Page 4 of 106 FirstFirst ... 234561454104 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1576

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

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    I meant to add more of the text from the article, so here it is...

    Buick 455 Stage 1
    "This one had the highest torque of at at 510 lbs/ft. and the torque curve was pretty flat from 2500 to 3500 rpm. We have assigned it a true peak rating of 420 hp at 5400 rpm, well up from the factory rating of 360 hp."

    Camaro Z/28 and Boss 302 Mustang
    "Both of these engines were rated at 290 hp at 5800 rpm, with 290 lbs/ft torque. These ratings were obviously fudged to get the cars into the lower stock classes at the drag strip. It didn't work. NHRA officials immediately factored their horsepower up to 310, and put them in a higher class. And that was their true power peak- 310 hp at 6200 rpm."

    Mopar 340-4 bbl
    "This was another small block engine that was conservatively rated to get it into a more favorable drag strip class. And it did work for a while. But actually this was one of the sweetest small block street engines of the period, and that factory rating of 275 hp at 5000 rpm should really be 320 hp at 5600 rpm. The mill would put out more than 275 hp net."

    Ford Cleveland 351-4 bbl
    "This one was marketed as a 'peppy, responsive' passenger car engine for the mass market. But actually it was a thinly desguised high-performance V-8 for the youth market. The advertised rating of 300 hp was very conservative. With 11-to1 compression, huge ports and valves, long camming and 650 cfm carburetion, the 351-4 bbl Cleveland would dyno 340 hp at 5600 rpm very easily. Note also that the optional Boss 351 version, with better camming and manifolding was good for another 20 hp at 6000 rpm. Healthy engines for 351 cubes."

    Boss 429 Mustang
    "On paper this engine should have been close to the Chrysler Street Hemi in dyno performance. It actually had bigger ports and valves. But, alas, those huge ports and valves were the Boss 429s downfall on the street. Mid-range response and torque were soft. And with the limited carburetion and camming necessary for street driving, the act never really got it together even above 5000 rpm. The Boss 429 was a lost soul, with no rpm range where it was really comfortable. The true dyno peak of 420 hp at 5600 rpm was very little better than the 428 Cobra Jet."

    I'll post the last three from the text in a little while.
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Here are the last three comments from the text of the same article...

    Oldsmobile 455 W-30
    "Here was an engine that didn't look all that great on paper, no huge ports and valves or big Holley carb. But it happened to have one of the best matches between port design and camshaft timing of any engine of the musclecar era. That 328 degree cam with .470 inch lift, in conjunction with the medium-size ports and valves, plus the long stroke, gave tremendous volumetric efficiency from 3000 rpm clear to 5500 rpm. Result: 500 lbs/ft of torque at 3600 rpm and a great peak dyno output of 440 hp at 5600 rpm. And it was probably all an engineering accident."

    Oldsmobile 350 W-31
    "Or maybe the 455 wasn't an accident. Because Olds engineers did it right again with the 350 cu in block for the W-32 Cutlasses. Relatively small ports and valves, 700 cfm Quadrajet carburetion, but a lot of cam timing and lift. The magic formula scored again on the 350 W-31. This combination would dyno 350 hp at 5800 rpm, and would turn to 6600 rpm with hydraulic lifters. Wild little engine, and one that's almost forgotten now in musclecar nostalgia."

    Pontaic Ram Air 400
    "This is the one with that odd advertised power rating of 366 hp at 5100 rpm. Obviously a rating taken well down on the power curve, as shown by the torque rating of 445 lbs/ft at 3600 rpm. With 301 degree cam and late big-valve heads, the Ram Air 400 had a lot of potential above 5000 rpm. The true dyno peak should have been about 410 hp at 5600 rpm."
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    I just had to bring that up again. Find me one inline four that puts out four hundred horses... most likely it has MPFI, Forced Induction, VVT, 4 valves/cylinder, (you probably don't know what those are...) and costs by itself than most vehicles.
    I just noticed your ridiculous statements.

    Find ME one 60s/70s Muscle Car engine claiming to make 400 hp that actually makes it on a dyno. And I don't give a damn how an inline 4 goes about making its power as long as its there.


    The list posted in this thread is foolishness.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by -What- View Post

    Find ME one 60s/70s Muscle Car engine claiming to make 400 hp that actually makes it on a dyno. And I don't give a damn how an inline 4 goes about making its power as long as its there.
    Gross or net hp?

    The list posted in this thread is foolishness.
    I agree. The "advertised" ratings of most of the muscle car engines is foolishness.
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by -What- View Post
    I just noticed your ridiculous statements.

    Find ME one 60s/70s Muscle Car engine claiming to make 400 hp that actually makes it on a dyno. And I don't give a damn how an inline 4 goes about making its power as long as its there.


    The list posted in this thread is foolishness.
    You MUST be YOUNG........your lack of respect and knowledge of Detroit MuscleCars shines thru on your foolish remarks.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    south beloit IL
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by hightower99 View Post
    crap combustion chamber design will do that...
    yeah but in his case its probably the high compression
    My rides:
    1999 Mustang GT

    1974 Ford Country Squire (for sale!)

    1991 Jeep Cherokee

    1970 Shelby GT500

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Juggs View Post
    yeah but in his case its probably the high compression
    well seeing as he probably has a static CR of 11:1 and maybe (if he is lucky) a dynamic CR of 9:1...

    it's the crap combustion chamber design
    Power, whether measured as HP, PS, or KW is what accelerates cars and gets it up to top speed. Power also determines how far you take a wall when you hit it
    Engine torque is an illusion.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, Calif.
    Posts
    6,794
    Quote Originally Posted by hightower99 View Post
    well seeing as he probably has a static CR of 11:1 and maybe (if he is lucky) a dynamic CR of 9:1...

    it's the crap combustion chamber design
    It's more like what is supposed to be gasoline these days. '60s cars with a compression ratio of over 10.0:1 were meant to run on 98-101 octane; "premium" today is 91-92 octane.
    My '69 Cadillac (10.5:1 compression ratio) does not like today's "gasoline," so I add octane boost.
    '76 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine, '95 Lincoln Town Car.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleet 500 View Post
    It's more like what is supposed to be gasoline these days. '60s cars with a compression ratio of over 10.0:1 were meant to run on 98-101 octane; "premium" today is 91-92 octane.
    My '69 Cadillac (10.5:1 compression ratio) does not like today's "gasoline," so I add octane boost.
    That is because your cadillac has crap combustion chamber design...


    Think about it there are plenty of modern cars out there that run happy on premium pump gas even though they have CR ratios 11:1 or higher... Also because of advancements in manufacturering processes your cadillac has a much lower dynamic compression ratio then a modern car which runs 10.5:1 static.

    They can do that because they have excellent combustion chamber design.

    Power, whether measured as HP, PS, or KW is what accelerates cars and gets it up to top speed. Power also determines how far you take a wall when you hit it
    Engine torque is an illusion.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,775
    Quote Originally Posted by hightower99 View Post
    That is because your cadillac has crap combustion chamber design...


    Think about it there are plenty of modern cars out there that run happy on premium pump gas even though they have CR ratios 11:1 or higher... Also because of advancements in manufacturering processes your cadillac has a much lower dynamic compression ratio then a modern car which runs 10.5:1 static.

    They can do that because they have excellent combustion chamber design.

    We need to stop you buying petrol in cans

    99% wrong.

    Modern FUEL INJECTION and engine management with knock sensors is what lets moden cars achieve that. Try it in a carburetted setup and you need to adjust the mix and if "on the edge" the timing too !!!

    The 1% is improved understanding of air/fuel flow and chamber shape
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,068
    Agreed- the Hemi worked so well back then, it's still being used today.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    We need to stop you buying petrol in cans

    99% wrong.

    Modern FUEL INJECTION and engine management with knock sensors is what lets moden cars achieve that. Try it in a carburetted setup and you need to adjust the mix and if "on the edge" the timing too !!!

    The 1% is improved understanding of air/fuel flow and chamber shape

    That just reminds me of the quote "96% of statisical references are made up 100% of the time"

    Modern fuel injection helps by making sure that all cylinders get roughly the same amount of fuel (as opposed to carburetted motors where the fuel is less evenly divided). But for actual controling overall A:F ratio carburettors shouldn't lower knock limits... in fact they should increase the knock limit as most of the time carburettors are tuned to run rich. EFI does much more for economy by constantly trying to run the engine as close to 14.7:1 for the majority of the time and running lean when cruising. Modern ECU systems with knock sensors keep the engine from damaging itself from detonation/pre-ignition, but again they don't raise the actual knock limit of the engine much.

    Also I would like to note that when I say "Combustion chamber design" I am not only talking about the shape of the combustion chamber. I am talking about manufacturering processes that allow closer clearences, I am talking about optimised positioning of all the parts in the combustion chamber, and of course optimised air/fuel flow and control.

    Also they did not say that they could run on pump premium if they tuned their carbs and adjusted timing they said they couldn't run on pump premium. Modern cars run on pump premium with higher static CR and and higher dynamic CR. Granted that EFI, ECU with knock sensors make sure that the engine doesn't blow up but the actual knock limit (when knocking starts) has alot to do with combustion chamber design.
    Power, whether measured as HP, PS, or KW is what accelerates cars and gets it up to top speed. Power also determines how far you take a wall when you hit it
    Engine torque is an illusion.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,488
    Quote Originally Posted by IWantAnAudiRS6 View Post
    Agreed- the Hemi worked so well back then, it's still being used today.
    I've read articles which say that modern Hemis aren't Hemi at all...
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrer View Post
    I've read articles which say that modern Hemis aren't Hemi at all...
    What articles? AFAIK the new 5.7L and 6.1L engines do have hemisphereical combustion chambers...
    Power, whether measured as HP, PS, or KW is what accelerates cars and gets it up to top speed. Power also determines how far you take a wall when you hit it
    Engine torque is an illusion.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,488
    Quote Originally Posted by hightower99 View Post
    What articles? AFAIK the new 5.7L and 6.1L engines do have hemisphereical combustion chambers...
    The new Dodge Hemi V8 engine

    Scroll down until you reach "General hemi engine notes", alomst at the end of this part.
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Exotic Cars The Defining Characteristics
    By lfb666 in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-17-2009, 08:59 PM
  2. Classic Australian Muscle Cars Specs & Pics
    By motorsportnerd in forum Classic cars
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 03-07-2009, 07:38 PM
  3. Classic Muscle Cars
    By islero in forum Multimedia
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-03-2008, 02:12 AM
  4. Sultan of Brunei!!
    By lfb666 in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 12-11-2006, 05:58 AM
  5. "004 best and worst selling cars
    By Mustang in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-19-2004, 06:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •