Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Remembering the Chevette GM gave USA and how incredibly slow it was in acceleration, I was disappointed to read what GM offered Europe to qualify this vehicle for world rally racing. In the late 70s to early 80s they offered a model with a 2.3L engine with 135 hp in a two door hatchback that was rear wheel drive. Today you may say 135 hp isn’t much at all. My first car was a 1978 Camaro with a 4.1L inline 6 which, if mint condition and properly tuned, was a whopping 110 hp. The Mustang and Camaro 5.0L V8 of that era was in the range of 140 to 145 hp. I understand why GM didn’t bring this engine here because of cost and it could potentially be faster than a Camaro. But another issue is the emissions restrictions would also reduce the horsepower well below the UK’s 135 hp. But wouldn’t it be fun to get a restored Chevette, drop in this power train and suspension, then hit the road. Roughly 2,000 lbs RWD hot hatch on a winding country/mountain road with stick shift.
Remembering the Chevette GM gave USA and how incredibly slow it was in acceleration, I was disappointed to read what GM offered Europe to qualify this vehicle for world rally racing. In the late 70s to early 80s they offered a model with a 2.3L engine with 135 hp in a two door hatchback that was rear wheel drive. Today you may say 135 hp isn’t much at all. My first car was a 1978 Camaro with a 4.1L inline 6 which, if mint condition and properly tuned, was a whopping 110 hp. The Mustang and Camaro 5.0L V8 of that era was in the range of 140 to 145 hp. I understand why GM didn’t bring this engine here because of cost and it could potentially be faster than a Camaro. But another issue is the emissions restrictions would also reduce the horsepower well below the UK’s 135 hp. But wouldn’t it be fun to get a restored Chevette, drop in this power train and suspension, then hit the road. Roughly 2,000 lbs RWD hot hatch on a winding country/mountain road with stick shift.
You wanna go fast you need to pony up. Either buy a fast car or make one. Dont ***** that some factory econobox 'vette isnt. It was first and foremost made to be cheap, fuel efficient, and meet pollution requirements. Fast wasnt a consideration, though seen some with a V6 stuffed in them. Actually just changing rear axle ratio on most 70s cars was great improvement. They were geared for theoretical maximum economy, yet still marginally able to go down the road.
You wanna go fast you need to pony up. Either buy a fast car or make one. Dont ***** that some factory econobox 'vette isnt. It was first and foremost made to be cheap, fuel efficient, and meet pollution requirements. Fast wasnt a consideration, though seen some with a V6 stuffed in them. Actually just changing rear axle ratio on most 70s cars was great improvement. They were geared for theoretical maximum economy, yet still marginally able to go down the road.
Agree about the axle ratios. We had a 1970 Chevrolet Impala with the 400 V8 and a 2.56 axle ratio. This combination worked well due to the low end torque of the 400. We also had a 1978 Chevrolet Malibu with the 305 V8 and a 2.29 axle ratio. That combination was not good; not nearly enough torque. It also was not very economical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
