great thing.
Cadillac Seville is hands down the best of that era. (i also like the Monte Carlo)
Seville is great
as is the Chrysler Newport
the Mercedes – err Granada – is amazing for the fact that it sold so well – it was craptastic
The ’79 Chrysler E58 360 has my vote, at least as far as engines go . The cars they went into, not so much. Quite strong for the era at 195 SAE Net,
but rare. Make mine a LeBaron Medallion coupe with this and Heavy Duty Trailer Assist. And just 3 years earlier, the 360 HP was rated at 245 HP. Hopefully my LeBaron is better built than the disaster my parents had.
Also, I’m assuming your assessment of the FoMoCo 351C refers to the Q-Code, at some 246 SAE Net, the 2V ones were much weaker.
Wasn’t the E58 for law enforcement only? Or was it a common item in Canada? There are so many qualifiers on what was available where and when during this time it’s hard to keep track of it all.
They were at least available in the Aspen R/T and Volare Road Runner. Since the big blocks disappeared after 1978, they may have been available in others.
As someone pointed out, they were available without restriction on F-Body Coupes. Other models usually required the Trailer package. It was also the standard engine on the ’79 Cordoba 300.
Yeah I believe he’s referring to the Q-code. This was rated at 255hp in 1974 and was only available in the Torino, Montego and the Cougar. These engines were strong for the time but had soggy low end response partially due to the emissions controls related to the ignition advance. Once the revved up enough they pulled strong. I knew someone who had a 74 cougar with a Q-code and heavy-duty suspension. He claimed it was one of the best driving cars of that time.
I’ve always wanted to take 2 identically equipped 1974 Torinos, Montegos or Cougars, one with a 460, one Q-Code, and race them against each other, just to see that happens. First, the drag strip, then the proverbial straight abandoned stretch of highway.
I bet that a 1974 460 vs a 74 Q-code would be pretty close, probably both running 1/4 mile times in the low 16 second range. The 460 probably have it out of the hole, but the Cleveland would catch it at the end of the track.
If it was a 460 PI, I’d put my money on that one. They still made 269 net hp in 1974, which was very impressive for the time. It was comparable to Dodge’s hottest 440 and Chevy’s LS4 454 for 1974. Too bad they didn’t offer in Civilian cars.
The early Q-codes, were a fair bit quicker in the lighter bodies and having bigger valves and slightly better compression. Most ’72 Q-codes run mid to low 15’s in stock form.
The 350 V8 in the Pontiac Ventura was a Buick powerplant. BOP X-bodies used Buick V8 I believe exclusively. I’ll try double checking that.
Not in any way an engine expert, but looking through The Encyclopedia of American Cars I see that the mid 70s X body cars had 350 V8 with different bores and strokes….no 2 divisions alike, much less 3. I can’t say if that is a mistake/misprint, but aside from SLIGHTLY different internal dimensions, the engines have different but similar power measurements.
The Pontiac Ventura (and presumably Olds Omega) variant(s) offered the 260 V8, made by Oldsmobile.
It was a debored 350. The 350 was 4.057 x 3.385. The 260 was 3.5 x 3.385.
The 260 V8 made all of 110 hp at 3400 rpm, 205 lb-ft at 1600.
It was not powerful, but it was smooth. Our ran very well–always started, idled smoothly, no surging or hesitating. Typically 15 mpg in Long Island driving.
I had an 84 Ford EXP, with the 1.6 engine. I can tell you my 2.5 “Iron Duke” powered Pontiac Sunbird felt faster than the EXP did… plus while I owned the Ford, it blew two head gaskets, cracked one head, and had the timing belt snap, breaking half the valves. Oh, and three of the cam lobes were wiped flat, too… Nothing was particularly good in that era. Everyone I know who had an Escort/Lynx/EXP back then, had heard gasket troubles with these motors. So hearing that it was a “bright spot” from that era, really puts a wet blanket on any nostalgia I might get…
Great article, though, I did enjoy reading it, despite how curmudgeonly I sound all of a sudden!
Mike mine a ’77 Rabbit, with the fuel injected 78hp 1.6. A friend got one new, got to drive it, and it was unforgettable. It was fast, and ran perfectly, and gobbled the curves of Mulholland Drive. What malaise?
Duster 360 for me, thank you. Most every automotive problem is solved by the application of additional cubic inches. 🙂
I had a 1979 Ford Fiesta (German built- imported for Ford). Only 66hp out of a motor of 1.6L. so a ratio of .68 per cubic inch. Bigger gain was the car weighed nothing, with a curb weight of 1775 lbs. The car was quick, tight, fun to drive. The only real competitor to the Rabbit at that point, perhaps.
Rabbit malaise? Wonky ignition cylinder and door handle mechanisms, cardboard headliner sagging, water leaking in through base of windshield directly onto fusebox. Would I still have one over an American car of that era? Gosh, yes!
I had an ’82 US Rabbit with the 3+E trans, in how many ways did it sucketh?
While the fuel-injected Escort may have beat its Rabbit counterpart slightly in HP/cid (and, if you pick an ‘83 Escort, wasn’t the 1.8 GTI available by ‘83?), if you factor in the Escort’s torque steer, it deserves some demerit points as that HP was barely usable. I test-drove a new (non FI) Escort when they were launched, thinking it might be a nice replacement for my Fiesta, and found it almost undriveable. Worse torque steer than an X11 Citation, and gaping gear gaps in its wide-ratio 4 speed. The Escort GT I drove in ‘86 was much nicer.
Yes, GTI was available in the US for the 1983 model year. By that time, the skies were definitely clearing for many makers, especially the imports.
In my opinion, 1982 was the last year of the Malaise era. By 1983, the US economy was improving, inflation was reduced, Fuel Crisis II was a fading memory, and performance was no longer a dirty word.
“In my opinion, 1982 was the last year of the Malaise era.”
Unless you still wanted a big car. Then you were still stuck with a weak 307 in your Buick or Oldsmobile or an even weaker 4.1 in your Cadillac. I would move that date out to maybe 1985-86 for anything with any size to it, because at least Ford started offering a decent EFI setup.
The first US market GTI’s were built in Westmoreland IIRC. And pretty heavily Americanized, still … are they imports? ?
I had a Westmoreland ’86 GTi (A2) which replaced my ’78 A1 Scirocco (German). I now own a ’00 Golf (Brazil). Does that mean I’ve had 1 “North American” 1 “South American” and 1 “German” VW?
All VWs were fuel injected, which may have given them a bit of an advantage especially with the light A1’s (when I moved south with all my earthly possessions including textbooks I still had from college and my Scirocco, the load was less than 5000 lbs total.
My current Golf is a bit of a slug by today’s standards, but would have been pretty middle of the road in the 70’s. Part of the reason I bought my ’86 GTi instead of an ’86 Honda Accord hatch was that I’d have to buy the LXi version of Accord to get fuel injection (was on all the Golfs/GTis) but I didn’t want power windows or locks (can’t hardly avoid them now, as well as automatic transmission).
I worked for Hertz as a transporter in ’77 and ’78, the cars might have been anemic but I probably didn’t know any better…my ’74 Datsun 710 wasn’t breaking any records either. I got my driver’s license 50 years ago, probably near the start of the malaise (I’m no speed demon, probably in part due to what was available, also haven’t bought a car in 24 years)
Your figures square pretty well with my memory, in that Mopars seemed to retain more power through the 70s, Fords retained the least, with GM in the middle. At least the 74 and 75 Chrysler engines avoided the Lean Burn system.
Dan notes above that the 74 Pontiac X body car used a Buick V8, and I have no knowledge about that one way or another. I do recall that the 2 bbl Pontiac 350 in my mother’s 74 LuxLeMans was a D.O.G.
In contrast I once drove a rental 1978 Dodge Diplomat with a 318 and was amazed at how much scoot it had for a car of that era, comparing pretty even up with the 351 in my father’s Mercury Monarch.
And Jason, thanks for all the effort crunching the numbers for this article. That was a lot of work to contribute to an automotive era so many would like to forget.
Thank you. This has been a slow work in progress that started in January.
Great research, well thought out, and well presented.
One has to look back and can only shame the era for a perceived lack of trying by the big 4 from that time. I will admit that they were not the best cars ever produced, quality was iffy and performance was non-existant, but that was the norm for that time. For the first time, the general public was interested in fuel economy over performance, and the various brands were losing differentiating factors, making cars more standardized across a company’s brands. Badge engineering overtook real engineering. While judged against today’s standards, these show neither economy or performance, but it was acceptable for the time of manufacture. Insurance had killed performance, and the cost of gas and smog gear buried it deep underground. It is funny that my 2015 Fiat 500 with a 1.4 has more horsepower (101 ponies!) than a lot of these. We should be celebrating how far we have come rather than shaming the shortcomings of the 70s and 80s. Performance and Economy are demanded now by the general public, and the manufacturers have taken it to heart.
At one point in the mid-80s I owned a ’79 Fiesta and drove an ’83 Escort ‘company car’. Though similar cars by the numbers, they were dramatically different in power and peppiness. The Fiesta (on the days when it decided to run at all) loved to wind out and felt irrepressibly lively. The Escort couldn’t get away from its own shadow.
I think the difference was in the Escort’s automatic, which forced early upshifts that couldn’t be defeated by pedal-stomping. Into second at 5, into third at 15. Lugging all the way. Horsepower doesn’t count if the car won’t let you reach the best points on the curve.
Having driven just about everything ever built with a Chrysler 2.2 Litre powerplant, both turbocharged and not, my vote would be for the only car of my reckless youth that I’d still be loving to hate today if I could find one in decent nick: The 1982 Dodge Charger 2.2.
Mine had no a/c, no power steering, no power brakes, a 4-on-the-floor and not a single option other than the requisite tape and plastic spoiler package that came with the territory. It was a truly fun little car that handled well, was economical, and could actually get out of its own way, comparatively speaking. I loved that little car.
Exactly. A salesman we knew flipped me the keys to a new ’77 Rabbit demo, and I took off by myself up in the hills around Cal State Hayward. Sunroof open, windows down, what a hoot. Great driveability, and the manual transmission worked flawlessly. For the life of me, I don’t know why I didn’t buy one of these. Price, maybe?
Maybe good you didn’t. My ‘77 Scirocco, 49-State 1.6 FI was a phenomenal car for the East Bay hills.
When it ran.
Same here: ’77 Rabbit, bombing around Route 9 Massachusetts, and then the Hocking Hills of southern Ohio. When the brake rotors weren’t shaking you apart, the EGR valve wasn’t self-clogging, and when it didn’t die an electrical death, temporarily, on the side of the road. I suspect with the Internet and You Tube we could have figured out the problems and fixed them ourselves, but we were at the mercy of the Volkswagen dealers and shade-tree Beetle mechanics, so we paid and paid. But is was soooo fun when it ran.
Of the “best of the worst” American cars, the big GM boats tug at my heart. Just to have something that is unlike anything available in a new car, I’d probably go with the ’74 Oldsmobile 455. The hard part is choosing which car to put it in. The clamshell Custom Cruiser is loaded with space and is the most practical. The 98 Regency is the plushest and most elegant. But I’d probably skip both and go with the ahead-of-its-time Toronado Brougham. Why ahead of its time? It had front wheel drive, dual front airbags, anti-lock brakes (rear only), and high-mounted brake lamps. In 1974. It also could seat six people with its wide bench seats and completely flat floor, although I’ve read complaints about rear legroom not being what it should be in a car this huge.
Had foreign cars been a choice, there are two standouts. One is a Rabbit from either ’77-’78 (maybe the Champagne Edition – remember those with the unique colors inside and out?) , an ’81-’82 LS, or an ’83 GTI. The other malaise-crusher was the Saab 99 and 900 turbos, up to ’80 after which the very practical 5 door hatchback was inexplicably discontinued in the U.S.
Is the Granada at the top a prototype? It has front vent windows that weren’t offered on production Granadas.
American car manufacturers were acting like petulant children in the wake of government emissions regulations. They didn’t like being told what to do. Points-type ignition and carburetors were kept far longer than they ought to have been.
Volkswagen, Volvo, Mercedes, etc. All had fuel injection and transistorized ignition (by Bosch) in the early 70’s, but it would have cut into the profits at the Big Three +AMC, so they were only adopted much later and begrudgingly. And even when FI was adopted, it was usually the not-much-better-than-a-carburetor TBI systems.
They got what they deserved when they made Malaise cars, which was losing tons of business to the Europeans and Japanese.
Actually, one of the last to use points and carbuerators was Honda!
Exactly. But that’s not the official narrative.
Way easier to comply when your business model is already tiny cars.
I have to take note of the second AMC photo, with the Hornet, Matador Coupe, Pacer and Matador Wagon in the woods. Four very different looking cars, with nothing in common by all appearances. No brand identity. They might have come from four different companies for all you could tell.
I wonder how much the “need” for every carmaker to have a wide variety of models in the ’70s contributed to AMC’s downfall. They were just too small to afford it.
Not for much, the Granada was’nt really a bad car. i would’nt mind having a 2 tone black and silver ghia edition fully loaded. they were nice looking mini broughams.
The Granada was a horrible car. Nothing more than a ’60 Falcon with new sheet metal, lousy performance, lousy handling, and an advertising campaign that claimed your car ‘might’ be mistaken for a Cadillac or Mercedes.
Aren’t those wonderful reasons to buy a car? So of course it sold like hotcakes to the American public.
Ownership of a Granada was a virtual public admission that you knew nothing about automobiles.
They still looked nice:(
It was a great styling and marketing job. Lee Iacocca’s crossover hit (not that kind of “crossover”); it appealed both to Boomers looking for something that would make them look and feel like real grownups and members of the Greatest Generation who didn’t need a giant car anymore but didn’t want to look like they were trading down.
Too bad there wasn’t the steak to back up the sizzle. I’d have held out for a 350/350/F41 Nova in that segment and era.
Since I still have a ’60s Falcon perched in my carport, Mr. Syke, I’m used to driving an automobile that, shall we say, lacks in performance. I’ve learned going past 65 mph in the Falcon makes it angry. It shakes and quakes and expresses its aging displeasure. So then could the ’75 Ford Granada with the ‘250’ and an automatic tranny be any slower than my ’64 Falcon with the ‘170’ and the Ford-O-Matic? I dunno. I wouldn’t mind having a 1975 Granada to find out. I like the way they looked and that’s good enough for me. I’ve never been a Performance Guy nor a leadfoot expecting loads of giddy-up from my car. I don’t care one whit about automobile performance if I think a car is ugly. Just what I’d want (NOT) a high-performance automobile that looks like it was beaten with an ugly stick right off the design floor. I’ll take the slow-poke Granada over the ’83 Escort which I find to be a nothing automobile it terms of looks.
Great article, but I was hoping for comparisons on a HP / Curb Weight basis. I’m not sure who the winner would be, but a ‘76 Caddy or Buick with a V6 would surely be at or near the bottom.
Also to be considered – – pure, unadulterated malaise, as in GM THM 200 transmissions, Ford variable venturi carbs or Mopar Lean Burn. 🙁
You mean that rare bird of a ’76 Buick LeSabre with the ‘231’? 😀
How ’bout a racing contest between said ’76 LeSabre and the ’75 Granada with the ‘250’? Which car would win? Would anyone care? Are there any ’76 LeSabre’s extant with the ‘231’ engine to even have such a contest?
Tune in when Hell freezes over to find out!
Is this limited only to American cars? For excellent power/displacement look to BMW. According to Wikipedia the 1978 BMW 733i had 173hp and 3.3 litres of displacement. This would be .88 HP/cubic inch.
Take a look at the fourth paragraph and you’ll answer your question. 🙂
I had a ’75 Duster 360 from ’78 to ’84. Pretty fast (at least in a straight line) for Malaise – I chewed up more than a few Mustang IIs in the day. But Lord, was the Plymouth crude and rust-prone. I wasn’t the least bit sorry to see it go and I still don’t miss it at all.
Interesting way to determine what was a winner and what was a loser. Me? I go straight to horsepower versus curb weight. A vehicle can have 300 horsepower, but if it weighs 3 tons it will struggle a bit more than a vehicle with 100 horsepower pulling 1 ton.
Then there was the effect of an automatic transmission on many cars of the malaise era, making a few cars feel slower than they might actually have been….or vice versa.
How much power was in a 1965 Falcon four door and an I6? The lead paragraph makes it sound as if there were never any low HP cars before the 70’s.
Not all 60’s cars were “muscle cars” as some younger Millennials assume.
At the risk of sounding testy, but you’ve missed the premise of the entire article. It’s about specific output, unit of power per unit of displacement. ?
And thank you for thinking I’m younger than I am. At 45, that’s appreciated.
Tomcatt: I can tell you how much power was in a 1964 Ford Falcon with the ‘170’ and 2-speed Ford-O-Matic according to the owners manual. It says ‘101 gross horsepower’. Indeed. My opinion: It has less than 101 hp. Much less.
I went from a 63 179 cube Holden, 115hp new to a 65 170 cube Falcon the 170 has a lot less go both were well used cars.
I owned a ‘78 Buick Regal Sport Coupe with the turbo V6 and I can attest you haven’t lived until you’ve had a twin-stick Dodge Colt blow past you on a sweeping curve, like you were standing still.
Bah!!!
The 75 Granada WAS NOT the worse malaise mobile. Why the hate? It did exactly what it was designed to do!! Just like every other compact Ford made. I don’t give a rats ass about hp per liter. Everyone suffered then, EVERYONE! The Granada was the first attempt, at least by Ford, at bringing large car amenities and comfort to the compact class. And I think they succeded.
Where have I hated on the Granada? Please provide examples as I am quite curious.
Since you don’t give a rat’s ass about horsepower per liter, an objective measure used to illustrate some good that was going on during a time in which “EVERYONE!” suffered, what would be a better approach to illustrate the positives during that time?
I think I got confused. I’ll be quiet and go away. It’s been a long day.
In 74 I would go for a Buick Century GS 455 Stage One with 255 hp.
Speaking as somebody that had to ride in a 1976 Mercury Monarch sedan from the day he was born in 1977 until 1986 when the car was replaced, I can say that even if it was not the worst car to come out of the malaise Era, it still was a miserable piece of shit. In the summer it literally and figuratively was a big, steaming pile of dog shit.
So lets recap what made it a pile in my eyes.
1. It was well equipped and had working AC however even the folks sitting in the front seat really were not cooled off (the folks in the back had no chance of any air condition relief) due to the AC being weak (yes the car was checked many many many times at the dealer and every time it was returned as working correctly)
2. The car despite being touted by Ford as being a fullsize car disguised as a compact, it was not. The thing was cramped as crap (and my family were not fat)
3. Performance sucked. When buses and Volvo 240s are passing you and you got the pedal down almost to the floor…. well that speaks volumes
4. It liked to play the “lets start up when i want to” game. You never knew if the damn thing would start the next day. Of course nobody could find or fix the reason it did so.
It was replaced in 1986 by a 1986 Dodge Aries K wagon, which was on all accounts a much better car. It had cold A/C that could be felt in the back and it actually started up each time it was needed to be started
In the end, the Monarch was given to a neighbor as a partial payment for remodeling the bathrooms in the house. Yup that’s right, that piece of shit was used to update the shitters in the house
Are you saying you didn’t fancy the Monarch, Leon? 😀
My neighbors from June 1976 – July 1979 had a new 1976 Monarch. It was like a powder blue color. I can’t remember if I ever rode in it, but the color made the car stick in my mind for over 40 years. I still have a mental picture of it in all its light blue glory.
Nope.
It is interesting that you mention the power blue color. That Monarch was power blue but then in about 1983-1984, the hood became gray. Something happened to the hood on that car but my dad will never say what exactly happened to it.
Had an ’84 Escort many moons ago and as I recall it really wasn’t all that terrible to drive. Seems to me it didn’t have much difficulty getting out of its own way 🙂 . My ’77 305 powered Silverado? Loved that truck but damn, was that thing SLOW. I think I got passed by several glaciers while driving it 😀 !
Great article Jason! I was actually thinking of writing something like this up, but you beat me to the punch.
I am assuming you weren’t including the high performance cars? You didn’t mention the L82 350. At 220 hp it was making about .63 hp per cubic inch. It certainly was one of the stronger motors of the era and actually had some semblance of performance tuning. You mentioned the 455 SD, which was a true performance engine, but there was also the WS6 Trans Ams, that made 220 hp, making .55 hp per cubic inch.
I think it’s important to remember thought that peak horsepower doesn’t always mean the best performance, especially in this era. The 1975 350 Chevrolet for instance was only rated at 155 hp. This engine was used in the 1975 9C1 Nova and it was a one of the top performers despite it’s low hp rating. Even in other cars it wasn’t as weak as the hp rating made it seem.
Here is a PS that shows the peak HP isn’t always top dog (yet I realize there are many other variables, but it still neat to look at the old performance results). And it includes a 302 Granada!
Someone mentioned he Volare Road Runner, even with the 360 it’d didn’t fare overly well:
Did they run those tests with the E-brake on? Almost 15 seconds to 60 for a 360? Something was definitely wrong. We had a ’78 Lebaron Coupe, loaded, 318 Lean Burn (that never ran right until the car was 3 yrs old) and 2.45 gear
that could do in about 13s, admittedly by a stopwatch.
Many of these old tests didn’t add up to my own experiences with a fully broken in and properly tuned up example. A 360 in one of these running properly should have easily been able to run at least a 10 second time or better.
Popular Science always ran their tests with two people in the car.
Popular Science performance times are usually significantly slower than other publications. Unlike other magazines, I don’t believe they did performance launches to achieve the best times. And while I am sure a broken in well tuned engine would turn better times, the other cars had green engines and no special tunes either.
The 360 Volare is slow, but keep in mind it is the 2bbl variant. While this one is probably slower than the typical 360 Volare, this more likely reflects the poor quality control of the Chrysler at the time. Most of the other old road tests I read of 360 powered Mopars of this era weren’t super strong performers either.
Having had wheel time in a 360-2 Cordoba, I always thought the smog 360 was strongest of the mid-inch smoggers. Certainly peppier than any 351-2V (C,W, M, don’t matter!) in a similar size car .
I agree with you Roger that the 351-2V’s of the mid to late 70’s were generally poor performers. FWIW, I agree most 360s were decent for the times, I just think the one in this Volare was typical of the large variations in engine performance due to poor quality control. However, I always thought the 350 Chevrolets, in particular the LM1 350-4bbl, were the overall best performing mid sized V8’s of the era.
Here are some more test stats I dug up (including a 360 Powered Charger):
1976 Ford Elite 400-2V: 0-60, 12.6 secs
1976 Pontiac Lemans 350-2bbl: 0-60, 14.6 secs
1976 Olds Cutlass 350-4bbl: 0-60 12.4 secs
1976 Dodge Charger S.E. 360-4bbl, 0-60, 13.7 secs
1977 Thunderbird 351-2V: 0-60, 15.1 secs
1977 Chev Monte Carlo 350-4bbl: 0-60, 11.5 secs
I also dug up some more numbers from the 1977 LASD police vehicle tests. They tested 4 different 360 powered Mopars and you’ll see that there was quite the spread in the performance between the Aspen and Volare, despite being mechanically identical.
AMC Matador 360 2bbl, 0-60 10.9 secs
Chevy Nova, 350 4bbl, 0-60 8.6 secs
Dodge Aspen 360 4bbl, 0-60 12.3 secs
Dodge Monaco 360 4bbl, 0-60 11.8 secs
Plymouth Fury 360 4bbl, 0-60 11.8 secs
Plymouth Volare 360 4bbl, 0-60 11.6 secs
Pontiac Catalina 403-4bbl, 0-60 10.3 secs
Pontiac LeMans, 403-4bbl, 0-60 10.8 secs
Wrangling this much information is a handful. I tried to eliminate any limited production or availability engines as best I could, such as the SD455 although I did make reference to it for illustrative purposes.
There’s no way I can claim this to be comprehensive. My primary goal was to emphasize the positive and shine a ray of sunshine on a generally dreary time period. The 250 Granada for 1975 reflected bleak so I know everything could not be at that level and was curious what was not.
I still have my favorite malaise mobile, my ’79 Malibu and still believe it is one of the best cars I have ever owned. I don’t know if these rate as among the best with most people, but mine does with me.
I also like the Granada and would have bought one in 1975 instead of the Mustang II I ended up with, but my income at the time wouldn’t have allowed it.
Excellent article- well researched and presented.
The numbers didn’t tell everything though. I had a Malibu Coupe with a 305, perf Axle, and Sport Suspension that could do a credible job carving up backroads. Like most GM products of the time, the choice of options meant everything.
I have to agree on that. Mine has the Sport Suspension (F41) and for it’s time was a good corner carver. Having driven one without that option, I can say it made all the difference in the world.
In fact, that capabilities got me out of some bad situations caused by other drivers.
The Granada was the worst? I must disagree. After all, I briefly consider a Granada for my first new car purchase in 1975! Fortunately, it was a brief thought.
I strongly believe almost every Chrysler vehicle was far worse in almost every respect, except for the Dart & Valiant.
Thing is, Chrysler had two good things going for them at that time: The 225 slant six and the Torqueflite transmission. Not sure about their V8s.
Jeeps were pretty bad as well, mainly because they rusted out on you practically overnight!
Watched a rerun of the Harrisburg Mecum Auction last night and saw a ’73 Caprice go over the block. Like new condition with only 3,000 original miles but it got me thinking…..400 C.I. engine with 150 net HP pitters out a squeaking 0.375 horsepower per cubic inch, new deleterious low?
The good news is that a simple intake and carburetor upgrade and a bit more timing could easily swing that number over the 200 mark with lot of torque too. The sky is the limit for Small block Chevy engines and anything rom a 350 to a current LS1 would swap right in.
One of my choices would be a new 1980 Grand Prix SJ or Grand AM with the std W72 170 Horse 301 that actually had dual exhaust exiting out of the rear sides, used a 2.93 rear end instead of the lame 2.14 that lesser 301 cars had, a firm shifting THM 350 transmission and of course all of the usual goodies that came with them like F41 suspension, gauges package, rally or snowflake wheels, buckets seats and much better driving dynamics than the regular cars.
Incidentally I owned two such cars back in the early 2000’s. The white car was a 1980 SJ with snowflake wheels and burgundy bucket seat interior and the other 1980 was an LJ with burgundy outside and inside but split bench seat, base suspension, gauge cluster but with no tach and the lower output 145 HP 301 4BBL tied to the 200 Metric and 2.14 rear gears. Each car looked similar but getting behind the wheel revealed two very different cars. The LJ was the smooth cruiser with adequate pep and safe handling and it was eerily quiet. The SJ was much more brash with considerably tighter and more athletic handling and far stronger performance. Even the transmission shifted tighter and more crisply. This car was like a preview for the upcoming Monte SS and Olds Hurst in 1983. If I could do it now I would order a new 1980 SJ in dark blue with matching interior. It was a ray of sunshine in an otherwise dark Malaize time for cars and I had a lot of fun with that car.
I had an ’82 Mercury Lynx with a 4 speed. Had to replace the aluminum cylinder head, but couldn’t find a used head without cracks. Finally found one, but it cost something like $350 in 1988 or 1989. Drove it for 3 more years until it developed the dreaded milkshake coolant syndrome. Traded it to my (gracious and magnanimous) father-in-law for an ’88 Dodge Aries which blew a head gasket itself 2 years later. Oh to be young and poor with a new family and new mortgage…
Best of the malaise? Easy- Pontiac Trans Am. In spite of the death of the factory hotrods, Oil Crisis V1.0, a crappy economy, Safety and Emissions standards that seemed designed to kill the looks and fun in new cars… In spite of all that, the Trans Am wound up being the last man standing. A Catalyst Equipped ’75 455 T/A could still pull 0-60 in 7.8 sec and a 16.1 sec 1/4 mie. Keep in mind the ’75 455 was a station wagon motor, and in no way related to the SD455 from ’73 & ’74. Those motors could pull a sub 15 sec 1/4 no problemo.
The real mystery was, in 1975, Pontiac sold more Firebirds than they had in six years, and fully 1/3 of them were Trans Ams. Apparently many buyers knew the same thing- we would not pass this way again.
reprint link, C&D Road Test: http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990507921738/1975-09_CD_1975_Pontiac_Trans_Am_Test_1-5.pdf
Nice bit of research and writing, Jason—a comparison whittled down and served up to us starting with a **lot** of data.
Now I wish I could resurrect my ’75 Granada 250, and then my early-1980s Escort (well, Mercury Lynx). I remember the latter as doggier on the on-ramp or when passing, which shows how memory can be fickle. But then, the Granada had the 3-speed and the Lynx the slushbox, which might have skewed things.
If online numbers are trustworthy, I see Ford’s 400 in 1974 (170hp) comes in at a modest 0.42; down to 158hp for 1975 (0.393); then hp back to to 180 for 1976. Evidently the 460 about the same.
And here we are in 2018, with a “family car” Fusion 1.5 Ecoboost getting 181hp from 91 cubic inches—-wow!
re the 400-Friends parents had a ’75 LTD 400 that couldn’t pull the skin off a rice pudding, but a buddy who’s dad was the used car manager at a Ford store,(who had use of countles demos to abuse, LOL) got a 76 LTD Landau (180 HP) to lay a very impressive patch. I recall being astounded. Alas, it was short lived and the 400 was back down to 159 HP in 1978, it’s final year (in cars at least)
Ford’s horspower numbers in this era were all over the map. They had different ratings for the same engine in different chassis, despite no internal differences in the engines. 1975 was defintiely the worst year for Ford and GM. For both, the catalytic converters killed a ton of power, but they did allow for richer mixtures and improved driveability.
For 1975, the Ford 400 got a more restrictive head design and a very mild ignition tune. The 1971-74 used a head identical to the 351C-2V, which had excellent flow. Despite the fact the 1976 was rated at 180 hp, it used the same cam specs, the same heads, the same air cleaner, exhaust manifolds, etc. The only difference of any significance was the igntion system. I suspect a more aggressive igntion tune was the primary difference. Ford was changing the electronic ignition system annually until they finally came out with Dura Spark 2.
I recall the Olds 403 in its most common home (1977-79 Firebirds) made 185hp.
To the end, HP rating notwithstanding, a 440-powered Plymouth Fury Pursuit Special was a true 130+MPH car, even a 4500lbs.
Wow! Really sad numbers!
I owned a 75 Caprice with the 350-2 and it was painfully under powered.
But, we now own a 1976 Mark IV (225hp from its 460-4 with factory dual exhaust) and a 1978 Thunderbird which, as near as I can find is 168hp from it’s California spec 400-2!!
One of the better ones we owned was a 1992 S10 Blazer four door. Though it wasn’t listed as an option in the sales brochure, it had the new Vortex 200hp 4.3! Note that vehicle would even catch second gear when running it hard.
One of these was my high-school driver ed car. Loaded with students and the instructor, I recall how slow it was gathering speed to enter the expressway. Recall wondering if all cars would be like this going forward (thankfully, no). Also recall the tires howling a little when I took the exit ramp at the posted 50 mph, and maintained 50 around the curl of the trumpet — I’d missed the little sign far off to the right that recommended 30 mph for that curve. I’m not sure if the instructor flinched, but at any rate my turn was over.
I note that the highest specific power output is reserved for new designs, as the 1.6L four in the Escort was a new design, and IIRC, the first Ford engine to receive EFI as standard equipment. This was the beginning of the engineers learning how to manage the twin bogeys of fuel economy and emissions control without emasculating power output. The Europeans were light-years ahead of Detroit, adopting fuel injection a good ten (10) years ahead of Detroit, since fuel was so much more expensive in Europe than here in the good ole US of A, they had to make fuel efficiency a much higher priority than here in the land of $0.30/gal. gasoline. It’s not just price that was an issue, either. Europe has to import almost all of it’s liquid petroleum fuels, so availability is as important as the price, a lesson Uncle Sam learned the hard way when OPEC shut off the oil spigot in 1973 and again in 1979.
Trying to adapt the old designs to the new realities was a losing proposition, and as new engine and transmission designs begin moving from the laboratory to production, the situation began to improve.
Since this was about the Granada has there ever been anything on the Ford Elite? I ask because today I saw a true beater of a Elite being driven by a fellow between 25-35. I was at a stop light under 680 when this car pulled up next to me. I was momentarily stunned by what was it till he past me as I went left. The only other one I know of is/was owned by my brother in white while this one was a bronzy brown. Naturally I was in the 91 626.
Some of those numbers are truly pathetic. Although I never cared for them I’d have to go with the Escort. These figures made my old Renault 18i (yeah I’m crazy) look pretty good at .81. If only I hadn’t fallen for the dealer installed kluged up, but at least in-dash, air conditioning.
Just wonder how this article works. Each GM division gets its own pick, but you lump all the Chrysler Corp, AMC, and Ford Motor Co. cars together. Puzzling.
This article works off operational history. Each GM division had its own unique engine family until the engine sharing really ramped up in the late 1970s (and referenced in the article), but Chrysler, AMC, and Ford Motor Co. lumped their engines together. Not so puzzling.
Jason, speaking of AMC-Chrysler engines, I’m puzzled by that ’77-’78 Gremlin 2.5 L. There’s no 2.5L in the brochures and, while I hate to cite it, Wikipedia says the 2.5L didn’t come along until 1984.
Did you mean the VW/Audi OHC 2.0-liter? Looks like it pencils out (80 hp/121 = 0.66), and AMC had a two-year deal to buy them for ’77-’78.
Might explain the car’s, ahem, unexpected efficiency – but wouldn’t it also disqualify this Gremlin as a foreign-powered ringer? 😉
Really enjoyed the piece.
Maybe you can’t blame the american automakers to have that low power output. In Germany the cars were taxed by displacement and I think other European countries did the same. That forced automakers to build small high reving engines. Using huge slow reving engines in the US give you the benefit of low stress on components and a long lifetime.
In that respect I checked my cars for power/displacement: Oldsmobile Diesel (DX block) 105HP/350cuin=0.3, Mercedes 200 Diesel 55HP/122cuin=0.45, Jaguar XJ 5.3 287HP/325cuin=0.88, and Mercedes 260E 160HP/158cuin=1.01.
Knowing the history of the Olds Diesel, the engine has it’s problems even with the low power output. But I managed to do 160k miles so far. The 2 Mercedes are both above 250k miles.
What should be wrong with deeply relaxed working, low revving, long living engines ?
Who the heck need’s +300 hp in a car ?
I think, the real “malaise” was not the engines but the fact that Detroit lost it’s mojo when it came to style and build quality.
Just an observation…back when the advertisement was composed for the ’76 Ventura, they didn’t have AI generated images. That being said, I see a similar odd defect in the artist’s rendition of the car; look at the lights, and the grille! How did this happen, I wonder?
The 1979 BMW 528i had one horsepower per cubic inch, but it was expensive. Unlike today, you didn’t wonder what you were paying for after driving a BMW. The top 1979 Pontiac Trans Am had an optional 220 horsepower 400 ci engine(.55 hp/ci). The good engine was a $90 option over the malaise station wagon engines from Pontiac and Oldsmobile that were standard. Considering the cars sold for around $7,000 with options, it seem silly how few of the cars were sold with the strong engine.
The 351 Ford, installed in a 1976 LTD. That poor dog had the most horse, gasping, death rattle bark of anything I’ve ever driven. Just a few years old and well maintained at the time. My dad bought it new.
Woof.
I’ll give it credit for smooth. Transmission shifts were imperceptible as it’s golf cart like forward movement glacially got up to speed.
I’m pretty sure the AMC 258 with the 1BBL carburetor was rated at 95 HP. This would’ve been 1975-1978.
In 1977 the 2BBL equipped version was 114 HP, though I recall seeing references of 120 HP back then somewhere, but cannot substantiate it now.