More History Guy on cars- the X-Body and the Malaise era

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF1iwk7vigE&ab_channel=TheHistoryGuy%3AHistoryDeservestoBeRemembered

This era has been talked about a lot- but this is being presented as the worst of the worst of the era.  Not having encountered one, I can't really comment on accuracy.

But I did comment on the barely mentioned part of emissions rules that also added to the malaise era, especially as the conclusions noted some very specific emissions fixes but labels them fuel economy.  They enabled power and fuel economy, for sure, though.

I love it when people refer to it as the Malaise era.  It actually wasn't that bad when you consider that Muscle Cars weren't that fast.  The Gross HP they used back in the day was more of a marketing ploy than actual power output, and the switch to a standardized SAE net hp happened to closely coincide with EPA regs causing a neutering of cams and compression.  The emissions control things they put on didn't cost HP, but everyone seems to want to delete them in the hopes of suddenly getting an extra 50 hp.

The more people call it Malaise, the more those cars stay cheaper.  I'll take all the 70s and 80s stuff for myself on the cheap.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

Not sure they didn't cost any HP.  Many of the solutions required a carb to run rather odd- either lean to eliminate HC and CO or rich plus a air pump to deal with the early catalysts without fuel injection control.  Or even the rudementry EGR that caused problems. The one car I have direct experience with was the Alfas of the era, and the SPICA/cam tuning did cost 20 hp, as well as the drag of the air pump and the exhaust block from the early catalyst design.

It was pretty easy to undo, but I would not call it not having an impact.

The kind of irony in the story was that GM had EFI, so they knew more about it than most other US manufacturers, but didn't use it.  At the same time, I've seen Ford's EEC I, which took up the trunk of a Pinto at the time.

Still, how quick was a 5.0l Mustang in 1969 vs. 1974?  And the latter one was smaller and lighter.  Even if the C&D numbers are super duper optimistic, the change from just under 7 sec to over 12 0-60 would suggest that there's more to the stated power loss than gross to SAE. 

A 1969 Mustang with a 302 that ran six seconds zero to sixty was a boss 302, with a big ass gear in the back.  I've driven Windsor block Fords in the era, and they are sloooowww.

I think one of the issues with the X-body as well as other cars from that era was how much rubber was in things like motor mounts and suspension bushings to try and fool the occupants into thinking they were driving a larger car.  Also so many of them used the Iron Duke four cylinder engine which was not remotely smooth running or powerful.  Result was a slow car with a paint shaker under the hood with driving dynamics that could be described as "mushy".  And all of that rubber just got more mushy with age.

I never drove one, so what do I know, but something like the same-era Mazda 626 seems so much better in every way except for dealer support.  And even then...

People don't understand the combination of rules that changed cars so drastically.  
 I built a 1975 Jaguar XJS for racing.  
recently I started again on  the same model but a 1985. It's 440 pounds heavier to meet all the new regulations.   
   Then the gear ratio in the differential is now 2:88-1  the 1975 was 3:54-1

the EFI has had 5 different changes since 1975    The first was a Bosch made from 3 VW  rabbits 3x4=12.  Then came the Lucas and 3 upgrades   Plus there were an additional 4 changes until the V12 went out of production.  
  Yet if you look at the entire 21 year run they all looked the same   

Streetwiseguy said:

A 1969 Mustang with a 302 that ran six seconds zero to sixty was a boss 302, with a big ass gear in the back.  I've driven Windsor block Fords in the era, and they are sloooowww.

Mustang II slow?  There's slow, and then there's really slow.  Even the Cobra of that era was slow.  It was interesting to see data where the earlier Mustangs were so much faster than the 4 cyl Alfas, and then all of a sudden, they flipped.  And later flipped back.

Fuel economy and emissions both had an impact on usable power- that's my real point.  The real turning point in that was when 1) the O2 sensor was developed, and 2) it was discovered (by accident, according to the people I have talked to who were part of that development) that switching the O2 sensor made the catalyst work really well.  

Over time, that fixed the spark retard to lower emissions and dealt with the air pump need all at the same time- reopening power.   And since then, well, we all see how power and performance has evolved.  Oh, and improving fuel economy all along. 

In reply to alfadriver :

I couldn't agree more.  Well you failed to mention the added weight but let's let that slide.  
    The one down turn?  
 Money!!!!  

 In the 1970's fun decent performing cars were a few thousand at most and a lot were as little as a few hundred dollars.  I bought a slightly rusty Jaguar XKE roadster for $150.   I really bought it for the carbs but it was all there. 
  Today that would be well north of $100,000 ( no rust holes, just rusty edges) 

  Today a real performance car starts at $30,000 and gets worse ( unless it needs massive work). 

Weight didn't necessarily go up.  Again, my example of the Mustang- there was a 400lb DROP in weight from 1973 to 1974, in spite of the heavier bumpers.  

And I'd be pretty confident that the muscle car X body was heavier than the malaise X body just because of what it was supposed to be.

Safety rules drove the weight up, fuel economy made cars smaller.

The cars that had no choice to get heavier were the limited model cars where the size stayed the same, but heavy bumpers were added.

alfadriver said:

This era has been talked about a lot- but this is being presented as the worst of the worst of the era.  Not having encountered one, I can't really comment on accuracy.

The X cars seem to really be hated, but I wouldn't say they were even close to the worst. I was working as an auto mechanic at that time and I don't recall them being particularly trouble prone, and thought they drove better than a lot of mid 70's cars, which is where I think the real turds of the malaise era came from.

Funny anecdote here.  I was working on cars for a lining when the Citations (if that is the X cars we are taking about) and their ilk came out.

For whatever reason the power steering rack would de-power itself and need to be replaced.  What a pain to do that job.  I found to cars to be slow and quite boring.  That is until a customer brought in a base Citation V6 stripped model.  No AC, no power steering.  Just a V6 and a manual trans.

That car moved along pretty well.   It was still garbage.  But it was better garbage.  

My mom bought a Buick Skylark in 1980, and she had endless problems with it. She replaced it with a Toyota and never looked back.

One of my racing buddies had a couple Citation X-11s when he was younger. They actually weren't terrible.

GM sold a LOT of X body cars. They were a sales success, hampered only by problems being rushed into production. A common theme at the time as the Big 3.5 battled the invasion of imports. I have yet to watch the History Guy video, but there are several excellent videos on these cars on a channel called "Rare Classic Cars & Automotive History".

alfadriver said:

Weight didn't necessarily go up.  Again, my example of the Mustang- there was a 400lb DROP in weight from 1973 to 1974, in spite of the heavier bumpers.  

And I'd be pretty confident that the muscle car X body was heavier than the malaise X body just because of what it was supposed to be.

Safety rules drove the weight up, fuel economy made cars smaller.

The cars that had no choice to get heavier were the limited model cars where the size stayed the same, but heavy bumpers were added.

That's the exception that proves the rule.  Plenty of Malaise  era cars  gained weight if the chassis stayed the same.  The weight of the bumpers alone  didn't just add weight it was the required bracing that added weight, and side impact beams plus air bags.  Colladpable steering shafts etc etc 

In reply to frenchyd :

It was pointing out that the malaise cars lost power, because lighter cars with the "same" engine were considerably slower.  Sorry that you could not figure that out.

BTW, in the malaise era, air bags were not a thing.  They were not part of nominal cars until about a decade after that era ended, so I'm not sure why you think it's relevant to this discussion.  

ddavidv said:

 I have yet to watch the History Guy video

Well, he quotes motor biscuit a lot.

I think part of the problem is what you said, they were a sales success, and sold over 1.5 million of them in a short time. Even small problems would seem big with that number of cars sold over that period of time 

ddavidv said:

One of my racing buddies had a couple Citation X-11s when he was younger. They actually weren't terrible.

GM sold a LOT of X body cars. They were a sales success, hampered only by problems being rushed into production. A common theme at the time as the Big 3.5 battled the invasion of imports. I have yet to watch the History Guy video, but there are several excellent videos on these cars on a channel called "Rare Classic Cars & Automotive History".

Just think how much more of a success they would have been if they were done well....  

And I don't know my GM history, but one thing that really bugged me working for their neighbor was when a perfectly good car was stopped and all of the upper management said that they knew exactly what the problem was.  That closed a number of plants around the US.  And then a few years later, replacing that car cost an extra few billions- as opposed to actually fixing what was wrong.

IMHO, that's what Japan (being very general) does best- understands the issues and just develops it.  Even if that means the car gets bigger over 40 years of production.  

But I digress....

I remember those Malaise days. In the late 60s, early 70s, cars where looking pretty slippery and fast, then came the energy crises and 55mph speed limits. I think that they made cars into square boxes and super ugly intentionally to get people to just give up and not care about cars and just conform to the new realities with 85mph speedometers. Thankfully, we still had the Firebird Trans Am and Burt Reynolds.

alfadriver said:

ddavidv said:

One of my racing buddies had a couple Citation X-11s when he was younger. They actually weren't terrible.

GM sold a LOT of X body cars. They were a sales success, hampered only by problems being rushed into production. A common theme at the time as the Big 3.5 battled the invasion of imports. I have yet to watch the History Guy video, but there are several excellent videos on these cars on a channel called "Rare Classic Cars & Automotive History".

Just think how much more of a success they would have been if they were done well....  

And I don't know my GM history, but one thing that really bugged me working for their neighbor was when a perfectly good car was stopped and all of the upper management said that they knew exactly what the problem was.  That closed a number of plants around the US.  And then a few years later, replacing that car cost an extra few billions- as opposed to actually fixing what was wrong.

IMHO, that's what Japan (being very general) does best- understands the issues and just develops it.  Even if that means the car gets bigger over 40 years of production.  

But I digress....

Not to threadjack, but I assume we're referring to the Taurus/Five Hundred Fiasco?  If so i'm still trying to figure that move out, and I'm not a Ford fanboi. 

In reply to 06HHR (Forum Supporter) :

Before that- the Contour/Mystique, which was totally redesigned a few years later into the Fusion.  And I'm sure it happened even before that.  

alfadriver said:

Weight didn't necessarily go up.  Again, my example of the Mustang- there was a 400lb DROP in weight from 1973 to 1974, in spite of the heavier bumpers.  

And I'd be pretty confident that the muscle car X body was heavier than the malaise X body just because of what it was supposed to be.

Safety rules drove the weight up, fuel economy made cars smaller.

The cars that had no choice to get heavier were the limited model cars where the size stayed the same, but heavy bumpers were added.

The '73 Mustang was more or less a swoopy Fairlane/Torino, the Mustang II was more or less a Pinto, so some weight loss should be assumed.

The Cougar got significantly larger in '74 (I think) when it went from the Mustang chassis to the Thunderbird chassis, balancing the equation 

In reply to alfadriver :

I was referring to the individual devices:  EGR, PCV, air injection (which technically costs 1-2hp), and the other external things.  The compression and cam neutering certainly cost plenty of hp.  What I was saying was... people still want to rip off all the emissions stuff thinking it will magically gain them the HP that was lost when the EPA said they had to be included.  It was the cam/compression/head flow/etc that caused the HP drop, not the EGR valve.

So we agree... the whole solution cost hp, but not the little external things.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

Ayup.  Failure to match cause and effect.

This is one place where Ford's thriftiness paid off, they used those weird -8 degree cam sprockets, which is an easy enough fix.  Especially when the teeth would shear off after a few years so you had to get in there anyway 

Ford also managed to get by without all those doodads on a lot of their production, at least at first.  I had a "smog era" car whose only emissions control equipment were a PCV system and a thermostatic valve to prevent vacuum advance before the engine was warmed up, so it would warm up faster.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

My point was that part of the reason for the malaise of performance was the emission rule reaction, which was at least equal to or more in terms of contribution of loss of performance as safety weight or CAFE. And power was down until things were figured out. 
 

And in the video, emissions was mentioned just once, and the solutions noted at the end were emissions fixes labeled as cafe.