The Rise of Domestic Robots- Are you Ready

Ah, big block V8 engines. It's one of the things that many of us car lovers enjoy about the 1960s to 1970s vehicles is that many of them came with these big engines. And especially if you get one from the 1960s era, the late 60s, or even 1970, 71 in some cases, you often got a lot of horsepower from the big block engines. And yes, I must admit that from 1971 and prior, horsepower ratings were rated under SAE gross standards versus in 1972 and later, they're rated under SAE net standards. And the difference was the net standards included all of the accessories on the engine and as part of the rating, as well as the exhaust system and the air cleaner, the gross rating system did not. It was basically just an engine with no accessories, no exhaust, no air cleaner. So the numbers admittedly from 1971 and prior are higher by about 30% than the engines after that rating changed for the 1972 model year. But it really doesn't matter. I mean, take for example, some of the great and powerful big blocks that were produced during this timeframe. The Cadillac 8.2 liter 500 cubic inch 1970 V8, which made 400 gross horsepower in the Eldorado. Or in 1970, there was also the Tornado GT package that had an engine that was rated at 400 horsepower. You could get that in the regular Tornado as well as an optional engine. So you had lots of power in these big blocks during this timeframe. And it wasn't just the horsepower, but also the torque. And it made these cars just an absolute pleasure to drive. You generally had, even if it weren't a high output engine, around 350 horsepower from something that displaced 455 cubic inches or somewhere between 400 and 455 cubic inches. That was a typical horsepower rating of many of these big blocks. Now, as the 1970s came along, not only did those horsepower rating changes occur, but you of course had increasingly stringent emission standards. To the point that General Motors introduced the catalytic converter in 1975 and other auto companies adopted that technology. GM actually gave the technology away for free for auto companies to use. And the emission standards really choked down the horsepower output on many big engines, particularly the big block V8 engine. So unfortunately, take for example, that Cadillac 500 cubic inch V8 that I mentioned was in the Eldorado in 1970 that made 400 gross horsepower. That's probably around, let's call it 280 net horsepower. That engine was making just 190 net horsepower by 1976, its final year. An 8.2 liter 500 cubic inch V8 making 190 horsepower. It's absolutely pathetic when you think about that. If that were a two liter four cylinder, for example, you'd have to take the 190 divided by four and you'd effectively have something, an engine that made roughly 50 horsepower as a two liter four cylinder engine, just for example. Now the Cadillac V8 wasn't the only one that suffered during this timeframe. The Olds 455 was down on power down to the high 100s kind of in the 195 horsepower range. Ford V8s were also down on power to around 200 horsepower and basically the same over at Chrysler. The 440 in the mid seventies was making around 200 ish horsepower, sometimes a little bit more, but that was pretty much the norm for that timeframe. Now, I wanted to point out that there was a particularly weak big block engine that made just 175 horsepower from 455 cubic inches. And that to me is the weakest big block engine ever produced in a vehicle. And what was that? It was the one year only, 1974 Buick 455 cubic inch two barrel V8 that could be found under hood as an option in LeSabre's for example. If you got the electric, you got the standard 455 four barrel, but if you got the LeSabre, one of the engine options was a 455 cubic inch two barrel V8 that made 175 net horsepower. Now the sad thing is, as you can see from this particular chart, the 455 cubic inch two barrel V8 made no more horsepower than the 350 four barrel. Yes, it did make significantly more torque, but really not that much as you can see from the era, you know, 350 ish pound feet of torque is nothing to write home about. And if you got the 455 cubic inch V8, that meant that you got the turbo hydramatic 400 transmission which took more horsepower to run than if you got the 350 cubic inch V8 that came outfitted with the turbo hydramatic 350 transmission. So from a rear wheel horsepower perspective, you actually were going backward in upgrading to the 455 cubic inch two barrel V8 in this 1974 Buick versus the 350 cubic inch four barrel V8. Now you may say a 455 cubic inch V8 with a two barrel carburetor, what in the world is happening here? That's just crazy. The engine can't flow any air at all. And you know, to some degree you're right. Clearly a two barrel is gonna flow in general less air than a four barrel. At least if the Venturis are similarly sized or you know, if the two barrel doesn't have Venturis that are double the size of the four barrels average Venturi, it's gonna flow less air. But this was not an uncommon thing. It was uncommon by 1974. The other GM big block engines had four barrel V8s over at Ford, the 460 only came with a four barrel carburetor over at Chrysler, the 440 only came with a four barrel carburetor. But a few years earlier, it was relatively common to see big block engines with two barrel carburetors. Ford had their 429 cubic inch two Venturi V8 through the 1971 model year. And GM in 1971 Oldsmobile had a 455 two barrel V8 that was available in some models. Pontiac had a 455 cubic inch two barrel V8 that was available in some models as well too. So it really wasn't all that uncommon. And why was that? Well, first of all, four barrel carburetors had a reputation in some cases for increased complexity and decreased reliability. So for the customer who really wanted the torque but didn't necessarily care about the horsepower and wanted something that was more reliable, particularly if you owned a Ford that had the AutoLite 4300 carburetor for a four barrel, yeah, you probably didn't want that carburetor again, to be honest, they weren't great carburetors. And the AutoLite 2100 on the Fords and the Rochester 2GC carburetor on the GMs, they were very reliable, very good carburetors. In fact, I would say the 2GC was a relatively good carburetor from a flow rate perspective, certainly no four barrel, but the two barrel V8s also kind of had this better part throttle tip in response than the four barrel V8s. So the cars that had the two barrels were actually very pleasant drivers. I have a 71 Mercury with a 429 two Venturi V8. I have driven GM big blocks like an Olds 455, a 1971 Delta Custom with the 455 two barrel. I gotta be honest, they're pretty pleasant cruisers and drivers. They don't have the horsepower and they run out of steam once the engine passes about 3,500 RPM, but they're very pleasant from a torque perspective and from a reliability perspective. So I get it. But by 1974, GM had pretty much all but done away with the big block engines and two barrel carburetors. Those had been sunset largely after the 1971 model year. If you got a big block, it came with a four barrel thereafter by and large. And the only exception to that was this 1974 Buick 455 two barrel that made the 175 horsepower. Again, there are other big block engines, mostly on the diesel front that made less power, but those are diesel engines. We won't get into the GM fuel pincher, 8.2 liter diesel and its power ratings, but suffice it to say, it was considerably lower than 175 horsepower. But like I said, that was a diesel engine. So that's cheating a little bit. But from the gas engine side, I can't think of another big block that made less horsepower from this period or from a different period. If there's something that I'm missing, please put a comment in the comment section here. I am excluding big blocks that were offered in heavy duty trucks. So this is just in light vehicles and in passenger vehicles. But if you want something that's a novelty, maybe you should seek out one of these 1974 Buicks. They're an interesting looking vehicle overall. I don't necessarily care for the headlamps and the front. This was the first year of the five mile an hour impact standard front and rear. Buick redid the rear end to have this big rubber flubber piece for crash worthiness. And nowadays those pieces are hard to get. And if you need to replace them on your Buick from 1974, you're gonna be paying quite a bit for a body shop to fit some aftermarket piece or a 3D printed piece because they often don't fit quite right. So something to bear in mind if you're looking at one of these big Buicks from 1974. But other than that, and other than not having a lot of horsepower, they're still pleasant drivers and they're quite reliable. But this is the weakest V8 from a big block standpoint that I can think of that was ever put in a light passenger vehicle. If you know of another one, put a comment in the comment section. Thanks again for watching.