VW Vortex - Volkswagen Forum banner

Large engines that made pathetic power?

10K views 75 replies 52 participants last post by  patrikman 
#1 ·
What are some cars with large engines that made absolutely ridiculously low power for their size? 80's Camaro with the 5.0L that made 148hp comes to mind. Others?

 
See less See more
1
#14 ·
I think my Pontiac (305 V8 carbureted) and Olds (3.8 V6 EFI) both advertised 165 HP, and my Buick (1990 Estate Wagon 307 V8 carbureted) advertised 140 HP.

What a stunning car. If people are going to buy personal-luxury vehicles that make no logical sense, at least they should look like that instead of, say, the BMW X6 :p

-Andrew L
 
#26 ·
In to see what all everyone comes up with, but for me Lincoln jumps to mind:


Continental Mark VI: 5.0 V8 with 129 horsepower or a 5.8L V8 with 140 horsepower
My folks had an 81 Mark VI with the 302. It didn't exactly scoot, but it wasn't as terrible as it sounds on paper. It could probably keep up with a modern economy car and wasn't as heavy as it looked. It's​ primary purpose was to be smooth, reliable and get good gas mileage for the time (averaging 25mpg highway with the a/c on). With 231ft/lbs at 2,000 rpm, it wasn't a bad engine at all and the transmission was geared just right. We tried killing it as it neared 200k miles but it refused to die, probably the best car they ever owned. It was much better than the 85 Buick LeSabre that followed. Similar class of car, similar weight and size, similarly sized engine produced similar power, yet was anemically slow, couldn't accelerate up a hill, had a rough ride, and worse mpg in comparison. The Lincoln was like floating down a river made of flowing chocolate; the Buick was like riding a drunk horse up a cobblestone hill. That Olds 307 would have made a better boat anchor. Same with the monster 500 ci engines Cadillac had in the late 70s.
 
#9 ·
In fairness to that top camaro, that was only 82 and 83. 84 could get the HO 305 with 190, and afterwards the 215/300 tuned port injection. My automatic was a 15 second car at 93mph, not bad.



500ci was rated at 190 hp from 75 onwards. Olds 403 was just 170 hp, and the 318 "lean burn" Chrysler was about 130. De-bored 4.2 windsor was 115-120 and the very solid Oldsmobile 260 was 110.
 
#10 ·
Besides the obvious stuff from the 70s and 80s, I remember being underwhelmed with the output of the New Edge Mustang GT, which came out with a 260 hp 4.6L in 1999 the same year that the the S2000 came out with their 240 hp 2.0L. The decade between the early 90's to the early 00's were full of tiny engined imports that would go toe to toe with big engined domestics, which led to the import tuner craze.

Today, Corvettes, Mustangs, Camaros have seriously stepped up their game, playing in a completely different ballpark than sport compacts.
 
#13 ·
Besides the obvious stuff from the 70s and 80s, I remember being underwhelmed with the output of the New Edge Mustang GT, which came out with a 260 hp 4.6L in 1999 the same year that the the S2000 came out with their 240 hp 2.0L. The decade between the early 90's to the early 00's were full of tiny engined imports that would go toe to toe with big engined domestics, which led to the import tuner craze.
Yeah it seems like the import tuner stuff started to kick off in the early 90s when cars like the Sentra SE-R and Integra GS-R were hot. Similar to what you pointed out, the 90's Mustang was something of an underperformer for sure. They had the old 302 all the way through 1995, and still only had 215hp through 1997. So if we pick 1997, you could get a 4.6 liter Mustang V8 with 215hp or a 1.8 liter Integra Type-R with 195hp that would outperform it in pretty much every possible way. I would actually argue that 1999 was when Ford finally started to get their act together again with the Mustang.

 
#11 ·
just read an article about old Rollers used as tanks/armored assault vehicles essentially (think early 1900's) which had 7.5 liter engines pushing 80hp.

apparently that 80hp was an evolutionary improvement from the original which was a 7 liter that put out 48hp.

from wiki:
The car at first had a new side-valve, six-cylinder, 7036 cc engine (7428 cc from 1910)

Continuous development allowed power output to be increased from 48 bhp (36 kW) at 1,250 rpm to 80 bhp (60 kW) at 2,250 rpm.
 
#15 ·
If you go only by specific output, this is true. But if you go by size and weight, then not so much. Truthfully I don't know much about Dodge V8s, but I do know that the LS7 weighs the same as an S65, and it makes 90 more horsepower.
 
#17 ·
It's arguable about the malaise era V8s and their pathetic power on paper. Many were simple tuning away from much better performance, like different springs and weights on the dizzy to hotter plugs or different gaps. Carbs? Even a simple jet change can do wonders, carb tuning is going to be a lost science for too long. Cam and lifters can be done stupid fast on some old cars.

Depending on the motor some of those gutless lumps were tuned to run on crap fuel and hastily modified for lower emissions and not for making 11s. With fluids and filters and cool water some of those gutless lumps will do whatever you ask them to almost forever. I had a 260 Olds V8 with about 110hp that returned almost 25mpg hwy and ran fine at almost 300k miles. It has a rod knock and ate the plastic timing gears one winter when I was beating on it but it was a tank. I would have ran it for years after that if it weren't for the 350 Rocket.
 
#69 ·
It's arguable about the malaise era V8s and their pathetic power on paper. Many were simple tuning away from much better performance, like different springs and weights on the dizzy to hotter plugs or different gaps. Carbs? Even a simple jet change can do wonders, carb tuning is going to be a lost science for too long. Cam and lifters can be done stupid fast on some old cars.

Depending on the motor some of those gutless lumps were tuned to run on crap fuel and hastily modified for lower emissions and not for making 11s.
QFT. Simple upgrades that are dirt cheap will make those motors come alive. On a big V8, extra HP can be added for pennies. I still believe those late 70's Firebirds, TAs, and Camaros are going to experience a HUGE resurgence in the near future - and not for being in "stock" form either.
 
#30 ·
1976 Pontiac Grand Prix LJ, 455 cubic inches, claimed 200 hp. The car seemed so heavy it felt like 95 hp. The one my parents had the paint scheme opposite this one. Black body, silver on the raised part of the hood and trunk.



 
#43 ·
hp/l is silly.

The higher the number is, the more high-strung the engine is, the mor you gotta wring it's neck, and the closer to failure it is.

170hp out of a 5.0l V8 will make that lazy power all day every day effortlessly.
 
#45 ·
GM 3.8L V6, or any pushrod GM V6 for that matter.
Highest NA output was 170 hp NA, and roughly 210 lb ft of torque.
Honda's B18 put out similar hp with less that half the displacement.
At a point the EM2 Si had nearly as much power from a 1.6!
I believe even GM's own Quad 4 put out more power

Supercharged however, the 3.8 series iii had an acceptable 240-260 hp and was highly upgradable.
 
#50 ·
The 7.4L (454 cu in) big block in the Silverado 2500 and Suburban 2500 as of 1995 was still only 230HP.
 
#53 ·
Do you have tags on it?
 
#72 ·
How about small motors is big cars? My first car was a 1984 Monte Carlo, with the base V6, which made a whopping 125hp and had 3 gears. It was slow as poop but I loved it.
There were a couple 262 cu in versions of the small block Chevrolet V8 that were pretty lame. Your Monte probably had the 229 "semi-even-fire" V6. Wiki says 110hp for those ...

Ford had a 255 cu in version of the Windsor V8 in 1980-1982, which was pretty dismal (115 - 122 hp per Wikipedia).
 
#58 ·
1977 Ford Thunderbird, similar to the Mk IV. I got this bad boy in 1981 in silver with a red vinyl top and wire hubcaps. It did have the 400 ci (6.6l) engine so it had 173 hp and 326 lb/ft of torque so it would go pretty good by the standards of the day. You could set the cruise to 80 on the highway and it was like sitting in on the sofa in your living room. 4300 lbs and about 12 mpg most of the time. The headlight covers would always fail and sometimes you would have one open and one closed so it looked like it was winking.

 
#60 ·
My FJ62 has a 4.0 liter straight six that makes 155 hp and 220 lb/ft of torque.

Of course, it could be worse: the FJ60 had a 4.2 L version of the same motor that made 135hp/210 torque.
Even worse than that, my 1987 Jeep Wrangler made 112 hp/210 ft-lbs from 4.2L. Even the base Wrangler w/ the 2.5L 4-banger from that same year made more horsepower - 117 vs. 112 - albeit significantly less torque.

To be fair, those engines are known for their diesel-like power delivery. My Jeep was never happy being above 2500 RPM, and made most of its power by 2000 RPM anyway. Redline was at 4500 RPM.
 
#61 ·
Rover V8 - varied from 158 hp/210 lb·ft in 3.5 trim, 3.9/4.0 made 190 hp/236 lb·ft and the swan song of the the old buick 215 design, the 4.6, made 225 hp/280 ft•lbf. The 5L version that TVR made was pretty decent putting out 340 hp/350 lbf·ft, but that was pretty bespoke and not a big production item like the the standard Rover mills.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top