Actual Horsepower Of '60s/'70s Muscle Cars

[Fleet 500]

Sigh... Matra, remember that thread where I said crumple zones were a pretty important invention or something to that effect?

Fleet then said crumple zones were stupid.

It seems nobody can bring him into the 21th century...

When did I say that crumple zones were "stupid?"
I am in the 21st century, but my cars aren't.

[Fleet 500]

I would never believe most of those figures, since they are NON-UNIFORM and therefore ESSENTIALLY MEANINGLESS.


All of those non-specifics yield a virtually infinite number of possible combinations, meaning that ADVERTISED SAE Gross ratings were non-uniform and therefore ESSENTIALLY MEANINGLESS.:

- Long tube, aftermarket racing headers or cast iron OEM exhaust manifolds. (The SAE gross spec was non-specific in that regard).

- Heads/chambers that were cc'd to minimum, heads/chambers with volumes that were representative of actual production heads or heads that fell anywhere in between. (The SAE gross spec was non-specific in that regard).

- Heads that were ported, polished, treated to a 3 angle valve job and port matched with the intake and exhaust, heads that were representative of actual production engines or heads that fell anywhere in between. (The SAE gross spec was non-specific in that regard).

- Carburetor and ignition calibrations that were optimized to produce the best possible results in a dyno lab, real-world calibrations that were applied to actual production engines or calibrations that fell anywhere in between. (The SAE gross spec was non-specific in that regard.)

- Water pumps that were FACILITY pumps or engine-powered water pumps that were installed in actual production engines. (The SAE gross spec was non-specific in that regard.)

- ADVERTISED figures that accurately reflected actual dyno test results and were readily verifiable or ADVERTISED figures that were based on the imaginations of the marketing people. (The SAE gross spec was non-specific in that regard.)

As explained before, it is the maximum hp an engine can make under ideal conditions, with no assessories or mufflers.
And back then, it was the only way to compare engines.

[Fleet 500]

So you've seen an example have you ? Care to elaborate ... what speed, what was hit, or hit it ? Do you really think the PANEL made any difference AT ALL to the results ? ( ps; Check on steel panel STRENGHT for various thicknesses )

You've never seen any collision photos in which a door was pushed in far enough to kill a driver or passenger?

Expensive repair but cheaper accident as less injuries to PEOPLE.
But as with ALL goods today, design is for manufacturability and to last "expected life" and NOT for easy repair or survive forever. Welcome to tthe 21st Century

'60s cars were made to survive forever. (Just joking, but some of them practically will.)

hmm, so a truck plowing into the drivers side and you'd rather be in the tank which means you will suffer major head, shoulder, rib and hip injuries. I'd rather be in the Acura where pre-tensioners, side airbags and passenger cell strength would leave me healthier after it

If the speed is fast enough, air pags are not going to save the life of an occupant. In other words, if the force of the collision pushes a door into a driver or passenger, it will kill them. And since the doors are so much thicker (thicker gauge metal) on my '69 Cad, there is less of a chance of the door crushing me.

[harddrivin1le]

As explained before, it [gross hp] is the maximum hp an engine can make under ideal conditions, with no assessories or mufflers.
And back then, it was the only way to compare engines.

But many engines were rated with POWER INFLATING MODIFICATIONS (like open long tube racing headers and blueprinted engines running racing fuel) while others were not.

And some engines couldn't achieve their ADVERTISED figures even with THOSE MODIFICATIONS while others could achieve their advertised figures WITHOUT THEM!

So how could one "compare engines" when there was no clearly defined uniformity?

Which engines were "under-rated," using your definition of gross hp? Be ready to back your claims with WELL DOCUMENTED, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

EXAMPLE:

This Stage 1 is DOCUMENTED STOCK (but .040" over-bored, which does unshroud the valves and bump compression slightly. It produced 360 HP @ 4,600 RPM - EXACTLY what Buick rated it at in 1970!


http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...g?t=1196194042

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...g?t=1196126078

Yet, you've used that as an example of an "under-rated" engine - beginning with your very first post!

[johnnynumfiv]

I already know that. It makes for very expensive repairs (assuming they can be repaired.).



If another car is going to plow into the side of my car, I'd rather be in my '69 Cadillac than in an Acura.

Just for the record, I work on crashed cars for a living. Most door skins are glued on now a days. They add no structural strength to the vehicle, so therefore your theory basing the structural integrity of the vehicle on the flexibility of the door skin is flawed.

I did a honda civic that was hit directly in the drivers door at about 30 mph. The other vehicle did not puncture the door, it dented it in and the support bar inside took the main blow along with the center post, like they are made to do.

ALL new cars are made to bend and absorb in certain places in the event of an accident.

If your 69 caddy was hit in the side, it'd likely push the door into you. The impact would be violent(no absorption) plus no airbags and proper restraints would mean theres nothing between your head and the window. This would lead to serious injuries to yourself and occupants.

In the Acura, side airbags would deploy and along with modern seat belts, major injuries would be prevented.

[johnnynumfiv]

You've never seen any collision photos in which a door was pushed in far enough to kill a driver or passenger?

'60s cars were made to survive forever. (Just joking, but some of them practically will.)

If the speed is fast enough, air pags are not going to save the life of an occupant. In other words, if the force of the collision pushes a door into a driver or passenger, it will kill them. And since the doors are so much thicker (thicker gauge metal) on my '69 Cad, there is less of a chance of the door crushing me.

I have seen a car(early 90's olds), that hit a tree sideways on the passenger side hard enough to make it look like a U. The door was pushed in past the console. It was amazing that the passenger survived, but they did sustain serious injuries.

The thicker sheet metal on your cadillac will make the shock of the impact much greater than on a modern car. If you compare the same hit on a modern car vs your cadillac, the modern car's occupants will have a better chance to be alive.

[kingofthering]

If the speed is fast enough, air pags are not going to save the life of an occupant. In other words, if the force of the collision pushes a door into a driver or passenger, it will kill them. And since the doors are so much thicker (thicker gauge metal) on my '69 Cad, there is less of a chance of the door crushing me.

This folks, is SUV driver logic.

The strength/size will automatically give me immunity in the event of a crash.

[Fleet 500]

This folks, is SUV driver logic.

The strength/size will automatically give me immunity in the event of a crash.

So? If I want to be in a safe car, why not?
But I still practice defensive driving... have to out here with so many drivers.

[Fleet 500]

I have seen a car(early 90's olds), that hit a tree sideways on the passenger side hard enough to make it look like a U. The door was pushed in past the console. It was amazing that the passenger survived, but they did sustain serious injuries.

The thicker sheet metal on your cadillac will make the shock of the impact much greater than on a modern car. If you compare the same hit on a modern car vs your cadillac, the modern car's occupants will have a better chance to be alive.

As far as injuries caused by protruding steel, I would rather be in my Cadillac.

[Fleet 500]

Just for the record, I work on crashed cars for a living. Most door skins are glued on now a days. They add no structural strength to the vehicle, so therefore your theory basing the structural integrity of the vehicle on the flexibility of the door skin is flawed.

I did a honda civic that was hit directly in the drivers door at about 30 mph. The other vehicle did not puncture the door, it dented it in and the support bar inside took the main blow along with the center post, like they are made to do.

What about a higher speed? What about 50 or 60 mph instead of 30 mph?

If your 69 caddy was hit in the side, it'd likely push the door into you. The impact would be violent(no absorption) plus no airbags and proper restraints would mean theres nothing between your head and the window. This would lead to serious injuries to yourself and occupants.

Plenty of people back in the '60s survived those type of accidents. And my '69 Cad has shoulder and lap belts.

In the Acura, side airbags would deploy and along with modern seat belts, major injuries would be prevented

Not in every case. Especially at higher speeds. The two occupants of the Volvo in the attached photo did not survive. Although that was a front, not side impact. It does show that air bags and absorption doesn't prevent deaths in every collision.

[Fleet 500]

But many engines were rated with POWER INFLATING MODIFICATIONS (like open long tube racing headers and blueprinted engines running racing fuel) while others were not.

And some engines couldn't achieve their ADVERTISED figures even with THOSE MODIFICATIONS while others could achieve their advertised figures WITHOUT THEM!

So how could one "compare engines" when there was no clearly defined uniformity?

It doesn't mean it's completely useless. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as they say. However, I know that you have made a career of posting otherwise on the Internet.

Which engines were "under-rated," using your definition of gross hp? Be ready to back your claims with WELL DOCUMENTED, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

The ones that were underrated are in my first post.

EXAMPLE:

This Stage 1 is DOCUMENTED STOCK (but .040" over-bored, which does unshroud the valves and bump compression slightly. It produced 360 HP @ 4,600 RPM - EXACTLY what Buick rated it at in 1970!


http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...g?t=1196194042

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...g?t=1196126078

Yet, you've used that as an example of an "under-rated" engine - beginning with your very first post.

Yeah, that one engine. What about other (stock) Stage 1s? Posting the same article over and over isn't going to prove much.
I could say I rebuilt a Mopar 340 engine (slightly overbored) and it made the same as its rated hp, but that doesn't mean ALL 340s will make that hp.

[Matra et Alpine]

You've never seen any collision photos in which a door was pushed in far enough to kill a driver or passenger?

Silly question
Of course, accidents happen at speeds where NO protection or sconstruction would save anyone.
That doesn't mean they don't work and why ALL designs use the approach rather than lots and lots of steel

'60s cars were made to survive forever. (Just joking, but some of them practically will.)

"Some" of any car survices practically forever
There's even an Alfasud racing in our Historic Series !!!

If the speed is fast enough, air pags are not going to save the life of an occupant. In other words, if the force of the collision pushes a door into a driver or passenger, it will kill them.

True, in the case of say a tree at 70+mph - one I've personally seen, nothing can protect.
But bags provide MUCH more protection than solid doors. We went over this Fleet. All that happens in your tank is that you bounce off the door and end up with all the injuries listed !

And since the doors are so much thicker (thicker gauge metal) on my '69 Cad, there is less of a chance of the door crushing me.

Go and check out steel strength as I'd suggested before.
If you think your 14 guage is doing any more than 10-12 guage you dont' understand steel strengh.
What guage is your door ?
BTW, how secure are your door locks - somethgin that modern car tests are VERY strict on and oleder cars weren't

[Matra et Alpine]

What about a higher speed? What about 50 or 60 mph instead of 30 mph?

ANOTHER silly point.
Yeah and at what speed do you know YOU are survivable ?
Stop polluting this thread with this BS, it was all covered along time ago and if you don't remember it then go read it.

Plenty of people back in the '60s survived those type of accidents. And my '69 Cad has shoulder and lap belts.

MORE people survive todays accidents. You should think more before posting

Not in every case. Especially at higher speeds. The two occupants of the Volvo in the attached photo did not survive. Although that was a front, not side impact. It does show that air bags and absorption doesn't prevent deaths in every collision.

Neither does lots of steel
OKm stop being infantile and leave all this sh!t alone. No point trying to switch away from horsepower. PLease grow up and accept FACTS.

[harddrivin1le]

Yeah, that one engine. What about other (stock) Stage 1s? Posting the same article over and over isn't going to prove much.
I could say I rebuilt a Mopar 340 engine (slightly overbored) and it made the same as its rated hp, but that doesn't mean ALL 340s will make that hp.

"SAYING IT" and providing EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support it are two very different things.

Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You deny valid and highly detailed (right down to the actual compression ratio, displacement and cam specs, as witnessed by a third party) EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE while failing to produce any that counters it. That is the sign of an idiot.

Do you think it's strictly by chance that the professionally rebuilt Stage 1 "just happened" to make 360.9 HP @ 4,500 RPM when Buick rated it at 360 HP @ 4,600 RPM?

[johnnynumfiv]

What about a higher speed? What about 50 or 60 mph instead of 30 mph?



Plenty of people back in the '60s survived those type of accidents. And my '69 Cad has shoulder and lap belts.



Not in every case. Especially at higher speeds. The two occupants of the Volvo in the attached photo did not survive. Although that was a front, not side impact. It does show that air bags and absorption doesn't prevent deaths in every collision.

Of course the damage would have been worse on the honda, and it'd be worse on your caddy too.

If so many people survived in the 60's from those accidents, why have car makers have put BILLIONS into R&D of side/rear/front impacts since that time?

I've seen accidents where deaths have occurred when the vehicles were going around 20mph. Every accident is different though. Now do you think that you sitting in your cadillac would have survived that wreck?

Another note, that is an older model volvo, in the past decade there has been a significant change in airbag and crash technology.