That would be low gearing, nose-heaviness, plenty of low end torque,
combined with the not very good tires of that era. It is a well know fact
that the "SAE" hp figures of the '60's and early '70's were inflated and
fell dramatically when manufacturers went to SAE net ratings...as used
Of coarse, modern engines make much more power per cubic inch thanks to
design improvements, so there are plenty of 300 hp plus models out that can
light up their tires at will, they just don't need almost 400 cid to do it.
While that's true, that isn't my only quibble with his statement. He claimed
that the HP ratings were "inflated", and that simply isn't true, in general.
All US carmakers used the same SAE gross measurement, which was the standard
at that time. The same engines would have a lower number today with SAE net,
but that doesn't mean the numbers were inflated. Just a different standard.
Wow! I'm a bit surprised anybody would be that ignorant, but I have to admit
that people generally have struggled to get the years right. I'm not sure
why. It's incredibly easy to get the information you've asked for.
Here's what you need to do: Pontiac didn't really change their engine lineup
from 71 to 72, so you can find basically any engine that you are genuinely
familiar with and just check those two years. That was the year they went
from gross to net. No problem.
Just for example, the Pontiac 455 HO. 335 hp in 1971, vs 300 in 1972. The 71
and 72 engines are totally identical. Anybody posting in this thread should
know that, to be frank. By the 70's, the 455HO was reportedly underrated
rather than overrated.
Here's another example: The 350 2-barrel, manual transmission version, fell
from 250 hp to 175.
If you're really curious about this, you can just look up anything you want
in any list of hp figures you want.
Most people cannot grasp what year that was, nor how simple it is. Some of
them may reply to this thread, saying "oh, no, it was 1986 or 1975" or some
other stuff. They're wrong.
There were three drops in hp at GM that can confuse people. The first was in
1971, when they did away with high compression across the board. The 2nd was
in 1972, and that's the one that was on paper only. The third was in 1975,
when they put those badly designed catalytic converters on.
It's incredibly easy to get the information you've asked for.
No problem for me. Common knowledge.
Why would I want to be frank? My name is Dave.
By the 70's, the 455HO was reportedly underrated
Yes, because the standard for testing changed for '72. That doesn't mean
that the numbers were "inflated" in '71, as another poster stated. Please
work on your reading comprehension.
They are not quite identical. The '72 455 HO had revised heads and intake to
deal with emission requirements that actually lowered the net HP by 5 HP but
boosted torque by 5 ft lbs. The carburator and distributor were also retuned
to improve emissions and gas mileage('71 455 HOs are gas hogs, 73 jets, 38B
'71 455 HO was gross rated at 335HP, 480 ft lbs, net was 310HP, 410 ft lbs.
Real world findings put the net power at even higher than the gross ratings!
The Holden GTO is not ugly. Ugly is a term you apply to something like an
Aztek. The Holden GTO is restrained or under-stated...plain, even, but it is
not ugly by any stretch. In some colors it is very handsome. And the
interior is very nice.
It's biggest problem is that it does not have very loud styling, like the
later early GTO's that everyone remembers. It is, actually, not unlike, in
restraint, the earliest GTO's, prior to '68. They don't look alike, but both
generations are simply styled and quite tasteful.
Of course the Aztek had similar sales numbers to the GTO. Not many
people buying either. The Aztek is quite ugly, I agree with that!
I wouldn't use the term "ugly" for the new GTO either. It's not a bad
looking car. As you state, very plain and non-descript. Adding the
hood scoop helped some.
True, the early GTO's were very similar to their LeMans and Tempest
siblings. What set the Mustang apart was it had very specific styling
elements that have carried forward to today (especially the new model).
Apart from the hood scoop, the GTO never really had many styling
elements that were "GTO-specific".
There are two that I see regularly. One is black and the other (screaming)
yellow. Both draw the eye for their simple, but handsome shape. The yellow
one makes the heart race just a little...it looks very nice.
They don't sell because they cost too much for the Camaro/Firebird crowd
(and look too restrained, anyway) and were marketed stupidly by GM. I said
it before and I'll say it again...if GM had sold the Holden as a semi-exotic
Aussie import with Paul Hogan or Mel Gibson doing the honors in the ads it
would have sold very well. (Oh yeah, and they needed to fix the poor trunk
These things are going to be classics, specially the 400 horse versions. Do
yourself a favor, if you love to drive, go test drive a 6-sp one before they
are all gone. These cars are not Goats, but they are great sports coupes and
a blast to drive.
The new GTO beats the 0-60 time by about a second, true. (6 seconds vs.
5 seconds). Although if I had the three deuces instead of the Rochester
Quadrajet, it probably would knocked a half-second off of the time and
have given a respectable showing.
I didn't do well in the 1/4 mile though. With the 4-11 rear, I'd
redline at 105MPH and had to pull back from the throttle a good distance
before I hit the end of the run. Surely I'd have hit 110- 115 in the
quarter had the old Hurst Dual-Gate auto tranny had overdrive.
Still, the 67 looked better. ;-)
In the quarter mile you shouldn't see more than 4th gear at all unless
you have some seriously high (numerically >4.56:1+ ) gear ratio in the
differential. The larger difference is that technology always makes
things more efficient.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.