Printable View
[QUOTE=Ferrer;727652]No there have been other rare occasions where this has happened too... :p
I have to say some engines are quite disappointing, like the 289 Ford and the 350 Chevrolet.[/QUOTE]
Also the Chevy and Ford 302. The hp is okay, but 290 lbs-ft of torque is not that much... the garden-variety 318-2 bbl Mopar had 340 lbs-ft!
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;727567]Good question!
No, according to Huntington, the torque ratings were not underrated, probably because insurance companies didn't go by torque ratings.[/QUOTE]
clever guys, these insurance people...if you know revs and torque, calculating HP would not be too difficult...
[QUOTE=henk4;727686]clever guys, these insurance people...if you know revs and torque, calculating HP would not be too difficult...[/QUOTE]
I guess they didn't know that. If so, lucky for us muscle car guys!
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;727683]Also the Chevy and Ford 302. The hp is okay, but 290 lbs-ft of torque is not that much... the garden-variety 318-2 bbl Mopar had 340 lbs-ft![/QUOTE]
Well but 395Nm for a 4.9-litre engine isn't bad at all. The Mopar's torque is actually better in terms of specific output (460Nm from a 5.2-litre), but probably the smaller Chevy and Ford 302s would make the car less nose heavy.
[QUOTE=Ferrer;727692]Well but 395Nm for a 4.9-litre engine isn't bad at all. The Mopar's torque is actually better in terms of specific output (460Nm from a 5.2-litre), but probably the smaller Chevy and Ford 302s would make the car less nose heavy.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the 302s are not too heavy.
Nice list, if only that were the case for todays cars, most of the times the power is less than specified by the brand...
[QUOTE=ruim20;727745]Nice list, if only that were the case for todays cars, most of the times the power is less than specified by the brand...[/QUOTE]
Not always. For isntance the Volkswagen Golf 1.4 TSI 170bhp actually has 190bhp and the Audi S3 265bhp actually has 280bhp.
[quote=Ferrer;727748]Not always. For isntance the Volkswagen Golf 1.4 TSI 170bhp actually has 190bhp and the Audi S3 265bhp actually has 280bhp.[/quote]
Our Citroën also did a little more than the 86 kW the factory stated, when tested on school. To be precise 87 kW :D
This list is garbage and false. Put some old muscle on a dyno and watch those numbers TANK to today's inline-4 specs.
This is abominable hogwash.
[QUOTE=-What-;731094]This list is garbage and false. Put some old muscle on a dyno and watch those numbers TANK to today's inline-4 specs.
This is abominable hogwash.[/QUOTE]
HA! you fail at life.
[QUOTE=Slicks;731123]HA! you fail at life.[/QUOTE]
I'm actually pretty good at reality, which is why I can confidently call bullsh*t on these specs.
I'd take a 2007 400hp over a 60's 400hp any day of the week, and minute of the hour, any second of the 30.
[QUOTE=-What-;731197]I'm actually pretty good at reality, which is why I can confidently call bullsh*t on these specs.
I'd take a 2007 400hp over a 60's 400hp any day of the week, and minute of the hour, any second of the 30.[/QUOTE]
so what your mysterious post #121 was trying to tell us is that those 60-ties figures are far too high?
[QUOTE=-What-;731094]This list is garbage and false. Put some old muscle on a dyno and watch those numbers TANK to today's inline-4 specs.
This is abominable hogwash.[/QUOTE]
One of those muscle car magazines tested a stock 426-Hemi engine on a dyno measured the old way (gross brake horsepower) and got 474 hp, which backs up the 470 hp rating in the chart I posted.
[QUOTE=Ferrer;727748]Not always. For isntance the Volkswagen Golf 1.4 TSI 170bhp actually has 190bhp and the Audi S3 265bhp actually has 280bhp.[/QUOTE]
That's because VAG record their engine temperatures at a stifling 40ºC (104ºF for the Yanks). As a result, the power is seriously compromised! Just down the road, a place which specialises in diesels noted that the VAG diesels were putting out values significantly higher than quoted. The Golf 1.9TDi GT PD 150 (catchy title :rolleyes: ) is meant to have (surprise!) 150bhp, but the business in the TRL have seen none with under 170bhp from their rolling road.
There were comments in the article about some of the engines. I'll post some now and some more a little later...
Corvette L-88:
"We mentioned earlier the true peak on this one works out to 480 hp at 6400 rpm. But keep in mind this was with the stock Corvette exhaust manifolds. With just a set of 2-inch tubing headers the true power jumped to over 550 hp. This was a wild engine, with 12.5-to-1 compression, 850-cfm Holley carb and a monster cam. Chev engineers really fudged this one."
Mopar Street Hemi:
"It's well known that the Street Hemi was an out-and-out racing engine that was mildly detuned for street driving. Even with the 10.25-to-1 compression ratio and 284-degree low-lift cam, this was still one of the strongest engines of the muscle car era. The official rating of 425 hp at 5000 rpm was a pinpoint well down on the power curve. The monster would really kick out about 470 horses at 6000 rpm- with street exhaust manifolds!"
Ford Cobra Jet 428:
"The advertised rating of 335 hp here was a joke. This 428-cu-in long stroke version of the famous FE block took advantage of all the performance lessons learned on the Ford 406 and 427 engines of the '60s. The 428 Cobra Jets used medium-riser 427 heads, 735-cfm carburetion, Interceptor manifolding, and the well proved 390 GT cam. Tremendous torque with the long stroke, and an easy power peak of 410 hp at 5600 rpm. Look at the drag strip records if you wonder if these were honest horses."