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

[Matra et Alpine]

He is considering a new Honda Accord or Acura TL.

yeah I guess he'd get into trouble for the alternative

It shows why those cars have major damage after relatively low-speed accidents.

Do you have long term memory issues ?
We discussed this to it's death many times over with solid FACTS confirming all the information presented.
The car is DESIGNED to do that.

It also means that another car can smash through the door in a side collision.

Again, you really need to keep re-reading old threads if long term memory is that suspect
What the SKIN of a door is is irrelevant.
You don't get side intrusino in modern cars and the locks don't burst like they do on your beloived 60s cars

[harddrivin1le]

yeah I guess he'd get into trouble for the alternative

Do you have long term memory issues ?
We discussed this to it's death many times over with solid FACTS confirming all the information presented.
The car is DESIGNED to do that.

Again, you really need to keep re-reading old threads if long term memory is that suspect
What the SKIN of a door is is irrelevant.
You don't get side intrusino in modern cars and the locks don't burst like they do on your beloived 60s cars

Fleet doesn't understand the concept of crumple zones and planned structural deformation in the interest of energy absorption.

In fact, he doesn't understand basic physics as it applies to automobiles (or anything else). Yet, he makes ill-conceived. technically flawed, inflammatory comments that are intended to suggest otherwise.

Crumple zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


When asked in the future how much HP my Acura produces, I may adopt Fleet's myth-based "logic" and reply as follows:

"Acura rates it at 286 HP for insurance purposes, but it actually makes more than 410 HP."

[Fleet 500]

It also shows people are not getting whiplash injurys and the damage is usually contianed to certian areas.

So you'd rather a car plow through the door and into you rather than get whiplash?

And no normally not there are side intrusion bars nowdays which is somthing older cars dont have (and dont say they didnt need them they never tested side impact on older cars and their side impact was woeful)

My '69 Cadillac has those bars. So does the 1970 Dodge Challenger. Some older cars did have them.

[Ferrer]

95 Pages! I thought we had managed to establish that american cars were rubbish in post 3.

Or something.

[jediali]

we havent established anything other than fleet likes his cars old and harddrivin1le likes his privacy!

[Matra et Alpine]

So you'd rather a car plow through the door and into you rather than get whiplash?

CLASSIC
You dont' really know any aspect of modern cars
Suggest re-reading the old threads on this topic

[Fleet 500]

Fleet doesn't understand the concept of crumple zones and planned structural deformation in the interest of energy absorption.

In fact, he doesn't understand basic physics as it applies to automobiles (or anything else). Yet, he makes ill-conceived. technically flawed, inflammatory comments that are intended to suggest otherwise.

Crumple zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I definitely know about crumple zones. I've read about that over the last 20 years or so just like other car guys have.

When asked in the future how much HP my Acura produces, I may adopt Fleet's myth-based "logic" and reply as follows:

"Acura rates it at 286 HP for insurance purposes, but it actually makes more than 410 HP."

Will stop with the "actual" hp of an Acura. You sound like a broken record! If you really want to know, take out the engine, put it on the dyno and test it the old "gross" way. Then you can put the engine back in the car with its nice plastic interior.

[Fleet 500]

CLASSIC
You dont' really know any aspect of modern cars
Suggest re-reading the old threads on this topic

Have you seen some accident pictures? That does happen sometimes.

[Fleet 500]

we havent established anything other than fleet likes his cars old and harddrivin1le likes his privacy!

Lol! That's one way of putting it.

[Fleet 500]

Do you have long term memory issues ?
We discussed this to it's death many times over with solid FACTS confirming all the information presented.
The car is DESIGNED to do that.

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

Again, you really need to keep re-reading old threads if long term memory is that suspect
What the SKIN of a door is is irrelevant.
You don't get side intrusino in modern cars and the locks don't burst like they do on your beloived 60s cars.

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.

[Fleet 500]

95 Pages! I thought we had managed to establish that american cars were rubbish in post 3.

I really enjoy my 3 "rubbish" cars.
And someday I may buy another "rubbish" car.

[Fleet 500]

Those ratings were "ESSENTIALLY MEANINGLESS," though.

Not for those who understand it.

Plus, new engines can have Gross ratings too, provided they're tested in such a state.

The LS2, for example, produces 472 DOCUMENTED Gross HP.

http://www.gmperformanceparts.com/_r...350_eprint.pdf

Back to old vs new? When, in my first post, did I ever compare with old vs new?

No production line stock 428 Cobra Jet made "410 HP" or anything close to it. They produced ~ 275 SAE NET HP in their "as installed" condition, which correlates pretty well to an HONEST Gross rating of 335 HP

275 net is more like 360-370 groos, not 335. But you keep right on believing the advertised figures!

[Matra et Alpine]

Have you seen some accident pictures? That does happen sometimes.

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 )

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

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

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.

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.

[harddrivin1le]

275 net is more like 360-370 groos, not 335. But you keep right on believing the advertised figures!

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

You've yet to produce a shred of valid, empirical evidence proving that any "muscle car" engine was "under-rated." The 426 Hemi "made 425 (gross) HP like clockwork," according to Chrysler's chief dyno man of the time, who went on to say that engine was ACCURATELY rated. The '70 Stage 1 made 360 "Gross/Net" HP @ 4,600 RPM and Buick rated it at 360 Gross HP @ 4,600 RPM. That certainly wasn't "under-rated."

Those are the two most powerful STREET-intended "muscle car" engines and neither one was "under-rated."

However, many of the engines of that period were OVER-RATED (even by Gross terms). Mr. Csere explained how and why that was so.:

All of these 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.)

[kingofthering]

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.

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...