it's Reagan's first term. can you handle the raw intensity of your smog 255 V8 Mustang with 105 hp?
>>29130509No. I yank out the engine and replace it with a '70-'73 Cleveland.
Yes, that's enough raw horsepower to BTFO european group A homologated race cars.
>>29130509they brought back the 302 in 82, it was just a short unfortunate interlude in 80-81 with that cursed 255
>>29130509Pretty sure it was 120 horsepower.But the 80s were brutal.Technology hadn't advanced enough emissions wise.These days it's not hard to make 1,000hp pass smog,
>>29130515is that a USDM BMW or a European one? The European ones didn't have smog shit and were faster.
>>29130521it was tested in europe by a european youtube channel so it was indeed a european one.
>>29130520things had hugely improved by decade's end in part because they had sequential multipoint injection. the early 80s were really bleak though.
>>29130515granted, most E30s were four pots and only top shelf models had a six. however i can't figure out which engines USDM versions had other than that they definitely didn't have the diesel.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_3_Series_(E30)
>>29130509rip out the smog hoses...but then it still has tiny intakes and can barely breathe.
>>29130530Not that into BMWs but the E30 looks nice. QRD on which ones are worth caring about?
>>29130515Even if you had a base Mustang with the Lima four it would still be bigger in displacement than any of the BMW engines except the M30 which was the top mill in the E30 and which most wouldn't have been equipped with.
>>29130521I think it's a euro, but It's irrelevant either way as those times are in different locations, drivers, tyres, decades, climates, yada yada yada - In period articles from Car and Driver put both the E30 M3 and Fox Body at 15.2 seconds over the quarter, so it's a moot point. Interestingly, the article I got the Fox Body time from was running head to head against a Camaro Z28 H.O, which beat the Mustang and E30 by, if I'm reading it correctly, four tenths of a second. Camaro chads just keep winning.
>>29130544There is a reason Group A regulations hit higher capacity engines with so much ballast. If american cars entered group A on equal footing it would've been the GT40 all over again.
Anything is better than the Pontiac 1000, with its 0-60 MPH time of 30 (thirty) seconds, and 23 (twenty-three) second quarter mile.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMsXLYFU0pU
>>29130545>Interestingly, the article I got the Fox Body time from was running head to head against a Camaro Z28 H.O, which beat the Mustang and E30 by, if I'm reading it correctly, four tenths of a second. Camaro chads just keep winning.>Camaro has a 305 and Mustang a 302wouldn't think that such a small difference in displacement would matter but i guess it did.
>>29130549these only got a 1.6L I4 making a mere 70 hp. that's comparable to the smallest engines in the BMW E30.
>>29130547>80kg for every 500ccSeems fair to me? Encourages improvements to specific output, which is philosophically better engineering that just throwing displacement at the problem.
>>29130549Nonetheless these are quite terrifying when 350 swapped.
>>29130530US-spec 3-Series for '83 had the 1.8L engine as the standard power plant. We didn't get the diesel (obviously) and the I6s were not offered in the US until sometime later.
>>29130544https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_3_Series_(E30)#Four-cylinder_petrolUh no they did have a 2.3L engine. Same displacement as the Lima.
>>29130555that kind of philosophy is why european cars don't last. taking a 2 L and boosting it to 900 HP even if it only last a few thousand miles vs taking a 7 L V8 and getting better fuel economy, better throttle response, and better durability.it's an arbitrary standard that doesn't actually make for a better engine.
>>29130565I don't disagree, that is an issue. I believe that was original purpose of endurance racing, but over the years that has been minmaxed away. The mentality of 'so long as it makes race distance' isn't good enough for me, they should be truly durable.
>>29130550The Z28 H.O. had 190hp/240lb-ft.Even the hopped up '84 GT350 was 175hp/245lb-ft.
>>29130565best you can do with European gas prices
Can someone explain, what exactly was the "smog" thing in the car that made it slower? Was it as simple as yanking it out and then you have 400 hp?
>>29130585this is why europeans should start racing EVs only. the addition of hybrid systems is a nice start, but we need EV only series.
>>29130586It was cramming the exhaust with CO2 absorbing material, lowering compression, and reducing airflow. anything to make the combustion more "lean" and less potent.
>>29130586>Can someone explain, what exactly was the "smog" thing in the car that made it slower? Was it as simple as yanking it out and then you have 400 hp?only partially. you can yank the smog hoses out but the engine still has a super mild cam and pinhole intakes.
>>29130509Ya know, it's not like new cars weren't a disappointment with each new model years announcement. At the time this was made V8's were expected to be gone forever by 1982 with the new car choices being nothing more than a sea of stripper Citations and K cars powered by even smaller 4 cylinders than they had at the time.
>>29130606the fact that Chrysler sold shitboxes for just 8k brand new was mind blowing.
>>29130509>early 80s>brand new MustangEh, I'll be buying some "used shitboxes" for a few grand instead
>>29130610inflation-adjusted probably closer to 30,000 in today's money
>>29130611good luck affording the gas with early 80s gas prices. back to your Chevette, sucker.
>>29130509It's Reagan's first term and I like everyone else is listening to every media source tell me that nuclear war is gon a start soon and that jap cars are for traitors.
>>29130509Ford almost went under back then. People remember Chrysler almost going under, but Ford was in almost as bad of a financial state in the early 80s.
>>29130509got Van Halen tix?
we had 'em all in my family back then. Chevettes, Omnis. Fox body Mustangs, Escorts.
>>29130525later Fox body Mustangs with the Taurus styling were common when i was a kid but the early 80s ones like the OP were long gone from the road by then
>>29130509laugh if you want but the typical early 80's car was a lot faster than a car you would likely get in 1971 mainly from better gear ratios>>29130555then they started holding back turbos
>>29130509that was when they only had 55 mph speed limits anyway
>>29130521they also weren't weighted down by 5 mph bumpers
>>29130538>Not that into BMWs but the E30 looks nice. QRD on which ones are worth caring about?the I6 ones but they're uncommon as it was the top-spec engine. most E30s are fours especially in Europe.
>>29130666otherwise with I4 models you just have a basic grocery getter. though they probably handle better than the six cylinder ones as the front end is lighter.
>>29130509Faggot commie like trump
>>29130606Ford temporarily shelved the 460 V8 in light trucks 1980-82. GM continued offering the 454 during this time despite there not being many takers.
the Escort was the biggest seller car in USA in 1982 with over 235k sold
>>29130682Your mom was the biggest escort in 1982 with 235k serviced.
>>29130682yeah it was a shitbox
>>29130692I keep forgetting that people in their 30s could have a mom born in '76 if she had them young (like say at 18). Fuck I'm getting old.
>>29130509*sound of AC/DC intensifies*
>>29130690Me mum was 7 in 1982. Which makes all of them pedos
>>29130550It wasn't the displacement it was the dogshit heads and refusal to give up the 2 barrel carb
>>29130616My dad was fucking around in a 68 valiant that probably got less than 20mpg, working for a computer repair store getting paid shit loads more than I do now, I'd probably be fine in something more bravado
>>29130704that's a grandmabox with a Slant Six, not exactly a muscle car. still quicker than an 80s car as it was pre-emissions.
>>29130706the /6 was always an economy engine with a 1 barrel carb, but its paper pre-emissions rating was 140 hp. of course this is an asspull because Detroit used to cheat by testing engines not hooked up to anything and the real hp going to the wheels was probably 110-115. by the early 80s the /6 only had 90 hp.
>>29130666Is the M3 actually good, or just a homologation car?
>>29130712German cars and engineering were at the top of their game back then, it's not like now where they're shitty blingboxes for Slavs and Turks to flex in.
>>29130509>Reagan took office in January of '81 >in September of '81 you could buy a '82 model year Mustang GT with 157hp
>>29130550There are no less than 2 dozen other factors besides displacement that determine an engine's output and the curves of which.
>>29130741that's not 157 hp, lol. see >>29130710
All 4 pot cars from this time absolutely need manual shift, automatics on 80s small cars were horrendous to drive.
>>29130948usually. K-cars with the Mitsubishi 2.6 were auto only, they only had stick on the 2.2.
>>291309532.6 is a relatively big I4, some V6s are that size so it presumably had enough torque that automatic didn't cost you much.
>>29130712US spec was nerfed and heavier, euro spec had better engines and could be had without a sunroof. They were good buys before the prices on them went crazy but that's true for pretty much every car.
>>29130971USDM E30s had a limited options list, you could only get a few preset option packages whereas in Europe you could order individual features from a list. This was just the normal nature of export models--the same was true of Japanese cars.
>>29130948It wasn't just the 80s.at WOT it grabs 2nd at 35 and Drive at 70.
>>29130948idk man, my dad drove a manual car through the D.C. Beltway once and he lived to regret it
>>29130972Mercedes killed the grey import market just before the M3's launch too. By the time they could legally be imported prices had gone bananas.
>>29130513fippy bippy, unfathomably based, collect $200
>>29130972USDM Euro and Japanese cars usually had the biggest available engines and we tended to not get diesels or 1.3L fours.
>>29130971>US spec was nerfed and heavier5 mph bumpers were dropped after 82. That said, manufacturers had large stockpiles of them so it took a few years to use them all up and many cars still had them into 85-86.
>>29131005us-spec had heavier bumper reinforcements, more emission stuff, sunroof, ac, leather interior, thicker glass
>>29130525Thats the original color of my '90.
>>291306101989 was the first year a base model (4 banger) mustang broke $10k sticker price.
>>29130916Ford basically recreated the '86+ lb9 in the Ford explorer. Intake is very similar, heads flow the same, cam is very similar, exhaust sucks ass in nearly the same way, and wouldn't you know they make the same 215hp with a generous torque curve
>4 cylinder Camaros and other period horrors
>>29130640they sold a lot of them but the build quality wasn't very good compared to 85 onward and most were owned by 16-26 yos who smashed them into a tree
>>29131042My stepdad had an 85 GT and he did indeed wrap it around a tree.
>>29131042>>29130640early 80s cars in general don't have a high survival rate as there were not as many of them due to smaller car sales in this period and shittier build quality. i've seen far more late 70s wheels IRL than i ever have anything from 80-84.
>>29130515That's not the Mustang in the OP pic
>>29131061yes. it's an 83 Mustang after the 302 was back and performance was returning. the OP is an energy crisis 255 V8 one.
>>29131067>>2913074181 MY cars went on sale in fall '80. this was when Carter was president. the 82 models came out a year later when Reagan was in office and there was a sense of optimism that things were going to get better so they brought back the 302 engine.
>>29130706this was the average car in 68 not a Hemi Charger. boomers fudged history a bit?
