What really happened to the “Muscle Car Era” (A retrospective)...

Most of what can be seen in the history/evolution of high-performance, especially as it pertains to American performance, can be seen by simple observation, and doesn’t necessarily require any kind of extensive study of automotive history. In other words, a lot of the changes that have been made by manufacturers over the last several years are evident in the characteristics of American cars.

If you just think about it, what made the ‘60s and ‘70s that much different from, say, the ‘80s, in terms of car construction? Well, the obvious answer to that is that the gas/oil “crunch” of the 1970s left a mark on how major manufacturers like GM and Chrysler handle the problem of fuel management, and how it relates to the condition of the environment. The other obvious ones are changes like unibody construction, as well as the use of more restrictive exhaust systems, even catalytic converters. But even this is too much of an analysis for such simple technology.

If there is any real-lived model or analogy that we can learn from, let’s take the one that’s the most straight-forward. Say, for instance, we’re standing in the parking lot of the Chili’s in Northridge. Let’s also take the analogy one-step further by throwing-in a time traveling element; say we’re standing in that exact same parking lot, but in 1984. A car, brand new for that year, is idling nearby. The first things one notices are the “speedboat” idle and the rich-smelling exhaust. But now stand in that same parking lot at the exact same coordinates, but twenty years earlier, in 1964. Again a car, brand new for that time, is also idling nearby. There are, however, noticeable differences. For example, fuel injection, the very invention of it, has had a major impact on fuel management in both regular production and high-performance cars. But before electronic fuel injection, systems like the Rochester fuel injection system used on early fuelie Chevys were mechanical, meaning that most “three-deuce” setups (three two-barrel carbs) actually ran better and more efficiently than what was considered “fuel injection” by 1950s standards. Keeping this in mind, it would make sense that the parking lot of 1964 would be a lot more rich-smelling than that of ’84. Also, notice that even in that 30-some-odd-year gap, exhausts on cars still sound relatively unbridled, which could also say something about the automakers’ use of insulation in cars; car interiors by the ‘80s and early ‘90s, if you ever notice by simply listening, are still relatively noisy, though still not nearly as much as American cars from the ‘60s or early ‘70s.

It seems as though with the progression of automotive technology, different systems that govern different functions on cars have become more restrictive with time, though this is probably a matter of perception, since such inventions as relay packs in place of a distributor and the invention of GM’s LS motor have proven that sometimes it’s actually a good thing to leave behind certain traditions.

Is the use of electronics in automotive putting a hamper on performance? Again, it all depends on how you look at it. Always remember that it really doesn’t have as much to do with the manufacturer as it does with a state and its unique, state-wide laws. Here in California, for example, the state smog regulations are pretty tight, which means that it’s hard to build any kind of motor, while still getting around smog-check mandates. Makes you wonder, though: what kind of potential would late-model powertrains, like the LS motor, have if 

they were left uncontrolled by suffocating smog regulations? A scary, but exciting thought!

- Sal Alaimo Jr., B. A. (5/20/11)

S. J. A.