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

[harddrivin1le]

True regarding Car & Driver, but other magazines like Car Life, Road Test and Motor Trend tested unmodified cars. And the relatively rare times they were modified, they let the reader know in the text.
For instance, Car Life tested a '69 383 Road Runner which was modified. The author of the article not only mentioned the modifications (aftermarket induction, headers and slicks) but the price ($450).

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. The cars often times contained various internal mods (e.g. partially blueprinted engines, warmer cams and/or optimized carb. and ignition "tuning") that weren't apparent to the naked eye.

The magazines themselves often times weren't aware of this, since the truth was never revealed to them.

Example (using your CAR AND DRIVER suggestion):

Classic Fast Cars-Classic Cars, Fast Cars, Muscle Cars, Street Rods, Classic Car Restoration, - GTO Performance Test- The Truth

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.

I agree with you that MOTOR TREND and CAR LIFE tended to get results that were more in-line with the customer's cars (and true reality), but that does not mean they weren't monkeyed with by the factories in some way. (Rarely did the magazines obtain their cars from a dealer's lot. The test cars were almost always part of a dedicated "press fleet.")

[kingofthering]

Oh no no no, I've already served them that cup of reality. Ya see, I speak the truth 'round this bitch but they don't wanna here non of that. So from now on, if you wanna fit in...see all those facts and common sense statements you brought to the table? Ball that shit up and burn it. Blank your mind of that because that's not what flies around here.

Because here, if you ain't rockin' at least 1000 posts you don't have the credentials to support your statements.

No... you're just plain delusional 80% of the time. That's why you're a laughingstock around here.

[Fleet 500]

Roger Huntington was a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers and had been an automotive journalist since the 1950s.
He would actually sometimes test the hp of engines himself.

Like with this '62 Pontiac Catalina 421.
First, some quick specs:
Engine/hp------------------- 421/405
Torque---------------------- 425
Compression ratio------------ 11.1:1
Curb weight------------------ 4,070 lbs
Wheelbase/length------------ 120"/211.6"
Transmission----------------- 4-speed manual
Rear axle ratio---------------- 4.30:1
0-30 mph-------------------- 2.7 secs
0-60 mph-------------------- 5.4
1/4 mile---------------------- 13.9 secs @ 107 mph

Huntington was very impressed with the acceleration times and the power output:
"I have no doubt that the potential of this car- under optimum conditions of strip surface and weather the e.t.'s would be around 12.5 secs at 112-115 mph. What really shook me up more than the acceleration times was the horsepower and torque that it put out. The factory rates this combination at 405 hp at 5600 rpm. I took a series of accelerometer readings at various speeds in 3rd gear and calculated the hp. The peak was a fantastic 465 hp at a crankshaft speed of about 5300 rpm and the peak torque was 510 lbs-ft @ 3500 rpm. I didn't believe it, either. But there it is. The accelerometer doesn't lie as long as you feed correct speed and weight figure into the formula. I'm very confident of these figures within 10-15 hp."

[Fleet 500]

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. The cars often times contained various internal mods (e.g. partially blueprinted engines, warmer cams and/or optimized carb. and ignition "tuning") that weren't apparent to the naked eye.

The magazines themselves often times weren't aware of this, since the truth was never revealed to them.

Example (using your CAR AND DRIVER suggestion):

Classic Fast Cars-Classic Cars, Fast Cars, Muscle Cars, Street Rods, Classic Car Restoration, - GTO Performance Test- The Truth

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.

I agree with you that MOTOR TREND and CAR LIFE tended to get results that were more in-line with the customer's cars (and true reality), but that does not mean they weren't monkeyed with by the factories in some way. (Rarely did the magazines obtain their cars from a dealer's lot. The test cars were almost always part of a dedicated "press fleet.")

Don't forget about the times that the test cars magazines had were in less-than-perfect condition.
For instance, Road Test had a 1970 Plymouth Duster 340 test car. They said that before they had it, it was being driven by some non-enthusiast auto journalists who drove it so slow that they had to take it out on the highway to burn all of the soot from the combustion chamber.

Also, several magazines mentioned getting test cars which needed a tune and/or in which one cylinder was a little low on compression.

They weren't all specially prepared!

[Fleet 500]

Going back to the Mopar Hemi, I have a magazine somewhere in which they wanted to see the hp tested the old "gross" way. So they tested it that way (no muffler or exhaust system, no accessories on the engine, etc) and got 474 hp.

The '68-'69 Hemis were the strongest. They had a higher-lift cam than the '66-'67 and the '68-'69 still had solid valve lifter whereas the '70-'71 went to hydraulic. So a "350" or "365" net hp would depend on the year.

[harddrivin1le]

Roger Huntington was a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers and had been an automotive journalist since the 1950s.
He would actually sometimes test the hp of engines himself.

Like with this '62 Pontiac Catalina 421.
First, some quick specs:
Engine/hp------------------- 421/405
Torque---------------------- 425
Compression ratio------------ 11.1:1
Curb weight------------------ 4,070 lbs
Wheelbase/length------------ 120"/211.6"
Transmission----------------- 4-speed manual
Rear axle ratio---------------- 4.30:1
0-30 mph-------------------- 2.7 secs
0-60 mph-------------------- 5.4
1/4 mile---------------------- 13.9 secs @ 107 mph

Huntington was very impressed with the acceleration times and the power output:
"I have no doubt that the potential of this car- under optimum conditions of strip surface and weather the e.t.'s would be around 12.5 secs at 112-115 mph. What really shook me up more than the acceleration times was the horsepower and torque that it put out. The factory rates this combination at 405 hp at 5600 rpm. I took a series of accelerometer readings at various speeds in 3rd gear and calculated the hp. The peak was a fantastic 465 hp at a crankshaft speed of about 5300 rpm. I didn't believe it, either. But there it is. The accelerometer doesn't lie as long as you feed correct speeds into it. I'm very confident of these figures within 10-15 hp."

I have the article, man.

He tested a PROTOTYPE car that was likely the COMPETITION version (12.5:1) of the SD421 that wouldn't run on pump gas. Those results were also obtained on a very cold day (40 degrees F, which yields very dense air).

The only SD421 cars that could get into the 12s were the competition versions fitted with aluminum fenders, "swiss cheese" frames, open long tube headers and blueprinted (to NHRA specs) engines (plus slicks and 4:30 axle ratios).

Here's the results for the STREET version of the SD421, using your own source (CAR LIFE):

[harddrivin1le]

Going back to the Mopar Hemi, I have a magazine somewhere in which they wanted to see the hp tested the old "gross" way. So they tested it that way (no muffler or exhaust system, no accessories on the engine, etc) and got 474 hp.

The '68-'69 Hemis were the strongest. They had a higher-lift cam than the '66-'67 and the '68-'69 still had solid valve lifter whereas the '70-'71 went to hydraulic. So a "350" or "365" net hp would depend on the year.

The 474 HP figure was obtained with an early development engine with unknown internals.

They made NOTHING CLOSE to "474 HP" as delivered to the customer. If they did, then cars like this one would have been much, much faster (note the 9" wide slicks). And that's a 1969 solid lifter car...

Let's call it 105 HP with a test weight of 4,100. Patrick Hale's formula is more accurate that Huntington's, since Hale was better educated (master in Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science) and had the advantage of modern computers.

PEAK FLYWHEEL HP = (105 MPH/234)^3 * 4,100 pounds = 370 SAE NET HP

[Fleet 500]

I have that Car Life test, too. But I was quoting from the Motor Trend test.
The main reason it accelerated so well was because of the super-low 4.30 gears.

[Fleet 500]

The 474 HP figure was obtained with an early development engine with unknown internals.

No, it wasn't. Do you have the article? It was from an '80s or early '90s car magazine and it was a Hemi from a regular factory Mopar.

[harddrivin1le]

EVERY American luxury sedan in this test was quicker and faster than that 426 Hemi (fitted with 9" wide slicks) was - despite the fact that these luxury cars are fully loaded and are hampered with AC, cat converters, unleaded pump gas an modern emissions standards.

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).

2005 Cadillac CTS-V vs. Chrysler 300C SRT8 vs. Pontiac GTO Specs, Price, Fuel Economy, & Performance - Motor Trend

[harddrivin1le]

No, it wasn't. Do you have the article? It was from an '80s or early '90s car magazine and it was a Hemi from a regular factory Mopar.

I don't care what the article said. It is not based in fact.

Take a look at these MODERN performance cars and compare them to that 1969 Hemi Charger running 4.56 gears and 9" wide slicks.

2005 Cadillac CTS-V vs. Chrysler 300C SRT8 vs. Pontiac GTO Specs, Price, Fuel Economy, & Performance - Motor Trend

ALL of them are quicker and faster than that Hemi. The Dodge SRT 8 is especially notable, since it's also HEAVIER than the '69 Hemi car.

So how much Gross HP must they be making? 500? 600? Does it even matter? RESULTS matter. Speculation does not.

Here's what 500 REAL horsepower looks like. In this case it's in a 4,500 pound. fully loaded, luxury station wagon:

2007 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG Wagon - Specs - Car and Driver - November 2006

Displacement: 379 cu in,
Power (SAE net): 507 bhp @ 6800 rpm
Curb weight: 4499 lb

Zero to 60 mph: 4.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.5 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 23.5 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 4.3 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.5 sec @ 115 mph

[clutch-monkey]

I'm not going to respond to anymore of your posts. You clearly have some "issues" that extend way beyond the context of this forum.

i like this guy already.
i hope you stick around and have an interest in other topics on this forum
thanks for the interesting information.

[Fleet 500]

I don't care what the article said. It is not based in fact.

That's the problem... you don't seem to want to accept any info that contradicts what you've been posting.

Take a look at these MODERN performance cars and compare them to that 1969 Hemi Charger running 4.56 gears and 9" wide slicks.

2005 Cadillac CTS-V vs. Chrysler 300C SRT8 vs. Pontiac GTO Specs, Price, Fuel Economy, & Performance - Motor Trend

ALL of them are quicker and faster than that Hemi. The Dodge SRT 8 is especially notable, since it's also HEAVIER than the '69 Hemi car.

So how much Gross HP must they be making? 500? 600?

RESULTS matter. Speculation does not.

Here's what 500 REAL horsepower looks like. In this case it's in a 4,500 pound. fully loaded, luxury station wagon:

2007 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG Wagon - Specs - Car and Driver - November 2006

2007 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG Wagon

Displacement: 379 cu in, 6208c
Power (SAE net): 507 bhp @ 6800 rpm
Curb weight: 4499 lb

Zero to 60 mph: 4.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.5 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 23.5 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 4.3 sec
[B]Standing ¼-mile: 12.5 sec @ 115 mph[/B

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.

[harddrivin1le]

i like this guy already.
i hope you stick around and have an interest in other topics on this forum
thanks for the interesting information.

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:

BMW 750i - - Car and Driver - September 2005

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.

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.)

[harddrivin1le]

Follow-Up Test: 2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8


That 4,800 pound JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE ran a 13.5 @ 102.24 MPH - BONE STOCK. And AWD and those fat tires actually HURT trap speed, due to all of that added friction (driveline and rolling, respectively).

420 SAE NET HP. I guess that must be what - 650 Gross HP? Or maybe it's 750 Gross HP. It all depends on how much one is willing to lie.