How much power would a 455 be making in say, 1971? Stage 1 or any other 455 will do.
Printable View
How much power would a 455 be making in say, 1971? Stage 1 or any other 455 will do.
I haven't even mentioned what today's DEDICATED PERFORMANCE CARS can do:
[url=http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/9017/2006-chevrolet-corvette-z06-page3.html]2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 - - Car and Driver - February 2005[/url]
11.7 @ 127 MPH for that BONE STOCK Z06 Corvette (and it gets 26 MPG highway).
(Some owners have beat those numbers....)
That's 505 SAE NET HP.
I guess that must be 800 or so Gross HP...
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;755476]That's the problem... you don't seem to want to accept any info that contradicts what you've been posting.
Gee... I wonder how much horsepower the Yenko 427 Camaro (11.45 sec @ 120 mph 1/4 mile) was making? And it wasn't overpriced like that $92,000 Mercedes.
I also wonder how much real hp cars like the 454 Baldwin-Motion Camaro (11.90 sec 1/4 mile) or the Max Wedge Mopar and 427 Ford Thunderbolt (low-12s/ high 11s)?
As many muscle magazines said, just adding headers and better tires on a Hemi car would put it in the 12s. Even the 1960s slicks did not have all that great traction- they were too hard.[/QUOTE]
Stock Yenko Camaro's ran nothing CLOSE to those times. You are DREAMING.
And PLEASE don't bother referencing results from today's "pure stock" drags, where "stock" means NHRA stock and therefore means overbores, cheater cams, 3 angle valve jobs, milled heads, decked blocks, forged internals, etc. etc.
Here is an engine dyno test of a BONE STOCK ZL1 Camaro. That made even more power than the 427 L72 that was installed in the Yenko/COPO cars.
[url=http://www.camaros.org/copo.shtml]CRG Research Report - COPO 427[/url]
376 SAE NET HP
WOW!
[COLOR="Red"]Oh, here's a SECOND ZL1 on a dyno, just in case the first engine "wasn't built right."[/COLOR] Note that it has no engine accessories of any kind, no mufflers, no air cleaner, etc. It made 426 GROSS HP.
These figures are right in line with those that were obtained by the ZL1 above.
[img]http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/ZL1DYNOTEST.JPG[/img]
[QUOTE=harddrivin1le;755452]I'm not going to respond to anymore of your posts.[/QUOTE]
A wise choice.
[QUOTE=harddrivin1le;755454]Many of the cars that were CLAIMED to be "stock" were factory-built "ringers" that were prepared specifically for the magazines in order to get the best results.
...
Consumer advocacy was essentially non-existent back then. A lie like that today would culminate in a huge class action lawsuit against Pontiac because the customer's cars couldn't come close to matching those results. The manufacturers got away with it back then because they knew they could.[/QUOTE]
It is a practice that still continues.
TVR, particularly in the 1990s, produced some remarkably competitive test results - a little tinkering to ensure the car is "optimal" can do wonders.
Even today, there are reports of discrepancies between cars given to magazines at launches, and cars tested later, usually sourced from owners.
The Ford Focus RS press cars allegedly had a much more aggressive diff setting, the Porsche 996 GT2 is another example where owner cars appear to have a much more benign set up than the famously "scary" press cars.
It is harder to have such radical alterations as a different engine these days, but small changes in set-up can still be worked to a manufacturer's advantage.
[QUOTE=harddrivin1le;755471]And that Chrysler SRT8 is even HEAVIER than a '69 Hemi Charger! And it's still FASTER! Why? Because it is MORE POWERFUL (425 SAE NET HP).[/QUOTE]
Don't forget that the Chrysler has 35 years of development on-board.
The new Ferrari F430 Scuderia, for instance, despite a significant disadvantage of power and torque, has lapped Fiorano at the same pace as the Enzo, largely down to improvements in grip from the tyres enabling later braking into, and earlier acceleration out of corners.
Given the Chrysler's modern tyres, driver aids to ensure perfect traction, and other improvements to engine management and transmission, the fact that it is faster is not hugely surprising.
Still, the willingness to provide customers with "high performance" cars was there.
Imagine what could have been if any of those manufacturers had experimented with fitting any of those engines into a lightweight sports car...
This little 346 CID LS1 managed 503 HP (but it 100 pounds lighter than a ZL1) - with a CARBURETOR, headers and a relatively mild hydraulic cam.
ALL INTERNALS WERE BONE STOCK AND IT DID IT ON 92 OCTANE UNLEADED.
[url=http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0409em_gmpp/]New Dog, Old Trick[/url]
[QUOTE=Coventrysucks;755487]..Don't forget that the Chrysler has 35 years of development on-board...Given the Chrysler's modern tyres, driver aids to ensure perfect traction, and other improvements to engine management and transmission, the fact that it is faster is not hugely surprising.[/QUOTE]
35 years of development is the point of all of my posts.
Progress has occurred. For some reason, some people refuse to accept that and continue to confuse myth and legend as "fact." Look at the guy who just claimed that stock Yenko Camaros (360 HP on a real good day) trapped @ 120 MPH. WTF!
The '69 Hemi test results I posted involved 9" wide drag slicks, though. The "skinny tire" excuse doesn't apply in that case.
And trap speed is relatively unaffected by tires (and gears) as that test proved. ET is more impacted by those things. That's why Hale's Trap Speed formula is such a good indicator of actual power.
Furthermore, the modern car has to cope with lower octane fuel, more stringent emissions (including car converters) and modern fuel economy standards.
Plus, it's only a 6.1 liter engine. The 426 Hemi was a 7.0.
[I]How much power do you think that 6.1 liter engine would make if 1969 emission standards were still in effect, if 98 octane gas (PON) were still readily available and if fuel economy didn't matter?
[/I]
That thing would undoubtedly me making more than 500 SAE NET HP.
Emissions are still holding back engine power - especially in terms of cam timing (duration and overlap in particular).
Look at this:
[url=http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0409em_gmpp/]New Dog, Old Trick[/url]
And there's no EFI excuse there...Just a carb. The cam woke that engine right up...346 cubes, bone stock internals and 503 gross HP. The engine only weighs ~ 485 pounds (full dressed and including the flywheel).
That's not even really a modern engine anymore. The LS1 made its debut in the 1997 Corvette; that is ELEVEN years ago!
[QUOTE=harddrivin1le;755489]The '69 Hemi results I posted involved 9" wide drag slicks, though. The "skinny tire" excuse doesn't apply in that case.[/QUOTE]
The Chrysler 300 SRT8 has rear tyres 10.03937" wide though, and with modern compound technology will probably offer much more grip than 1969 vintage "slicks", despite being full road tyres.
[QUOTE=harddrivin1le;755489]How much power do you think that 6.1 liter engine would make if 1969 emission standards were still in effect, if 98 octane gas (PON) were still readily available and if fuel economy didn't matter?[/QUOTE]
How much power do you think that 7.0-litre engine would make with $millions of supercomputer-powered R&D behind it, and sophisticated engine management software to ensure every single molecule of fuel that finds its way into the cylinder is burned as efficiently as possible?
Power (SAE net): 500 bhp @ 6200 rpm?
[QUOTE=Coventrysucks;755492]How much power do you think that 7.0-litre engine would make with $millions of supercomputer-powered R&D behind it, and sophisticated engine management software to ensure every single molecule of fuel that finds its way into the cylinder is burned as efficiently as possible?[/QUOTE]
About what it made with a carburetor.
This LS1 produced very similar peak power numbers with a carb and with EFI, even though it was designed to work with EFI:
[url=http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0409em_gmpp/]New Dog, Old Trick[/url]
EFI doesn't make appreciably more power than a good carb set-up with older engines, either (like this Chevy 454):
[url=http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0305em_holley/index.html]Holley carburetor vs Holley fuel injection[/url]
In fact, EFI can make LESS peak power, due to simple thermodynamic laws:
[url=http://www.pro-system.com/scoop92102.html]Pro Systems - Under The Scoop[/url]
EFI improves emissions, fuel economy, drive-ability, start-up, instantaneous throttle response and requires less maintenance. Those are its principal advantages.
426 hemis (in "as delivered," bone stock condition) made ~ 315 RWHP and ~ 350 - 370 peak engine HP (SAE NET). No tires will ever change that reality (And your SPECULATION that 9" wide drag slicks from 1969 aren't as sticky as the grooved, stiff-sidewall, street tires fitted to that SRT-8 is just that - SPECULATION. Furthermore, wider tires create more ROLLING RESISTANCE and the new car's suspension is STIFFER and therefore yields less weight transfer onto the rear wheels. Both of those facts work AGAINST the newer car. Your argument is therefore baseless, flawed and even silly.)
[url=http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/roadtests/37426/index.html]Hemi Vs. Viper![/url]
315 Rear Wheel HP in a 2 ton car just isn't all that fast by modern performance car standards. I'm sorry, but I'm not responsible for the laws of physics (Acceleration = POWER/(MASS * VELOCITY)) OR the huge advancements that have taken place in engine design since the sixties.
[img]http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/1971Plymouth%20Engines.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=harddrivin1le;755486]Stock Yenko Camaro's ran nothing CLOSE to those times. You are DREAMING.
[/QUOTE]
Here are the specs:
The first one is a nickey 427 Camaro, not a Yenko. I got my road tests mixed up.
The second one is a 454 Motion-Baldwin Camaro.
[QUOTE=harddrivin1le;755478]Take a look at this one. It's primarily a luxury car (4,500 pounds worth) and isn't even an "M" car (BMW's performance division). It's got a 293 cubic inch V8 (rated at 360 SAE NET HP) and runs a 13.9 @ 103 MPH quarter mile - despite weighing 4,500 pounds:
[url=http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/9832/bmw-750i-page2.html]BMW 750i - - Car and Driver - September 2005[/url]
People who are living in the past don't understand the HUGE progress that has taken place.
And that car is utterly seamless, smooth, quiet and pampering.
Someone will probably attempt to compare it to a stripped down, 40 year old, purpose built drag car running open headers that could barely idle in attempt to "prove" that old cars are as fast as new ones.:eek:
A thirteen second quarter mile isn't even really fast anymore. Neither is 150 MPH. I've got a 6 cylinder, 3,674 pound Acura sitting in my garage that will top 150 MPH...It makes my parent's "300 HP" 1969 Impala police package car seem dog ass slow. in fact, my wife's 1995 FOUR CYLINDER Accord was faster than that Chevy (and I'm referring to how the Chevy went when it was NEW.)[/QUOTE]
Look at the list price for that BMW, though... $71,195. '60s muscle cars were affordable; most people could afford one. That BMW isn't affordable for a lot of people. Let me add about $30,000 of modifications to a '60s muscle car! Also, the BMWs of late have had reliability problems.
If you were not satisfied with the performance of your parents '69 Impala (but remember, it was a 6-passenger, full-sized family-type car with a mid-sized, relatively mildly-tuned V-8), look into a '67 427 Impala. I've got a test of one which (with 4.56 gears) ran a 13.40 1/4 mile (on '60s tires). :)
[QUOTE=harddrivin1le;755440]
I have dozens of vintage 426 street hemi road tests; not one produced a top speed of 150 MPH.
[/QUOTE]
I also have dozens of vintage 426 Street Hemi Road tests.
Car & Driver (Nov., 1967) got a '68 Hemi Charger R/T up to 139 mph @ 5800 rpm and estimated the top speed as 156 mph @ 6500 rpm.
Car & Driver listed the top speed of a '70 Dodge Challenger 426-Hemi at 146 mph.
Mechanix Illustrated listed the top speed of a '66 Dodge Coronet Convertible with 426-Hemi at 149.73 mph and estimated a 3-5 mph faster top speed with a hardtop.
Playboy (yes, Playboy) magazine, in their new car specs, listed the top speed of a '68 Hemi Charger at 155 mph.
Car Life (Feb., 1968) listed the top speed of a '68 Hemi Plymouth GTX at 144 mph @ 5900 rpm. 150 mph was very likely since the Hemis could rev to 6500 rpm.
I also have several other magazines which lists the top speed of the '66 Mopar Hemis at 145-155 mph.
[QUOTE=-What-;755443]O
Because here, if you ain't rockin' at least 1000 posts you don't have the credentials to support your statements.
[/QUOTE]
this is indeed true for certain people....
First I would like to personally thank harddrivin1le for your contributions.
I am happy to see that the majority of people following this thread have now seen the light about how good (i.e not very by todays standards) '60s american V8s actually where and that they do indeed require overly high octane fuel and that their combustion chamber design was pretty bad.
However:
[QUOTE=harddrivin1le]In fact, EFI can make LESS peak power, due to simple thermodynamic laws[/QUOTE]
This is simply not true. Properly setup EFI (we are talking multi point port injection here) will always beat a carb setup for whatever you want to do. You want power then program the system for power, you want milage then you can program the system for milage.
The funny thing is that when the article talked about advantages of carbs they attributed a measured temperature drop to the Joule-Thomson effect (which they misspelled with a "p" in thomson?) instead of vaporization of the fuel which the temperature drop is most likely to be caused by, and which an EFI system also creates and can take better advantage of.
And while we are at it I would like to say that direct injection tops both systems.
[QUOTE=hightower99;755583]First I would like to personally thank harddrivin1le for your contributions.
I am happy to see that the majority of people following this thread have now seen the light about how good (i.e not very by todays standards) '60s american V8s actually where and that they do indeed require overly high octane fuel and that their combustion chamber design was pretty bad.
However:
This is simply not true. Properly setup EFI (we are talking multi point port injection here) will always beat a carb setup for whatever you want to do. You want power then program the system for power, you want milage then you can program the system for milage.
The funny thing is that when the article talked about advantages of carbs they attributed a measured temperature drop to the Joule-Thomson effect (which they misspelled with a "p" in thomson?) instead of vaporization of the fuel which the temperature drop is most likely to be caused by, and which an EFI system also creates and can take better advantage of.
And while we are at it I would like to say that direct injection tops both systems.[/QUOTE]
Of course it's true. And no, "Thomson" does NOT contain a "P."
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule-Thomson_effect]Joule-Thomson effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
Carbs benefit from from the Joule-Thomson effect, since both the fuel AND the air (as an emulsified mixture) are expanding though nozzles. With EFI, just the fuel is. The air in an EFI system is simply being directed through the thottle body and into the cylinders. Very little expansion occurs during that process, since no orifices/nozzles are involved.
READ THE LINKS! Two of them are actual TESTS performed by a nationally published performance magazine:
[url=http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0409em_gmpp/]New Dog, Old Trick[/url]
[url=http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0305em_holley/index.html]Holley carburetor vs Holley fuel injection[/url]
[url=http://www.pro-system.com/scoop92102.html]Pro Systems - Under The Scoop[/url]
Yes, direct fuel injection is better than EFI or a carb. That wasn't the original "challengers" point, though.
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;755514]I also have dozens of vintage 426 Street Hemi Road tests.
Car & Driver (Nov., 1967) got a '68 Hemi Charger R/T up to 139 mph @ 5800 rpm and estimated the top speed as 156 mph @ 6500 rpm.
Car & Driver listed the top speed of a '70 Dodge Challenger 426-Hemi at 146 mph.
Mechanix Illustrated listed the top speed of a '66 Dodge Coronet Convertible with 426-Hemi at 149.73 mph and estimated a 3-5 mph faster top speed with a hardtop.
Playboy (yes, Playboy) magazine, in their new car specs, listed the top speed of a '68 Hemi Charger at 155 mph.
Car Life (Feb., 1968) listed the top speed of a '68 Hemi Plymouth GTX at 144 mph @ 5900 rpm. 150 mph was very likely since the Hemis could rev to 6500 rpm.
I also have several other magazines which lists the top speed of the '66 Mopar Hemis at 145-155 mph.[/QUOTE]
"Playboy" recently (just a few months back) ran an article on old and new "musclecars" and spewed out the same nonsense you are (e.g. 500 HP bone stock Camaros that ran tens.) [B] [U]AUTHORITATIVE RESOURCES[/U] SAY OTHERWISE. So let's stick with [U]AUTHORITATIVE RESOURCES[/U] and [U]WELL DOCUMENTED TEST RESULTS[/U].[/B]
I accept "Car Life's" test results as both authoritative and documented.
Do you think every car can redline in top gear? Most can't, due to opposing forces (aero drag and rolling resistance). So you can't "project" a top speed based on redline or "estimates." DOCUMENTED TEST RESULTS ARE ALL THAT MATTER.
Do you think a DOCUMENTED 145 MPH is fast by today's standards?
[COLOR="Red"]Every [U]4 cylinder[/U] car in this recent test managed to top 130 MPH and one topped 150 MPH!
[/COLOR]
[url=http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/12635/2007-volkswagen-gti-vs-2007-subaru-impreza-wrx-tr-vs-2007-mini-cooper-s-vs-2007-nissan-sentra-se-r-spec-v-vs-2007-mazdaspeed-3-grand-touring.html]2007 Subaru Impreza WRX TR, 2007 Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V, 2007 Mini Cooper S, 2007 Volkswagen GTI, 2007 Mazdaspeed 3 GT - Comparison Tests - Car and Driver[/url]
[url]http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/download/0705_powertoys_powertrain_ss.pdf[/url]
The new Z06 Corvette does 198 MPH and the new Viper does 202 MPH! (Both top speeds are DRAG LIMITED, meaning neither car can redline in top gear). They also run mid 11 second, 125 MPH+ quarter miles. They would blow an old street hemi INTO THE WEEDS!
[url=http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/13894/08-dodge-viper-srt10-v-07-chevrolet-corvette-z06.html]2008 Dodge Viper SRT10, 2007 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 - Comparison Tests - Car and Driver[/url]
[url]http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/download/Viper_Vette_powertrain.pdf[/url]
Now I'm going to call your bluff.
Here are ""Car Life's" 1969 and 1970 road test summaries. How many 150 MPH cars do you see? Answer: NONE
See that Hemi Charger 500? That was their most aero Mopar in terms of drag, since the body was lightly reconfigured to reduce aero drag for stock car racing. With a 3.23 axle ratio, it's DOCUMENTED top speed was 136 MPH.
[img]http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/1969CARLIFE.jpg?t=1192642505[/img]
[img]http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/1970CARLIFE.jpg?t=1192643898[/img]