The Pitiful Powerplants of The Malaise Era 

They should have called it the lethargic era. The manufacturers distracted consumers with padded vinyl tops, opera windows with coach lights and poofy seats to get their minds off the fact that the cars were slower than a crippled sloth.

Cadillac truly maximized displacement per horsepower.

I loved my 1978 Ford Grenada with a V-8 And my 1976 Dodge Aspen with the 225 Slant 6. They both rode great, looked fantastic, and gave me lots of great memories.

The grenada 6cyl at least eventually turned into the Australian falcon ohc and dohc barra. In Australia, the Falcon 4.1 of the same age gained a crossflow head and then a Mitsubishi designed alloy head to improve power while passing emissions.

In addition to the low HP you left out how difficult it was to keep these cars in tune so that they didn’t stall constantly.

A lot of Mopar and Ford V-8s could easily have a lot of their torque and drivability restored if you knew what you were doing. I spent the 70s and much of the 80s doing just that with dirt cheap used cars. You could also improve their mileage considerably. Mopar in particular could accept the older, higher compression engines, right into the engine bays, onto the mounts of the newer cars, transforming them. Exhausts were easy to change from cat clogged single systems to duals without any restriction. Walker sold several oversized Y-pipes that bolted in right in place of the cat clogged pea shooter systems that came stock. I remember my old Dad was challenged to a 0-60 with his 86' Fifth Avenue(318) against a work buddy's 305 4bbl Olds Cutless 4 door. I swapped on an oversized catless Y-pipe spec'd for a 78' Lebaron($60 new) and put in a Mopar performance distributor($99.00) and tuned it as per the direct connection manual. Not only did he smoke that Gutless Cutless but his mileage went up almost 5mpg city and better hwy. On a lot of mid 70s Ford V-8s all you had to do was change the timing gear sets back to pre-71 and you picked up a ton of acceleration.

I remember that back in the day, some people and some automotive writers (Consumer's Reports for one) actually defended malaise era vehicle drivetrains as "superior" and an "improvement". The demographic actually personally attacked me for not buying into this philosophy.

Back in 1987 I had a 1973 Firebird. I was 22 and had an attitude: bold, confident and a bit too arrogant for my own good. I drove that car like I'd stolen it and thankfully never got into an accident or got any tickets. As gutless as the engine was, that car sure felt fast. I wish I'd had the money and knowledge to tune the engine so it would perform better and get more horsepower.

What’s a little ironic is that the Pontiac section (<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="195">3:15</a>) of this video uses a Rover P6 saloon in the chase. This British car would have had either a 2 or 2.2 litre in-line 4, or, most likely as we’re in the USA, the 3.5 litre V8, derived from the Buick Skylark. And in any guise the Rover gets more power per litre than the Trans Am! Why was the detuning so severe? I find it amazing that not only did it produced less bang per CC or cubic inch, it would also have been stuffed in a power to weight ratio comparison. Surely once out the show room, any decent mechanic would have had the power values restored?

People whine about those old cars but I liked them a lot better than the mundane SUV/crossover vehicles that we have now. My old mid 70s B-body mopar with the front bench seat was the best drive-in movie date car I ever had

Unrealistic CAFE standards that surprised auto manufacturers had them scrambling to meet those standards.

I had a 75 corvette L-82. It had 205 hp. The regular engine had 195. Worst car I ever owned.

I was issued a pre-converter Ford F100 V-8, automatic company truck in 1975. It got 8 MPG, except when it was climbing Sepulveda Pass in the San Fernando Valley, when it dropped to 7. It constantly dieseled, in drive, for up to 5 minutes, with that awful smell. I took it to the company garage and asked the lead mechanic to de-smog it. Mileage went up to 14 city, 15 highway. No more dieseling.

Truly, truly a dark time! NEVER AGAIN!!

The 88 horsepower of the 77 Pinto is the same as the 80 Zephyr/Fairmont 3.3 l inline 6.

OMG... The Pinto engine's lack of power was "exacerbated" not "exasperated" by emissions controls that choked the engine's performance even more. ... ...

The Vega's and Pinto's engines were the least of these cars problems. Many people took off many of the performance robbing polution devices and catalytic coverters. This and a few other tweeks could make many of these cars plenty powerful.

1978 Dodge Magnum. 318 V8 that got maybe 140HP new, probably around 95 when I had it. Had the "Electronic Lean Burn" ignition. Drove around with a pencil down the carb half the time, and a can of ether for stop signs and lights to keep it going. Started on fire once, but I just kept cranking the engine until it inhaled all the fire. Drove like a dream though, with the torsion bar suspension.

The regulations were important and badly needed. I remember the smoggy, and the smelly haze that would linger over cities back in the day.

Cadillacs of that era, while gas guzzlers, were effing amazing! Extremely comfortable, roomy and luxurious, and powerful. Driving or riding in one felt like being on a motorboat, plowing through a glass-calm lake, and you could not hear the motor at all!

If American cars had evolved in Europe, the story might have been different. European cars started small and, for the most part, stayed small. Their engines were designed for efficiency without sacrificing much horsepower. They consistently relied on innovation to create power, experimenting with designs that were scorned in the States. Not every idea worked, but the engineers learned equally from success and failure. Regulations were not a government whim. American automakers knew they were coming but dragged their feet. Emissions had to be cut, and efficiency had to increase. Weight, usually addressed by merely adding cubic inches, was suddenly an ogre that wouldn't go away. American car manufacturers responded with underpowered beasts that were difficult to look at in full light. Change is usually a good thing, but only if you see it coming and prepare for it.

Compression ratios were lowered between 1.5 - 2 points reducing horsepower.

The use of microcontroller to control the engine and transmission and fuel injection saved the V8 engine and performance market

It wasnt the powerplants , it was the regulations.

Fuel shortage, high prices and the EPA mandating cleaner burning engines sucked the power out of the engines. The EPA requirements were tough on the Auto Industry. They wanted things done very quickly which led the Automakers to slap stopgap devices on car engines instead of giving them time to engineer newer, more efficient engines. The American Manufacturers wanted high profits, while the foreign automakers took time to improve their engines. They stayed ahead of the curve while the American automakers slapped devices onto their old engines to keep up with the EPA. Then end result were poor running engines with little power. It was a sad time for performance enthusiasts.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="380">6:20</a> 88HP?? Yes, for 1977, in most states, but for 1975-1975 the 4.1L six in the U.S. spec Granada put out a gasping 72 HP, giving the 3,400 pound car a 0-60 time of about 23 seconds, slower than any other 1970s American car I can name. The '75 Granada has to the the all-time champion of malaise-era agony. Consumer Reports was also unimpressed with the fuel economy of the Granada, giving the otherwise-likeable car a thumbs-down on both performance and economy. It's likely that the crass, but much more advanced 2.3 L Pinto engine would have been both faster and more economical if Ford had offered it in the Granada, especially with a 4 speed manual. The main problem with Ford's sixes (both the 3.3 L and 4.1 L) was a badly designed air-injector system in the exhaust manifold, designed to reduce hydrocarbon emissions. GM's 4.1 L six had about 100 HP all through the 1970s, so GM could offer 6 cylinder economy in their larger mid-sized cars while Ford had to put V8s in anything bigger than the Granada.

I had a 1974 Maverick with a 302, and I couldn't even spin a tire in sand on pavement. Paint peeled off in the carwash. Vinyl top blistered. All in a year.

First new car was a 79 Fairmont with the 2.3 liter four. Reliable, liked it a lot, but indeed underpowered. Had auto trans and air conditioning.

No one sane kept them stock, and fixing their ailments was VERY common. That era sold vast amounts of intakes, carbs, cams and headers. If you left them stock you were doing it wrong. The vehicles svcked except for trucks but the engines kickstarted the modern aftermarket and fixing them got many young men into wrenching, self included.

It was a bit of a comparison of "apples and oranges." Before 1972, SAE power ratings were gross outout, meaning not even a water punp was used, coolant being forced externally through the engine. One can compare the gross effect on lowering compression ratios so that engines could run on low-lead or unleaded fuel which new cars as of 1971 had to run on. For example, the massive Cadillac 500 V8, rated at 400 hp in 1970, dropped to 360 in 1971. For 1972, with the new rating, SAE Net, and also using a lower RPM, also a feature of the updated, and probably more realistic for comparison purposes, power rating, the 500 cube V8 was rated at a measly 235 ponies. In 1975, its penultimate year, the Caddy 500, along with so many in Detroit, was corked up with a single catalytic converter, which lowered the final rating to only 195 hp!

No mention of gross vs. net horsepower ratings?

It was combo of regulation and market. American companies saw the writing on the wall in WW2 but didn't want to believe it. Later; smaller, more efficient, and sometimes better cars from foreign companies started to creep in from every direction. And here we are.

Thank you for posting the video. Lots of work went into it, I realize. Glad it's actually narrated by a real voice, and not an AI one. Love the Granada commercial. My grandma had one, loaded!

The cause was NOT emission control laws but the industry's tendency to implement these regulations as cheaply as possible. Profit before innovation. Why would manufacturers invest in innovation, they had succesfully indoctrinated the populace that American cars were better than others.

I love this era of cars. Lots of them made great cheap muscle cars with an engine transplant.

The last car shown (75 Elite) was a hand me down car in 81. 351 2V was a dog but after headers and a hot cam. I can't remember the cam setup or headers but it woke it up a bit.

Honestly I love this era of cars. I've driven a 1970's ford LTD and I have to say it was 10x more comfortable than the mazda that I drive daily. Sure, it was as slow as a turtle, but all I really need to drive a car is highway speeds and then I'm satisified with power.

my 1975 Ford Elite objects to the thumbnail of this video.

as a smog divice retrofit you would buy 2 rubber caps and remove the vacuum to your distributor and cap it off ---- for $10 , after the test you probably didn't wait until you got home to put the hose back on.

I actually had a old Thunderbird and crown Vic best cars I ever had! Ford's 302 was my best choice, Chevrolet 305, and dodge 318, I never had a problem with them but I took really good care of them. I honestly never had any mechanical problems at all, but like I said I took care of them I didn't just get in and go all the time I always check oil and fluids and kept my spark plugs and filters changed. Toyota problems I had many, and parts are expensive and can't trust a Honda dam head gaskets always blew in all my Toyota and hondas

The 77 Pontiac Bonneville, with the throwaway combination 5 l or 301 in with the 200 metric transmission. It had 135 HP but would get 19 miles per gallon around home or a maximum of 28 miles per gallon down in Florida during the winter time. My tires would go from 33 and 34 in the back to 48 and 50 PSI. Sometimes I would let the air out but then would have a hard time finding air on my way up North again. I loved that car, with v e l o u r seats and full carpeting.😢

The best car of this time was the LINCOLN VERSAILLES, A VERY HANDSOME MACHINE, AND ALL OUT LUXURY, AND WELL BUILT. ❤❤❤😊😊

no matter how awful the car, it was rear drive. My 1200cc Datsun went sideways just the same as a Cortina 3 liter.

the 70 trans am did not have a 7.5 L it had a 6.6 L ram air

My grandfather had an 82 Granada straight 6. That was one of the most miserable cars I've ever seen. But it ran forever!

It's hard to think of a powerplant more dismal from that era than the Ford 250 six commonly fitted to the Maverick and Granada, producing a miserable 88 horsepower.

They made these big boats and nothing to power them. Thanks big government

Don't blame the car company's - it was the government with their gas mileage and emissions regulations. Remember - this was before computers, they couldn't do what they can do today.

That 2.3 liter 4 cylinder in the pinto was a good engine and made 200 hp in the mustang SVO , as much as the 302 V8 in the mustang GT

The “sticker price” wasn’t the only way to tell the difference between a Cadillac, Mercedes and a Ford Granada…just open your eyes 🙄

What a lame brained power train for Vega: The 140 cubic inch four cylinder engine mated to a two speed Powerglide transmission. I remember someone writing in Popular Science magazine that the engine was like a 240 cubic one in low gear.

I learned how to drive with a '72 Pontiac Catalina. It was like an aircraft carrier with two couches inside. I don't need technology for parallel parking! I bought a '68 SS Nova in 11th grade and got into a lot of trouble in that thing! Traded it for a '76 Ford Elite for my senior year which I THOROUGHLY enjoyed the interior of. It wasn't a racer despite it's 460 cid motor! It's size, speed, and agility likely saved my life (LOL).... Now it seems the electric shavers are the quickest but I've always kept a '60s vintage road warrior around just for fun and personality.

Its sad to think that none of these jalopies lasted long enough to get crushed in cash for clunkers.

That's why BMW and Mercedes took over the luxury segment and the japanese cars the market for reliable and fuel saving cars.

Compared to the Chinacrap Sold today this was a golden era!

the "culprit" is Compairing Gross VS. Net Horsepower.

I'm shocked that you didn't mention the worst engine: the Olds 350 CID Diesel. They took the classic small-block 350 OHV gas engine and made it run diesel. It never run worth a damn, didn't get better economy, and all of the money saved on fuel expense went to the shop to fix the damn thing. It's my favorite malaise-era engine.

Some significant points to consider when comparing horsepower ratings. First and foremost, pre-1972 horsepower ratings are stated as GROSS output. 1972 and newer are NET ratings. What's the difference? Gross horsepower is the engine on a test stand, no accessories, no mufflers or even exhaust system, perfectly tuned to make its peak horsepower, run at the RPM it makes its maximum output. For most engines of the era, that would be about 4500 rpm. NET horsepower is rated with the engine IN THE CAR, connected to the transmission, with all accessories installed, full exhaust, air cleaner assembly in place, and so on. And yes, emissions control equipment (if any) installed and operating. The engine is operated in real-world conditions. Typically WELL UNDER 4,000 rpm. Ask any engineer and they'll tell you: Horsepower output is literally the product of engine speed and torque output. Reduce either, power ratings fall. Reduce BOTH, and power ratings fall DRASTICALLY. General rule of thumb: If you have two identical engines, and test them for gross versus net horsepower, the net figure is typically only about two-thirds of the gross. It varies a bit from model to model, but two-thirds is a fair approximation. A Ford 302 in 1971 was rated at 210 hp; in 1972 with virtually no changes, it was about 140-145. I'm not making excuses; the introduction of fuel economy requirements and emission standards created more problems with regard to engine power. I'm saying that it wasn't entirely the fault of these standards; nonetheless, here's a short overview. To get the engines to be more efficient, a number of thing had to be done. One of the earliest measures was to reduce the axle ratio Most cars of the 1960s had axle ratios between 3.00 and 3.50 to one. By the mid 1970s, axle ratios were down to an average of 2.65 or so. That means the engine does not have the same mechanical advantage it did in the 1960s. Acceleration is slower because of this. Automatic transmissions were configured for lower torque converter stall and earlier shifts, further hampering acceleration and power. Engines had to be detuned. Big thirsty carburetors had to be re-tuned to more tightly control air/fuel mixtures. Devices in the carburetor, like accelerator pumps and 'economizer' valves, had to be configured to operate only under much higher demand than previously. Ignition timing had to be more tightly controlled. And catalytic converters had to be installed; these heavy, clunky, restrictive things sapped a great deal of power. There's more, but this should give you an idea of what was happening. bear this in mind when people squawk about why engine power was so poor in the 1970s.

all cars were much slower back in the day young fellas...this was simply the norm even int the 60s and especially the 50s. as for quality control, modern cars are just as bad, if not worse.

I started driving in the 70s low hp engines? It didn't matter we were all trying to save gas, it was a different time and place, we still made it from A to B , the look of the cars more than made up for the low hp.😅 plus we had the 55 mph speed limit.

Doom and gloom 😮 Gas prices leveled . Air quality improved . Mpg improved. Safety increased. . I will take the malaise days over parking lots full of expensive trucks and SUVs ,that are expensive to maintain.

IN the late 1970s I worked in a dyno-tune shop doing carburetor rebuilds and tune ups on cars. We used to run cars on a dyno to see what the HP was before and after the tune up. For those that don't know, official Horsepower ratings from manufacturer are "flywheel horsepower" That is, power measured at the flywheel, which is considerably less than what gets through the transmission, differential and finally, wheels. The famous "Smokey and the Bandit" Trans Am with the 6.6 Liter engine was lucky to put 60 HP to the road at the wheels. Even the Corvette could barely get to 60HP. Most cars were lucky to see 40 HP at the wheels. As a comparison, my 2014 CTS-V Cadillac was just dyno'd at 545HP at the wheels! On the other hand, my hotrod 1964 Mercury Comet Caliente that I built myself when I worked at the tune up shop was rocking off the dyno at 100 WHP (Wheel Horsepower) when I had to shut it down. The point is, the engine wasn't really the issuer, it was all the emissions crap they stuck all over them.

Cool video. I always thought one of the most pitiful examples was the 1976 460 cid engine in the T-Bird that made 202 hp = 0.44 hp/ci. Heck, Chevy had 1 hp/ci in 1957 (although that was gross not net).

there are so many things the government could legislate to clean up the air. I don't see why we need 1000 choices of vehicle models. I'm not sure how many differrent motor designs we need available at any one time. It's just waste start to finish. Standardizing within the company and accross the industry can reduce the cost of the product by increasing economies of scale. If you reduce the cost of replacing a motor and smog gear then people will be happy to do. The government could subsidize it in addition so without even making more cars it would keep cars on the road longer and reduce their smog emmisions at the same time. They can pay for it with the money that we waste on other things . Catalytic converters should be fazed out because of cost and risk to human life. We try to make up the difference on other things as it lowers the price of the car, new and ongoing maintenance, as well as insurance signifigantly. Even if we can't make up the difference completely, it's a safety issue. People are dying over these things--- getting rid of them is the only way to solve the problem. Motors are continuing to get more efficient. A lot of stuff can be made more modular. I can also make a case for having engines that are easy to swap and maybe designed to be disposable because maybe robots will be able to swap them as swell as do 90% of the assembly. I'm not against electric cars but my beef is with Li batteries because they are a fire hazard in a few ways, but not all use Li batteries and they will continue to improve. Basically don't all keep their cars tune right, down to the air in their tires being low causing a lot of extra fuel to be burned because people are going to slack. Helping people where they slack with keeping their car less poluting and using it less all together helps everyone. So it's worth it to help out. The value trickles around. Immagine if they forced all the mfg. to have their motors all swapable with each other. Think about the wast it would cut and the competition it would inspire. Simplify thins accross the board. We focus way too much on styling when we shold focus way more on functionalitty, of form , ease of repair and cost/availability of parts.

A '76 455 Trans Am with EGR and cats still outruns

Detroit has a history of lost innovation, as the heavy metal muscle worked so well. Detroit perfected turbos for WWII plane engines like P-47's Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp, Detroit flirted with turbos after WWII with cars like the Oldsmobile Jetfire but simple V8 muscle was enough & for some reason hot-rodbers hated them, it was inefficent belt driven superchargers or death. New small engine performance was left for Japan's rice burners & high-end Euro sport carss, & for Detroit to play catch up.

A big block swapped Vega is awesome.

Ugh, what pitiful sad combinations we were stuck with. Low compression and inefficient combustion combustion chambers made worse by the piston deck height and quench being to big, making detonation a problem even with low compression ratio.... Retarded cam timing Leaned carb tuning- to lean to make power Distributor timing was insanely stupid.. The egr didn’t seem make anything better The exhaust seemed to get smaller and more restricted ; need duals! Cats??? Let’s not forget we had higher rear end ratios.... <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="145">2:25</a> ratio is a slow take off folks with any engine ... Using a 1970 <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="541">9:1</a> cr engine instead of a ugh malaise era engine and a <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="127">2:7</a>5 rear end would give you a car you could enjoy 😊

I would say even mid-late 80s - I have a Hyundai Pony (modded with a different engine, bolt ons, etc) that ran a 15.8 in the quarter. Not fast, sure, but it would have beaten the same year Mustang or Camaro V8 (both ran 17s) of the same year. Different story even 2 years later though.

cadillac Eldorado got up & went i like them.

I think buyers back then did not really understand what they were doing and buying. Boomers and older, what do you expect the manufacturers were going to deliver to them

Starting in 1973, for the first time in automotive history, the vehicles were less powerful than the previous years models and would be a trend throughout the malaise era, with 1974 being rock bottom- the worst vehicles ever made. Not since the 30’s and 40’s did we have V8 engines with less than a 100 horsepower. Even worse, the vehicles were just bloated pigs with those hideous -and outright comical, like the Mustang II- amusement park bumpers on them.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="219">3:39</a> the difference in HP between 1970 and 1975 is wrong. You are comparing GROSS figures to NET figures. 1971 they swithed to NET. NET rating on the 455 was like 250hp on the 1970 455. Plus you could also get the 1975 model with a 400, engine making 185 hp. I own a standard nothing special for the time 1975 Buick LeSabre with 455. Still makes 230 hp and get 0-60 in ten seconds with a top of 120mph. Most of the european or japanese stuff made like 70 hp, 0-60 in 15-20 seconds and 90mph top (yes i know about the few sportscars or very expensive top end Mercedeses that also were quick, but the bread and butter cars, like my LeSabre was at the time, werent faster or more powerfull). They werent all bad and slow. Some were, but then again, most european and japanese were also slow. They just were slow with smaller engines

These weak engines can make you seem like a hero. They are so easy to add horsepower.

Size of vehicles should of been regulated. Better emissions would of followed without the high cost of poor power.

A few of my friends dropped small block Chevy engines in Chevy Vega's. Other's small block Ford's in the Pinto. Still Quick by today's standards. Other than that a few piece's of hot rod engine part's and sub 15 second's to sub 11's would follow

They mostly used the inline 6 in these cars, which were feckless at best! The V8 cars were better but ate gas. An L6 car could get 26 mpg on the highway but the 302 V8 was likely to get 13 in the city... None of these cars could reach 60 mph in less than 15 seconds. They were SLUGS! But they were still better than GM products or Chrysler crud~

I do not miss my 1976 Volare. or it's pathetic 360.

Great editing!

Your background music is too loud.

Kill the music please.

I see you were not around during this time there were 4 Large auto companies in America I had to give you a thumbs 👎

I had a 1973 Torino, a good friend had a 1975 Ford "Elite". Both were HORRIBLE. Huge outside, cramped inside, AWFUL MPG, handled like a garbage scow.

This crap is still going on today only worse with EV's

Wrong! The malaise era is the '80s.

American motor's have always been lacking in power. They are all noise and no go compared to engines made in Europe and Asia. Even the Australian Turing car competition had to change its name and regulations because small 4 cylinder engines were out performing the v8 engines. American car manufacturers are some of the worst in the world for quality, reliability and performance.

You can thank Jimmy "Peanut Farmer" Carter for this