So how accurate are the ratings on 2nd gens? I was looking at getting a later 2nd gen, like 77-79 and was wondering about the power in these.
Seeing numbers like 145, 165, 120, and at the top 190 Hp, I am wondering if these are severely underrated or not.
I don't wanna buy one and then have to put tons of money into it for it to have some respectable power (IE 300+ in my book)
So whats the deal with 400s and anything in these years having such low power ratings?

EDIT: btw I dont have any knowledge of 2nd gens, I love the way the 2nd gen fbody looks and everything about it and Id love to restore one. I own a 93 LT1 and love it

 

No, they definately are not underrated engines. They were just dogs: this was a period in which detriot (and Japan and Germany for that matter) were very slow learning how to live with emissions limits and produce good horsepower. Before port injection, before full computerized ECMs, before variable induction and so forth, the way to pass emissions limits was just to de-tune the engine withy low compression and lousy timing and so forth. I bought a GM V8 in '76 (a Pontiac) that was rated at around 140 HP, and believe me, it had no more.

Most often these engines are also not good for modification either: they have weak internals and lousy heads. But the good news is, take a mid to late 70s Camaro and drop a 385 or 415 HP crate engine in it (it will fit, no problem, and you have the car it always should have been.

 

yaya thats nice if you have like 10 grand for a crate engine but I dont. Im 17. So realistically The most I can spend would be 1500ish upgrading the engine.

 

Well, you could go for a standard 350/290 for starters. They're going for about $2100 new. That's still a vast improvement over the stock engine.

And it has plenty of room for further upgrades later on, when you can afford it.

http://www.gmperformanceparts.com/En...P&sku=12499529

If that's still too high for your price range, you could always check out the junkyards around where you live; there could be something worthwhile to look at.

 

are these engines really that ****ty? Thats really disappointing, gm.
Is there anything decent from stock?
If I get get a cam,heads,intake,carb, etc what problems am I gonna have. Im talking 350 and 400 here, nevermind the 305. Were they built with the intention of low emissions and power but still have strong parts or are the rods gonna break as soon as I ad 50 hp to the damn thing.

 

Look, all cars were dogs in this era: there were some Maseratis during this period that took 9 seconds to get to 60, and some Ferraris that weren't much faster. You just have to accept the fact that that is how it is. Cars made in the 70s after 1972 just have no power to speak of, and the prices partly reflect that. GM did as good as anyone. Mustangs during that period were pitiful (that doesn't even come close to how bad they were).

The stock engines in this era were designed and built knowing they produced no power, so cranks are weak compared to earlier and later models, heads very restricted: the 400s and 350s do not make really good starting points for a high power engine: a crate engine is much cheaper in the long run.

As Saint Ebony said, crate engines start at around $2100 and if you shop around you can probably find one cheaper: I've seen them for around $1800 on sale. YOu still have to put it in and that will eat about $300 of misc. parts and supplies, nd a lot of time, and require some real mechanical talent -- not sure if you have that at 17 years age, but I bet you know someone whose does.

The cheapest route if you want 300+ HP is to find a good LT1 or LS1 F-body. Some of the LT1 aren't too pricey, and ultimately they will cost you less than doing a late 70s purchase and then putting in a crate engine, and they are strong enough that you can do some nince mods, cheap, and pick up really useable power.

 

yeah I know it'd be easier and maybe even cheaper to drop in a crate engine but I'm just not much on that idea. It seems so easy and generic, most people with,well whatever it is they have, jsut drop in a different engine isntead of working with the one in the engine. The engine will probably go to a junkyard and rot away or get squished. In this case thats one less fbody that might make it.
If I did put a LT1 or somethin in it that would make me get another one with no engine and restore to bone stock. I just know it.
I don't think an engine swap would be much of a problem, my 65 mustang pretty much just came with the block so I had to take it out.
2nd gen fbodies look pretty big so I think theres lottsa room right? cyz lt1s and ls1s are crammed into 4th gens.
I dunno ,I'm tossin around ideas.I think hot rod or somebody did a 455 or 400 a while back and I remember somethin about a guy with a 400 doing 9s with alotta stock internals and a blower.
Im on the fence because 2nd gens looks so damn good but it seems hard to make power. 3rd gens dont look as good, its a kinda a love it or hate it thing it seems but I know how to make power for ceap with a tbi 305 and probably 2k more than that for a tpi 305.
If only first gens didnt cost so much, then I wouldnt need to make these kind of decisions.

 

What's wrong with 3rd-gens?

If you are dead set on building up the original engine, keep in mind it will cost a lot more than a crate engine would, and you'll be replacing very nearly everything. It's your call, mate.

 

The second gen cars look great - some of them, anyway. I'm partial to the 70 -72 model myself. It's whatever you want to do, but there is nothing wrong with a good crate engine. Alot of people pull the original engine and keep it for legacy's sake, and use a crate engine.

 

Theres nothin wrong with them its just they look good sometimes and sometimes i dont like them as much and alotta people I know don't like them. Most of the time I like 3rd gen camaro and firebird but sometimes I dont really like the firebird as much I dont know why.

Thats why I came here asking about it, because I didnt know whether it would be easy and fairly cheap. apparently not.