How the EPA killed muscle cars?
 

President Nixon helped cripple American manufacturing and culture?

By Eric Peters/Eric Peters Auto, March 25/2015

The American automobile industry has loved Uncle long time now. But it was not always so – at least, not to the extent we’ve come to accept as normal.

There was a time – some of you will remember it – when the car companies would actually resist government intrusions into their business, even going so far as to attempt end-running some of Uncle’s edicts. A story (true) comes to mind that will give you an idea how far we’ve come since then.

It was 1972 and GM’s Pontiac division – which back then still had an engineering division that designed and manufactured Pontiac engines – was trying to figure out how to keep the muscle car alive. Washington – and the insurance mafia – had been systematically working toward the extermination of powerful cars via the one-two punch of impossible-to-meet (while maintaining high power) emissions edicts and impossible-to-pay insurance premiums. You probably know this part of the story.

Pontiac management did something inconceivable in today’s corporate car culture: They brazenly ignored Uncle.




Under development was a new high-performance engine, known internally as the Super Duty 455. This engine shared a superficial commonality (its displacement, a function of its bore and stroke) with the existing line of Pontiac 455 engines (in those days, engines were known by their cubic inch displacement rather than by liters, as today). But it was an entirely different – a new – engine. Unique block (heavily reinforced and with provisions for dry-sump oiling, making it race-ready for those so inclined), special heads and valvetrain. Here’s where it gets interesting.

Rather than do the modern thing and submit the new engine for certification – that is, emissions (and noise) compliance, both necessary (legally speaking) before an engine could be mass produced and sold to the masses – Pontiac simply included the SD-455 in the already-certified 455 engine family … and hoped Uncle would not notice. And for a short time, he didn’t.

The engine almost made it to a dealer near you – in 310 (SAE net) horsepower form. For those of you jaded by modern car horsepower numbers, 310 may not seem like much but in late 1972/early 1973 it was huge.

Epic, in fact.

As was the performance of prototype SD-455 Firebirds and Trans-Ams… and (yes, it’s true) GTOs. Pontiac had intended for this engine to power all of its performance models, not just the one (Firebird/Trans-Am). One magazine even did a feature article on an ostensibly pre-production ’73 SD-455 GTO… and was hugely embarrassed later on when Pontiac announced there would never be a production SD-455 GTO.

Anyhow, the prototypes were running low 13 second quarter miles on street tires – and 12s on drag slicks. This was serious performance, even by today’s standards. And production cars were about to become available for sale to anyone who had the cash. This was an audacious one-finger salute directed Richard Nixon’s way. It was Nixon, you see, who decreed the EPA into existence and it was the EPA (and NHTSA) that were riding the ass of the car industry generally.

Well, someone squealed or word got out and Pontiac got in big trouble. The SD-455 program became embarrassing and a liability. It was too late to outright cancel the engine without causing Pontiac even more embarrassment – as well as possible legal problems, given orders had been taken and there would be lots of unhappy customers to deal with. But the engine was detuned (milder, Uncle-complaint camshaft) to 290 hp and the program was killed. Pontiac would sell already built engines – there were not many – but only in the Firebird line and for just as long as the supply lasted (which was less than two years). The SD-455 engine – arguably the very last true muscle car engine – was available for the ’73 and ’74 model years and that was it. And you only got one if you knew someone – and had deep pockets, wide open.

Back to Nixon.

As indefensible as the recent hog-troughing performed by GM and Chrysler (now a subsidiary of Fiat, courtesy of your taxpayer dollars) may be, outrage should be tempered by history. Uncle – in the form of Tricky Dick – effectively killed the U.S. car industry by summarily decreeing that large cars with V8 engines must go right now – and be replaced by smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. This was not said or done explicitly. But it was done, nonetheless, via emissions control legislation and fuel efficiency legislation – both of them issuing forth from Richard Nixon’s EPA, a federal agency “the people” never consented to, either directly or via their representatives.

Nixon – a kind of prototype Decider – simply decided.

Then his minions – the unelected bureaucrats within the agency – began to legislate. Or what amounted to the same thing, since their regulations and mandates now had the force of law. It has been thus ever since. No one questions the fundamental legitimacy of this coupe d’ etat (just as no one – or very few – question the coupe d’ etat that replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, but that’s another rant).

The U.S. car industry suddenly – literally, almost overnight – faced the politically decreed premature obsolescing of vehicle types (full-size/RWD) and engines (big V8s) long before the investment in their design and tooling and so on could be amortized. At the same time, they were compelled to rush-rush not-yet-ready (because rush-rush-engineered) smaller cars and engines into production because these cars passed muster with Uncle – and also because such cars were now necessary to compete with the Japanese upstarts, who had been given a leg up by our Uncle and their Uncle (the Japanese government). The Japanese embraced cartel capitalism much more fully – and earlier – than Americans did. Fleets of Datsuns and Toyotas and Hondas were shipped over, initially sold at a loss to further cripple the Americans while establishing a beach head and then driving inland.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Just like the SD-455.

And a car industry that builds cars for customers, according to their wants – as opposed to in accordance with what the government decrees.

Seeing as you can buy a 700HP Hellcat, 500HP+ ZL1 Camaro, Shelby GT500, and Corvette Z06, I don't think the muscle car is anywhere close to dead.

If anything, it looks like there's a lot of interest and development in the last few years. As long as gas prices stay low, there's going to be continued interest.

I like how the article makes no mention of the oil embargo imposed on the US at the time.

Now we have muscle cars making double what they did AND getting fuel mileage that's out of this world WHILE meeting noise and emissions laws.

Seems as tho the EPA forced the motoring world to produce cars that were more refined and more efficient leading to a more refined car with even more reliable power. In the end the laws put forth by the EPA benefited the muscle car.

+ 1973 stock market crash of the US.
+ 1974 US Special Election (Ref. Watergate)

Author is an idiot, the early 70's is when the USA started to fall apart after living through nearly 25 years of high times and easy money.

It would seem that the EPA had forced auto makers to step up their game. And now we have cars producing 500+hp while getting decent fuel mileage.

ninjaedit: BoostedBB6 got it :thumbsup:

Question is, are the upcoming emissions regulations around the world (both in US and Europe, in particular) doing the same thing to the car world now? And will the manufacturers be able to repeat history?

I think the outcome would still be very similar, in the sense that cars will suck on power for a while (5 years?) before the pace starts to pick up again. Only this time, the resulting cars with better emission will be significantly more expensive than their counterparts we have right now. Battery tech and further on-board emission reducing mechanisms are not going to be cheap.

1974 - 2015 is a long time for the manufacturers to get their shit together. the problem is, most of the new revscene demographic doesn't remember the 80's and 90's, and the lack of power. The oil embargo and credit crunch were temporary. The EPA "laws" were permanent, and binding. If you didn't follow their rules, you would be fined into financial ruin by a wing of the federal gov't.

I remember when VTEC became a reality. It allowed manufacturers to run two cam profiles in a single engine optimizing both power and efficiency. GM engineered V8 engines that run on 4 cylinders while cruising, and hybrid electric assist can now give you a 908hp boost. These are all new technologies. For too many years car companies were stuck with carburetors and solid axles. Trust me, we're in a golden age for the automobile right now. In a few years when the Teslas are driving us around, we'll look back at the STi, the Cayman and the C6 vette and dream of the days when you could actually drive a car. We're already there with the manual transmission when Porsche looks at offering it as a possible option in their ultra 911 package.

The 80's are probably quite bad, but I'd argue that the 90's was the start of another golden era -- of course I'm talking about the golden import era. Domestic (ie. US) cars still sucked in the 90's, but Japanese cars in the 90's were coming into age. They might not be your typical American mentality kind of big power, big cars. But they were nevertheless peppy, zippy, and most importantly, fun to drive.

I agree we are definitely going into a automotive dark age though, and it isn't just the emissions requirements doing us in. All the collision and pedestrian safety stuff are turning cars into overweight and ugly pigs.

I'm gonna be hanging on to my current car(s) until they literally fall apart.:okay:

The mid 90's was great for imports. Supra, RX7, NSX, Eclipse, 3000GT, Integra, etc etc

The only notable domestics at the time were the 'Vettes, 5L, and Viper.

I disagree about the 90's being good for import cars. The rx7, supra, 3000gt were all killed off in the 90's due to high cost. The small cars like the Integra and civic were in a better position in the 90's but by no means were they muscle cars. When I say muscle car, I'm talking high hp and high performance. An Integra wI'll never be considered the same as a Camaro SS.

Point taken. But the demise of the Japanese high powered cars were not a function of EPA or the government though. Instead, I tend to think that it was the result of the manufacturers' own failings in allowing their prices to escalate beyond what is acceptable / affordable. When you add in the cheaper, lighter, and good ol' nature fun (ie. Miata, Civic, Integra, etc.), people just look at their pocket books and say, they'd rather go slower instead of paying for all those high tech toys that they won't use.

I've always referred to the early 90's as the golden age of EFI.

Here I am wanting to switch to a carb setup to simplify my car more!


All those extra parts and gadgets ARE awesome... until they break!!!

Or the many other conveniently left out facts

My dad bought a new Trans am in 79. It had a big 6.6 litre engine making only 220 hp. :rukidding:

Also had the 5th seat transmission tunnel.

You make a good point, as in every tragedy there are many factors.
The increasing cost of fuel along with the low efficiency engines the big 3 were offering, and the horrible reliability that we all grew to love in the 80's. My mom's Chrysler losing it's steering halfway across the Port Mann bridge, and my dad's 86' Ford Ranger that was in the shop more than it was on the road. That's why I went straight to VW in 1992 when I bought my first car. Then I learned my lesson with the Germans, and went straight to Honda. My civics and integras were so reliable and fun to drive compared to my parent's Fords.



werd!
Problem is, as I've gotten older I want to gadgets more and more. Your cars are very cool though.
:cool:

:fuckyea:

On a different but related note, I have to say that while the EPA / Euro emission standards have good intentions behind their ever more stringent emissions and fuel consumption requirements, much of the industry is dodging or otherwise evading the real goal. IMO, force induction, in particular, makes for a poor solution in meeting the fuel efficiency and emission requirements in the real world. With turbo charging, the advertised fuel consumption levels can usually only be realized by actively avoiding boost. The moment you need boost -- and that happens regularly in everyday driving -- your fuel consumption is heading straight down the dumps.

who knows, maybe this definition of muscle car is carbureted engine with solid axele, big fat rear tire instead of fuel injected engine with double wishbone suspension with low profile tires for good cornering and competing Nurburgring laptime with GT-R, Ferrari, etc.

http://image.superchevy.com/f/888227...ar%2Bfront.jpg
http://www.insidercarnews.com/wp-con...z28-2014-t.jpg

Possibly he could mean that the cheap pony car is dead. There are still thoroughbred muscle cars but they're not exactly cheap. Muscle isn't dead (yet) but what with how the way the world is going then we might start seeing electric sports cars more. I know its not a muscle car, but cars like the electric SLS.

It's funny how you mentioned this, because I was just reading on C&D about how our car purchasing power has changed over the past X number of years:

http://blog.caranddriver.com/are-car...phic-explains/

I will just paste the C&D image here:

http://blog.caranddriver.com/wp-cont...-Favorites.jpg

When looking at the above stats, I am just blown away by how much more expensive the Mustang has gotten over a 30 year period. The Camaro has also gotten a good chunk more expensive. Interestingly, the Nissan Z has gotten a lot cheaper.

Another interesting graphic / stat is this:

http://blog.caranddriver.com/wp-cont...mplaining1.jpg

How many months of salary did you guys save for buying your car?

took me 25 months for the SLK lol, I was poor back in the day
and 1.2 months for the used S class last year

^That's actually really interesting per those figures, maybe it's just the impression that older folks has impressed upon me by telling me about the "good ol days" where everybody drove muscle cars. Except in reality it was probably close to what it was now where everybody drove a range of vehicles but they only remember the good.

Very true, us stupid humans have a tendency to look back on our lives and over glorify the good aspects. I remember how when I owned my E34 BMW, I knew that I had to get rid of it because in actuality it was very close to becoming a huge money pit that I couldnt afford, so when it sold I was very pleased. But now (2 years later) when I look back on that car I always say that I miss it, and how I regret selling it. And thats because I exclude the negative memories when I make my judgement on it.

That's pretty interesting chart from Car and Driver.

At my last workplace, my boss owned a Porsche 928 which he bought new in the early 90s. He said at that time, a Ferrari 348 was almost the same price.

Since then, it looks Ferrari's have gone way up in price, while Porsches have stayed relatively the same.