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

[hightower99]

I suggest you read again the title of this thread... it's "Actual Horsepower of '60s/'70s Muscle Cars." Not "Actual Horsepower of '60s/'70s Muscle Cars Compared To Modern Cars."

I suggest you do the same. As the title is "Actual Horsepower of '60s/'70s Muscle Cars" we should not be talking about Gross HP which has absolutely nothing to do with "Actual Horsepower"!!! We should be talking WHP or at the very least Flywheel HP corrected to current SAE standards.

[Fleet 500]

I hope the thread stays - its been an absolute hoot to watch our self-claimed actual 'expert' & 'big boy' typically squirm and sidestep then fall flat on his face as he tiptoes his way through this ever growing minefield of indisputable facts and figures

You're right... I have enjoyed harddrivin, zilch1, higtower, and others try to keep denying the obvious!

[Fleet 500]

I suggest you do the same. As the title is "Actual Horsepower of '60s/'70s Muscle Cars" we should not be talking about Gross HP which has absolutely nothing to do with "Actual Horsepower"!!! We should be talking WHP or at the very least Flywheel HP corrected to current SAE standards.

Of course we should be talking gross hp because that is how the engines were measured back then.
But don't forget I posted that Olds dyno test in which is made slightly more hp than its net rating.

[clutch-monkey]

this thread at least clarifies for me why GM said that the 360hp of the 2004 GTO was 'more than equal' for the '400hp' of the original GTO

[hightower99]

Of course we should be talking gross hp because that is how the engines were measured back then.
But don't forget I posted that Olds dyno test in which is made slightly more hp than its net rating.

But Gross HP means nothing so we can't use that information for anything (let alone discuss about it). What we need is dyno charts of stock 60s Muscle cars to prove that the Gross HP ratings are in fact overrated compared to what they could put out...

Because that matters...

Whether of not they where underrated compared to the Mythical Peak Gross HP figure is of no meaning or purpose.

[Fleet 500]

Then there is absolutely no point to this thread whatsoever! Gross HP has no meaning therefore you can't underrate it! The Gross HP ratings that were given are grossly overrated compared to the power that the engines actually put out in stock trim installed in the actual cars. I can't stress how pointless you idea is. Nobody cares that the Gross HP ratings where underrated compared to their True gross HP (That is an oxymoron!) What matters is what the engines put out when installed in the cars. In that case all 60s muscle cars are severly overrated.

Of course there is a point to this thead. For instance, if there is a (for example) Ford 428 owner, he will know that his engine makes more hp than the "335 hp" rating it had. Although he probably knows that already.

What cars are you talking about? When people put turboes on engines it isn't because the engine is weak. It is because they want more power than the engine can make because it is limited by its size. Not by how strong or weak it is. The fact is you don't want to put a turbo on a weak engine.

You know, any number of cars that have them now... VW New Beetle, Mini Cooper, Nissan, etc.
The early turbos, btw (from the '80s) didn't do much good on some cars. I remember a test of a Saab Turbo from that decade and it still took about 10 seconds to get to 60 mph.

First weight doesn't effect top speed much, second a top speed of 140mph (224km/h) is pathetic, and third it was a 7L engine! It should be putting out over 400WHP. Also I have said this already, Hemis are used for drag racing because they are big and because they are really simple engines that can be rebuilt quickly. Not because they offer any technical advantage. Remember the Hemis that drag race only share their basic configuration with any street Hemi.

I've heard some that claim weight doesn't affect top speed and some who have (harddrivin, for instance).
I will repost what Roger Huntington wrote about the 426-Hemi:
"A well-tuned Street Hemi with 3.23 final drive could approach a top speed of 150 mph. This required about 6000 rpm with stock tires. There was ample horsepower available to do it- if the tires didn't disintegrate first. Aerodynamic design was relatively non-existent by today's standards, so if it went 150 mph, it did it on brute power alone. Fantastic engine."
Hmmm... he didn't call it pathetic- because it certainly wasn't.

The advertised ratings didn't mean anything they are meaningless. The peak Gross HP doesn't mean anything. How can a magazine test an engine the gross way when there was no single standard Gross way??? It is all gibberish that means absolutely nothing I can not stress this enough. If this is what you are going to stick to then I hope the moderators delete this entire thread because it is pointless. On the other hand if you agree that Gross HP rating were overrated compared to what the engines actually put out when in the car then thats ok

Would you list all of the different ways gross hp was measured? I've heard of only one... no accessories, no full exhaust or muffler, no air cleaner, timing set for maximum hp, etc. I doubt there were a lot of different ways it was measure because then the typical engine would have 5 or 6 different ratings!

[Fleet 500]

But Gross HP means nothing so we can't use that information for anything (let alone discuss about it). What we need is dyno charts of stock 60s Muscle cars to prove that the Gross HP ratings are in fact overrated compared to what they could put out...

Because that matters...

Whether of not they where underrated compared to the Mythical Peak Gross HP figure is of no meaning or purpose.

It's not a mythical peak... there is a power curve for gross hp just as there is for net hp.
Don't tell me you actually believe the "335 hp" gross rating for both the 390 and 428 Ford engines?

[Fleet 500]

this thread at least clarifies for me why GM said that the 360hp of the 2004 GTO was 'more than equal' for the '400hp' of the original GTO

That sounds right. 360 net hp should be well over 400 gross hp. However, the highest hp rating I can remember for the GTO is 390 hp from a 428-cu-in engine in a '68 Royal Bobcat GTO, as tested by Car & Driver. Maybe they meant a "near-400 hp engine?"

[hightower99]

Of course there is a point to this thead. For instance, if there is a (for example) Ford 428 owner, he will know that his engine makes more hp than the "335 hp" rating it had. Although he probably knows that already.

But it doesn't actually make anywhere near that much in his car... Therefore this thread is pointless.

You know, any number of cars that have them now... VW New Beetle, Mini Cooper, Nissan, etc.
The early turbos, btw (from the '80s) didn't do much good on some cars. I remember a test of a Saab Turbo from that decade and it still took about 10 seconds to get to 60 mph.

You really are clueless aren't you... You are talking about compact cars... they have trouble fitting 2L engines in them. However that didn't stop VW from making the 1.8T (240HP in stock form but 450HP with some highly simple tuning) and now the 2.0TFSI (265HP stock, 350HP ECU tune, 500HP simple tune with stock internals).

I've heard some that claim weight doesn't affect top speed and some who have (harddrivin, for instance).

Weight does not effect top speed... Making a car lighter does not increase it's top speed.

Would you list all of the different ways gross hp was measured? I've heard of only one... no accessories, no full exhaust or muffler, no air cleaner, timing set for maximum hp, etc. I doubt there were a lot of different ways it was measure because then the typical engine would have 5 or 6 different ratings!

Not everyone took everything off. Also some did extra balancing, machining, ect. There is no single standard way to test Gross HP, it is highly subjective, and meaningless.

[nota]

I suggest you read again the title of this thread... it's "Actual Horsepower of '60s/'70s Muscle Cars." Not "Actual Horsepower of '60s/'70s Muscle Cars Compared To Modern Cars."

Oh and btw I suggest you investigate the ACTUAL meaning of the word in question

Eg:

Definitions of actual on the Web:

presently existing in fact and not merely potential or possible; "the predicted temperature and the actual temperature were markedly different ...

taking place in reality; not pretended or imitated

existing in act or fact; "rocks and trees...the actual world"

In other words 'actual' means real.
Again Fleet it means REAL - not grossly exaggurated, made up, or artificially enhanced for the wank factor

So the actual or real power figures OF cars can not truthfully be measured - or represented - subsequent to the UNreal removal of componentry essential to their function (cooling systems, fuel systems, ignition systems, exhaust systems, etc) then substituting these essential power-reducing components through external means

I see you still have that > comprehension < problem!

Which flowed into your inability to furnish actual proof of yet another of your > mendacious < little sidesteps

Said it before and I'll tell you again: The entire premise of your thread is grossly stupid, has been proven to be stupid, as have you!

[nota]

this thread at least clarifies for me why GM said that the 360hp of the 2004 GTO was 'more than equal' for the '400hp' of the original GTO

Still chuckling over your 1000hp Falcon XR6T reference a few pages back another one he let through to the keeper

I can't resist sneaking in a similar daily driver > youtube < OMG its not even a V8 let alone the legendary HEMI

I found a muscle car magazine which tested the rear wheel hp and torque of a '67 Plymouth Hemi Belvedere I.

The figures were:
315 rear wheel horsepower @ 4900 rpm to 5,500 rpm
354 rear wheel torque @ 4200 rpm

[IBrake4Rainbows]

When all else fails, red herring the place.

[Falcon500]

That sounds right. 360 net hp should be well over 400 gross hp. However, the highest hp rating I can remember for the GTO is 390 hp from a 428-cu-in engine in a '68 Royal Bobcat GTO, as tested by Car & Driver. Maybe they meant a "near-400 hp engine?"

Your showing your desperation here and your clutching at straws...

your fighting a loosing battle here. If only this wasnt so much like trian wreck (dont want to look but cant look away)

[harddrivin1le]

I've heard some that claim weight doesn't affect top speed and some who have (harddrivin, for instance).
I will repost what Roger Huntington wrote about the 426-Hemi:
"A well-tuned Street Hemi with 3.23 final drive could approach a top speed of 150 mph. This required about 6000 rpm with stock tires. There was ample horsepower available to do it- if the tires didn't disintegrate first. Aerodynamic design was relatively non-existent by today's standards, so if it went 150 mph, it did it on brute power alone. Fantastic engine."
Hmmm... he didn't call it pathetic- because it certainly wasn't.

I see that your learning disability hasn't yet been adequately addressed and you're therefore still in denial over what is OBVIOUS to virtually everyone else on this board.

The Hemi car that supposedly hit "150 MPH" was a specially prepared example in an unknown state of tune that was built and tested at the Chrysler proving grounds months before the first production cars hit the showrooms. That single data point is therefore MEANINGLESS in terms of actual PRODUCTION CAR performance. Every magazine that tested (allegedly stock), regular production cars reported lower top speeds.

Production street Hemis made ~ 315 rear wheel HP back when they were new and (truly) "untouched," as measured on a chassis dyno.
315 RWHP hardly qualifies as "brute power" by today's standards. For that matter, 150 MPH hardly qualifies as "fast" in an age where a bone stock, 4 cylinder, $24,000 Mazda will do 151 MPH.

********Kudos to ZILCH1 for posting those 350 HO Tempest scans. Those cars ran FIFTEENS when they were TRULY stock and that's according to the Pontiac performance EXPERTS of the day (Royal Pontiac)! You claimed that "untouched" 350 Cutlasses and Tempests ran 13s! The fact that you believe that proves that you know NOTHING about this subject matter. They run thirteens NOW because they have been blueprinted and modified beyond your level of comprehension.****** Some can still be technically "stock" per the NHRA's definition, but that's very different than "brand new" stock.


As others told you above, ACTUAL horsepower is what a engine makes as its installed in the car and delivered to the customer. We call that SAE NET HP. What an engine allegedly made for power in an unknown condition is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT! The "advertised" figures are even more irrelevant, since the MARKETING DEPARTMENTS often times pulled those figures out of thin air.



FACT: Vehicle weight impacts TIRE ROLLING RESISTANCE, which in turn impacts a vehicle's top speed. Rolling resistance is roughly 1/3 of total resistance at highway speeds.

Road Load Resisting Force = fr*W + 1/2 densityXV^2 X Cd * A +W * Sine theta

W in that fomula is WEIGHT.

[hightower99]

Agreed weight does change the rolling resistance however, if you reduce weight but maintain certain other variables (such as tire pressure) rolling resistance is reduced (slightly) but drag will be increased (slightly) aswell net effect = little to no increase in top speed.

Added weight with maintained tire pressure leads to increased rolling resistance (slightly) but drag will be reduced (slightly) net effect = same top speed.

In the end the actual weight of a vehicle is not a limiting factor for its top speed. Being a heavier vehicle does not neccessarily mean that more power is required to reach the same top speed.