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

[Fleet 500]

What OTHER ENGINES did isn't relevant. The Mopar 383 Magnum was able to achieve its advertised output in what I would refer to as "true gross hp" - per the link below. But you don't own a 383 Magnum. You own something that makes SIGNIFICANTLY LESS POWER!

For your 472 Cadillac, we can determine peak engine HP as follows:

1) Hale's Trap Speed formula: (83 MPH/234)^3 * 5,100 pounds = ~ 228 HP

2) The published SAE NET rating for the 1972 472 (220 @ the same 4,400 RPM as the 1969 472) combined with the knowledge of how a change in compression impacts actual output (~ 10 HP or so in this case per this reference: Compression Ratio Compression Ratio Chart Photo.)

That fits PERFECTLY with Hale's prediction and it's not due to "coincidence!"


YOUR 472 Cadillac UNDOUBTEDLY MADE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS REAL POWER THAN THE BASE ROAD-RUNNER ENGINE FROM THE SAME YEAR (335 Gross HP 383 "Magnum")!

The 383 actually made 335 Gross HP (albeit with some modern blueprinting, but with the stock exhaust manifold in place):
383 Engine Restore - Tech Articles - Mopar Muscle Magazine


Vintage 383 Magnum Road-Runner Drag Test Results:
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...g?t=1197418354

Hale's Trap Speed formula for the Road-Runner: 98.5 MPH/234)^3 * 3,700 LB = ~ 276 HP ("as installed" NET)

That lines up VERY WELL with 335 True Gross HP and it's not due to "coincidence!"


THERE IS NO WAY YOUR CADILLAC MADE AS MUCH POWER AS THAT 383 (335 True Gross HP) ROAD-RUNNER ENGINE!!!!!!

THUS, THERE IS NO WAY YOUR CADILLAC MADE "375" TRUE GROSS HP!!!!!!

On a Cadillac forum, one member had his engine dynoed:
500-cu-in, stock rebuild, 8:1 compression ratio
302.1 hp @ 3600 rpm
493.5 torque @ 2600 rpm

Another from the same forum:
500-cu-in, 10:1 compression ratio
323 hp
504 lbs-ft torque

Yet another member took his to the drag strip (as the saying goes, the best dyno is on the track)
'68 DeVille Convertible
Shift kit, 2.94 axle ratio, original 472 w/stock heads, Edelbrock intake manifold, MTS VT 5 cam, 800-cfm Quadrajet carb, stock exhaust manifold w/single exhaust, exhaust cutout after Y-pipe.

1/4 mile: 14.87 @ 92.4

125 hp NOS powershot plate added:
1/4 mile: 13.894 @ 101.58

[harddrivin1le]

On a Cadillac forum, one member had his engine dynoed:
500-cu-in, stock rebuild, 8:1 compression ratio
302.1 hp @ 3600 rpm
493.5 torque @ 2600 rpm

Another from the same forum:
500-cu-in, 10:1 compression ratio
323 hp
504 lbs-ft torque

Meaningless since no variables [cam, exhaust, true CR, head work, valve springs, pistons, rods, true displacement (e.g. over-bores, which almost any rebuilt engine has), atmospheric correction factors, etc.] are stated/known. Because the variables are not known and no third party was involved, those results are not EMPIRICAL.

Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The 500 was rated @ 400 Gross HP, yet neither engine even came close. So thanks for help to prove my point.

And both results are a LONG WAY OFF from the "375 HP" that your bone stock 472 - which, by the way, is NOT a 500 - allegedly made.

And neither of those 500(+) cubic inch boat anchors was a match for this WELL DOCUMENTED and essentially stock, 383 Magnum, which was rated at a realistic 335 SAE GROSS HP (with water pump and OEM exhaust manifolds in place):
383 Engine Restore - Tech Articles - Mopar Muscle Magazine

MY GOD, MAN! This little 346 cid LS1 put down nearly 303 HP AT THE REAR WHEELS - IN BONE STOCK CONDITION!
Stock '98 LS1 Camaro Dyno


I am of the opinion that a moderator should put this thread out of its misery at this point (while saving it for posterity's sake). Your near total ignorance, utter lack of meaningful knowledge and ability to learn represent nothing more than a waste of cyberspace.

[henk4]

I would use 2nd gear.
I could use 1st, but the engine revs would be well past the hp and torque peak.

right, so then why did you quote the first gear figures? (and don't give me that qm shit, because you were giving figures for in gear acceleration)

[nota]

right, so then why did you quote the first gear figures? (and don't give me that qm shit, because you were giving figures for in gear acceleration)

Sliding, slithering & sidestepping as per usual

Fleet defends his 40-60 mph 1st gear random-brag ... by citing various other muscle cars - but of course none of these are capable of an 'actual' 60 mph in 1st gear .. http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...-post1520.html


Also surprising that (according to Fleet) an 'actual production' '68 Mopar A-body 340 V8 is supposedly a massive 1.1 seconds faster 40-60 mph than a '69 Mopar A-body 340 V8 (2.3 vs 3.4)

[Fleet 500]

Meaningless since no variables [cam, exhaust, true CR, head work, valve springs, pistons, rods, true displacement (e.g. over-bores, which almost any rebuilt engine has), atmospheric correction factors, etc.] are stated/known. Because the variables are not known and no third party was involved, those results are not EMPIRICAL.

Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It did say it was a stock rebuild.

The 500 was rated @ 400 Gross HP, yet neither engine even came close. So thanks for help to prove my point

And both results are a LONG WAY OFF from the "375 HP" that your bone stock 472 - which, by the way, is NOT a 500 - allegedly made.

It wasn't mentioned how the hp ratings were measure. Most likely somewhere in between net and gross.

And neither of those 500(+) cubic inch boat anchors was a match for this WELL DOCUMENTED and essentially stock, 383 Magnum, which was rated at a realistic 335 SAE GROSS HP (with water pump and OEM exhaust manifolds in place)

You better hope you don't encounter one of those modified "boat anchors." Like those 11-second Cadillac and Buick boat anchors in New York (if they are still street racing those).

I am of the opinion that a moderator should put this thread out of its misery at this point (while saving it for posterity's sake). Your near total ignorance, utter lack of meaningful knowledge and ability to learn represent nothing more than a waste of cyberspace.

Why end the thread? You've been wasting cyberspace all over the Internet! And I know for a fact that you annoy plenty of people on the Web.
For you, formulas are the "last word," the "gold of all statistics," rather than actual racing.
When I can pull away from another car on the street, and the other car makes more net hp according to the "formulas," what good is it?

[Fleet 500]

right, so then why did you quote the first gear figures? (and don't give me that qm shit, because you were giving figures for in gear acceleration)

Gee... I put the 1st gear ratio for the Camry and Dart and I get jumped all over about it!
It was for comparison purposes. To show that the Camry is very low-geared compared to the Dart.

[henk4]

Gee... I put the 1st gear ratio for the Camry and Dart and I get jumped all over about it!
It was for comparison purposes. To show that the Camry is very low-geared compared to the Dart.

which is irrelevant given the speed ranges that you quoted the in gear acceleration for. And you still have not answered whether the Camry was a 5 or even 6 speed auto box or a manual. You also mentioned somewhere that the Camry must have been revving very high to achieve those acceleration times, yet you nowhere mentioned any rev figures.

[Fleet 500]

Sliding, slithering & sidestepping as per usual

How so? What you call "sliding, slithering & sidestepping" I call facts!

Fleet defends his 40-60 mph 1st gear random-brag ... by citing various other muscle cars - but of course none of these are capable of an 'actual' 60 mph in 1st gear .. http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...-post1520.html

They don't have to be capable of 60 mph in 1st gear because they can be shifted between 40 and 60 mph. Understand?

And some muscle cars could reach or top 60 mph in 1st gear:
'68 Dodge Hemi Charger-------------- 63 mph @ 6500 rpm
'69 Dodge Charger 500 Hemi---------- 60 mph @ 6200 rpm

And even this non-muscle car:
'68 Cadillac Coupe de Ville------------ 60 mph @ 5200 rpm

Also surprising that (according to Fleet) an 'actual production' '68 Mopar A-body 340 V8 is supposedly a massive 1.1 seconds faster 40-60 mph than a '69 Mopar A-body 340 V8 (2.3 vs 3.4)

Weight of car and tune of engine.

The "actual production" '68 Dart was an actual production Dart. Here are the figures for that one and the '69 'Cuda 340. (Car Life, April, 1968 and Nov., 1968):

------------------------------ '68 Dart GTS 340----- '69 'Cuda 340
Engine/advertised hp---------- 340/275-------------- 340/275
Transmission------------------ 3-speed auto--------- 4-speed manual
Rear axle ratio---------------- 3.23:1---------------- 3.91:1
Curb weight------------------- 3,305 lbs------------- 3,470 lbs
0-30 mph---------------------- 2.9 secs-------------- 2.8 secs
0-40 mph---------------------- 4.0------------------- 3.7
0-50 mph---------------------- 5.0------------------- 5.6
0-60 mph---------------------- 6.3------------------- 7.1
0-70 mph---------------------- 7.8------------------- 9.0
0-80 mph---------------------- 10.1------------------ 10.9
0-90 mph---------------------- 12.6------------------ 13.7
0-100 mph--------------------- 16.5------------------ 15.6

1/4 mile------------------------ 14.68 @ 96.2 mph----- 14.93 @ 96.63
Passing: 40-60 mph------------- 2.3 secs-------------- 3.4 secs
-------- 50-70 mph------------- 2.8------------------- 3.4
-------- 30-70 mph------------- 4.9------------------- 6.2

It looks like the ligher weight of the '68 really helped. It probably was also a very strong-running 340 (not all 340 engines, or any engine, ran exactly the same at full-throttle). Some were a little stronger, some a little weaker.

[Fleet 500]

which is irrelevant given the speed ranges that you quoted the in gear acceleration for. And you still have not answered whether the Camry was a 5 or even 6 speed auto box or a manual. You also mentioned somewhere that the Camry must have been revving very high to achieve those acceleration times, yet you nowhere mentioned any rev figures.

I got the figures from the link that harddrivin provided in this thread.

[henk4]

I got the figures from the link that harddrivin provided in this thread.

so what?

[henk4]

The "actual production" '68 Dart was an actual production Dart. Here are the figures for that one and the '69 'Cuda 340. (Car Life, April, 1968 and Nov., 1968):

------------------------------ '68 Dart GTS 340----- '69 'Cuda 340
Engine/advertised hp---------- 340/275-------------- 340/275
Transmission------------------ 3-speed auto--------- 4-speed manual
Rear axle ratio---------------- 3.23:1---------------- 3.91:1
Curb weight------------------- 3,305 lbs------------- 3,470 lbs
0-30 mph---------------------- 2.9 secs-------------- 2.8 secs
0-40 mph---------------------- 4.0------------------- 3.7
0-50 mph---------------------- 5.0------------------- 5.6
0-60 mph---------------------- 6.3------------------- 7.1
0-70 mph---------------------- 7.8------------------- 9.0
0-80 mph---------------------- 10.1------------------ 10.9
0-90 mph---------------------- 12.6------------------ 13.7
0-100 mph--------------------- 16.5------------------ 15.6

1/4 mile------------------------ 14.68 @ 96.2 mph----- 14.93 @ 96.63
Passing: 40-60 mph------------- 2.3 secs-------------- 3.4 secs
-------- 50-70 mph------------- 2.8------------------- 3.4
-------- 30-70 mph------------- 4.9------------------- 6.2

It looks like the ligher weight of the '68 really helped. It probably was also a very strong-running 340 (not all 340 engines, or any engine, ran exactly the same at full-throttle). Some were a little stronger, some a little weaker.

OK, another example of blurred and incomplete information...you (they, whoever they are) are comparing a four speed manual with a 3 speed auto, with a long end reduction. For the in gear acceleration figures, which gear is the manual car in? For the autobox a simple kickdown would do the job but for a manual you always need to know in which gear the measurements actually took place.

[Fleet 500]

so what?

So if you want to know what the gearing and transmission and rpm of the Carmy is, check the link he supplied.

[Fleet 500]

OK, another example of blurred and incomplete information...you (they, whoever they are) are comparing a four speed manual with a 3 speed auto, with a long end reduction. For the in gear acceleration figures, which gear is the manual car in? For the autobox a simple kickdown would do the job but for a manual you always need to know in which gear the measurements actually took place.

"They" were not comparing it, I was.
Here are the speeds in each gear.

---------- '68 Dart GTS 340------- '69 'Cuda 340
1st------- 52 mph @ 5500 rpm---- 43.5 mph @ 6000 rpm
2nd------ 88 mph @ 5500 rpm---- 60.6 mph @ 6000 rpm
3rd------- 122 mph @ 5400 rpm--- 83.4 mph @ 6000 rpm
4th------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 119.6 mph @ 6200 rpm

[henk4]

So if you want to know what the gearing and transmission and rpm of the Carmy is, check the link he supplied.

if you know where the link is can you at least give me the post number?

[henk4]

"They" were not comparing it, I was.
Here are the speeds in each gear.

---------- '68 Dart GTS 340------- '69 'Cuda 340
1st------- 52 mph @ 5500 rpm---- 43.5 mph @ 6000 rpm
2nd------ 88 mph @ 5500 rpm---- 60.6 mph @ 6000 rpm
3rd------- 122 mph @ 5400 rpm--- 83.4 mph @ 6000 rpm
4th------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 119.6 mph @ 6200 rpm

again, that is not important...please read what I posted. What IS important is in which gear(s) the passing times of a manual car (as compared to an automatic ) were established.