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

[Fleet 500]

Bone stock 426 Hemis made about 315 rear wheel HP, which lines up quite well with Chrysler Corp's 350 SAE NET HP rating (at the crank)

Is the 315 hp from a "formula" or an actual test? Yeah, a manufactuers "official" rating. We all know how (in)accurate those were! Meaning since they underrated the gross hp, they most likely underrated the net hp!

url=http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/roadtests/37426/photo_08.html]P97215 Image Large Photo[/url]

Here's what 425 ACTUAL (SAE NET) HP looks like in a 4,212 pound (PLUS driver) Chrysler sedan: 173 MPH.
SRT8300C.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Interesting but I'd much rather have a 170+ mph '69 426-Hemi Dodge Charger Daytona.

[harddrivin1le]

Is the 315 hp from a "formula" or an actual test? Yeah, a manufactuers "official" rating. We all know how (in)accurate those were! Meaning since they underrated the gross hp, they most likely underrated the net hp!



Interesting but I'd much rather have a 170+ mph '69 426-Hemi Dodge Charger Daytona.

Can you READ? They MEASURED 315 REAR WHEEL HORSEPOWER ON A DAMN CHASSIS DYNO! It was an "ACTUAL TEST!"

P97215 Image Large Photo

That's at least the FIFTH TIME I have posted that article/test.

The only "426 Hemi Dodge Charger Daytonas" that would do "170+ MPH" were the heavily modified ones running fully blueprinted and heavily modified RACING HEMIS as well as heavily modified chassis and suspensions.

The STREET examples were 2-ton plus dogs.

[nota]

Is the 315 hp from a "formula" or an actual test? Yeah, a manufactuers "official" rating. We all know how (in)accurate those were! Meaning since they underrated the gross hp, they most likely underrated the net hp!

Geez you're a dumass

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

[harddrivin1le]

Geez you're a dumass

Fleet500's learning disability is simply astonishing.

He quoted that test (as you pointed out) and I've posted it at least 5 different times in this tread. Yet he STILL asks that outrageous question. (RE: "Is the 315 HP from a formula or an actual test?")

Furthemore, the fact that he asked the question strongly suggests that he'd never before seen a chassis dyno print-out.

I'm going to post the 426 Hemi chassis dyno results YET AGAIN in the hopes that Fleet might actually READ IT this time.

P97215 Image Large Photo

And I don't even want to hear Fleet mention that that Viper, since the new 2008 Vipers produce 600 SAE NET HP (at the crank) and will pump out 530+ REAR WHEEL HP on a chassis dyno all day long.


This 2006 ("just" 500 SAE NET HP) cranked out almost 450 Rear Wheel HP - BONE STOCK!:
2006 Dodge Viper SRT10 Coupe Dyno Results Graphs Hosepower - DragTimes.com
Stock 2006 Dodge Viper SRT10 Coupe Dyno Sheet Details - DragTimes.com


The 426 Hemi made roughly 350 SAE NET HP because:
1) Those documented stock chassis dyno results (315 RWHP) line up very well with 350 SAE NET .
2) That's what Dodge/Plymouth rated it at.
3) That's what Hale's TRAP SPEED formula indicates when using the AVERAGE, vintage drag test results from the era.

A very well tuned (limited to JUST ignition mods and minor mods to the stock carbs) could likely pick up as much as 20 SAE NET HP (370 SAE NET Maximum).

That's still a joke for a 7 liter, pre-emissions engine by modern standards.

[nota]

Fleet's learning disability is simply astonishing.

He quoted that test (as you pointed out) and I've posted it at least 5 different times in this tread. Yet he STILL asks that stupid question.

I'm going to post it again for the 6th+ time now.

P97215 Image Large Photo

Best of luck!

[Fleet 500]

Geez you're a dumass

I'm tired but not "dumb."

So I forgot what I posted earlier... SUE ME!!!! Jezzz...
I guess everyone who forgets now and then is "dumb."

[Fleet 500]

The only "426 Hemi Dodge Charger Daytonas" that would do "170+ MPH" were the heavily modified ones running fully blueprinted and heavily modified RACING HEMIS as well as heavily modified chassis and suspensions.

The STREET examples were 2-ton plus dogs.

Bobby Issac would strongly disagree with you.

And, btw, the "heavily modified ones" were not doing 170+ mph, more like 195+ mph.

[Fleet 500]

Fleet500's learning disability is simply astonishing.

He quoted that test (as you pointed out) and I've posted it at least 5 different times in this tread. Yet he STILL asks that outrageous question. (RE: "Is the 315 HP from a formula or an actual test?")

Furthemore, the fact that he asked the question strongly suggests that he'd never before seen a chassis dyno print-out.

I'm going to post the 426 Hemi chassis dyno results YET AGAIN in the hopes that Fleet might actually READ IT this time.

P97215 Image Large Photo

I guess it must be your learning disability getting in the way of the fact that the Hemi made practically the same hp/cu. in. as the Viper! You DID read that part, didn't you?

And I don't even want to hear Fleet mention that that Viper, since the new 2008 Vipers produce 600 SAE NET HP (at the crank) and will pump out 530+ REAR WHEEL HP on a chassis dyno all day long.

And I've posted at least 5 times that modern cars was not the subject of this thead. Who's got the learning disability now?!? You STILL insist on making comparisons with modern cars!

That's still a joke for a 7 liter, pre-emissions engine by modern standards.

Really? A 105 mph trap speed (with '60s tires) in the 1/4 mile with a 4-6 passenger, de-tuned production street car is a "joke?" Hah-hah!

[harddrivin1le]

Really? A 105 mph trap speed (with '60s tires) in the 1/4 mile with a 4-6 passenger, de-tuned production street car is a "joke?" Hah-hah!

This is directly from a source you've hyped/worshiped on multiple occasions (Roger Huntington's "American Supercar.")
http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/HEMI323vs456.JPG

The "60s tires" in that test were 9 inch wide drag racing slicks that had enough grip to let (modified) cars lift their front wheels off the ground in the NHRA "stock" events from that period. Anyone who's seen actual NHRA photos from that era knows that to be true. Yet, fitted with those 9" wide drag racing slicks and 4.56 gears, that Hemi Road Runner (in BONE STOCK tune) couldn't break 105 MPH in the quarter mile.

And I've already explained to you that both gearing and tires have little impact on trap speed. That you lack the understanding of physics and drag racing to understand why that is so doesn't change that fact.



Any sensible person would consider the information below and conclude that BONE STOCK 426 Hemis made 350 - 360 SAE NET HP in their original, "as sold" condition:

1) Hale's formula (using the Hemi drag results in the link above): Peak HP = (104.56 MPH/234)^3 * 4,000 pound race weight = 357 HP

2) That's pretty close to Plymouth's SAE NET RATING of 350 HP: http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...g?t=1195073100

3) And it also lines up perfectly with the 315 HP REAR WHEEL HP that was MEASURED in this ACTUAL CHASSIS DYNO TEST:P97215 Image Large Photo



350 - 360 peak ENGINE HP from a 426 cubic inch, pre-emissions V8 that required 100+ octane fuel is LAME in an era where bone stock, 374 cubic inch V8s are producing nearly 400 HP AT THE WHEELS - through cat converters, with AC and power steering pump and while using 91 octane unleaded gas:

More LS3 dyno numbers - Corvette Forum

[Fleet 500]

This is directly from a source you've hyped/worshiped on multiple occasions (Roger Huntington's "American Supercar.")
http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/HEMI323vs456.JPG

The "60s tires" in that test were 9 inch wide drag racing slicks that had enough grip to let (modified) cars lift their front wheels off the ground in the NHRA "stock" events from that period. Anyone who's seen actual NHRA photos from that era knows that to be true. Yet, fitted with those 9" wide drag racing slicks and 4.56 gears, that Hemi Road Runner (in BONE STOCK tune) couldn't break 105 MPH in the quarter mile.

And I've already explained to you that both gearing and tires have little impact on trap speed. That you lack the understanding of physics and drag racing to understand why that is so doesn't change that fact.

The average V-8 '60s family car could run about 80 mph in the 1/4 mile. A muscle car which could go 25 mph faster is doing quite well. I will ask you again... what trap speed would impress you in a 1/4 mile run with a stock, 4-6 passenger, production car with a detuned engine?

I agree when Roger called the 426-Hemi engine "fantastic."

Any sensible person would consider the information below and conclude that BONE STOCK 426 Hemis made 350 - 360 SAE NET HP in their original, "as sold" condition:

1) Hale's formula (using the Hemi drag results in the link above): Peak HP = (104.56 MPH/234)^3 * 4,000 pound race weight = 357 HP

2) That's pretty close to Plymouth's SAE NET RATING of 350 HP: http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...g?t=1195073100

3) And it also lines up perfectly with the 315 HP REAR WHEEL HP that was MEASURED in this ACTUAL CHASSIS DYNO TEST:P97215 Image Large Photo

What year Hemi? The 315 rear wheel hp seems to be for a '67. The '68-'69 Hemis had a more aggressive cam. (276 degree duration and .460" lift for the '66-'67 VS 284 degree duration and .480" lift for the '68-'69). The '68-'69 should make 20-30 more hp.
And Hemi engine actually had a lower compression ratio (10.25:1) than my '69 Cadillac (10.5:1) and less duration (308 degrees intake and 312 exhaust for the Cadillac).

COLOR="Blue"]350 - 360 peak ENGINE HP from a 426 cubic inch, pre-emissions V8 that required 100+ octane fuel is LAME in an era where bone stock, 374 cubic inch V8s are producing nearly 400 HP AT THE WHEELS - through cat converters, with AC and power steering pump and while using 91 octane unleaded gas:[/COLOR]

More LS3 dyno numbers - Corvette Forum

Back to the '60s VS modern?

[Fleet 500]

You aren't grasping what he is trying to show you. The net rating is showing what the vehicle actually made at the crank, as installed in the vehicle. This net rating is much more realistic about the power the engine was making in the vehicle. His comparison shows how OVER rated the engines really were.

They were underrated going by gross hp. (I know, I know... gross hp isn't "accurate," but that's not the point). As I already showed, the identical engine (396 L-78) was rated at 425 hp when installed in Corvettes and 375 when installed in Camaros... the SAME engine! Did you know that some cars (G.M.s, usually) had factory throttle stops to prevent WOT (wide open throttle)? Just bending those back produced an instant 15-20 more hp.

Seeing how the real wheel hp is what really matters, yes.

But if hardrivin went over there, calculated how much rear wheel hp their car was making, would they really care? Nope. They were just having fun doing burnouts!

If they frequent the track, yes, they do care about the whp because THAT IS WAS REALLY MATTERS WHEN DEALING WITH PERFORMANCE.

But if they were told their car was making less rear wheel hp than some other modern car, would they really care? Nope. (Unless they were racing against it.)

Fleet, you act as everyone else is the ignorant one, but in reality, you are the ignorant one, stuck in a time warp of myth and narrow mindedness.

Nope, I am stuck in facts. And the fact is that there were some awesome muscle cars in the '60s. Quite a few could run 1/4 miles in the 13s, even with less than 7 inches of tread (per tire) on the ground. And, with minor mods, like headers, wider tires, adjusting the carb and distributor, some would go in the 12s.

A high school graduate, working at a new job for just a few weeks, could go out and buy a 383 Road Runner or 390 Fairlane or 396 Chevelle. And many of them modified their cars. So their "14.5 or 15.0-sec" car would end up being more like a 13.5 sec car.

[harddrivin1le]

What year Hemi? The 315 rear wheel hp seems to be for a '67. The '68-'69 Hemis had a more aggressive cam. (276 degree duration and .460" lift for the '66-'67 VS 284 degree duration and .480" lift for the '68-'69). The '68-'69 should make 20-30 more hp.

You FOOL!

The car in that dyno test was UPGRADED with the hydraulic ('70/'71)CAM! And while the car's owner (and apparently YOU) are ignorant about it, the '70/'71 hydraulic cam specs were the hottest of them all.

Mr HEMI's -- 426 HEMI Engine Specs

You don't understand camshafts. So why are you talking as though you do?

And Hemi engine actually had a lower compression ratio (10.25:1) than my '69 Cadillac (10.5:1) and less duration (308 degrees intake and 312 exhaust for the Cadillac).

1) I thought I already demonstrated (repeatedly) that the ADVERTISED compression ratios from that era were EXAGGERATED (but by varying amounts). The ACTUAL compression ratio of the Hemi was roughly 1/2 a point higher than you Cadillac's.

2) ADVERTISED camshaft durations back then were essentially meaningless, since the published figures were seat-to-seat. (I realize that you have NO comprehension of that term's meaning). Much like SAE NET HP, a UNIFORM STANDARD was later adopted to more meaningfully measure (and compare) camshaft duration. That's known as "@ .050" lift." Duration among two different cams can only be compared by using the "@ .050" figures!

Here. Try LEARNING something about the terms you like to throw around:

Intensity & Duration

[johnnynumfiv]

They were underrated going by gross hp. (I know, I know... gross hp isn't "accurate," but that's not the point). As I already showed, the identical engine (396 L-78) was rated at 425 hp when installed in Corvettes and 375 when installed in Camaros... the SAME engine! Did you know that some cars (G.M.s, usually) had factory throttle stops to prevent WOT (wide open throttle)? Just bending those back produced an instant 15-20 more hp.

Proof, mr. facts. Show me this mass produced throttle stop made by GM. Or was the throttle linkage adjusted so the car couldn't achieve full throttle instead?

Nope, I am stuck in facts. And the fact is that there were some awesome muscle cars in the '60s. Quite a few could run 1/4 miles in the 13s, even with less than 7 inches of tread (per tire) on the ground. And, with minor mods, like headers, wider tires, adjusting the carb and distributor, some would go in the 12s.
A high school graduate, working at a new job for just a few weeks, could go out and buy a 383 Road Runner or 390 Fairlane or 396 Chevelle. And many of them modified their cars. So their "14.5 or 15.0-sec" car would end up being more like a 13.5 sec car.

What kind of job paid a few thousand dollars in a few weeks in the 60's?

[harddrivin1le]

As I already showed, the identical engine (396 L-78) was rated at 425 hp when installed in Corvettes and 375 when installed in Camaros... the SAME engine!

And that engine made about 280 SAE NET HP in either of those cars in its "as delivered" state - REGARDLESS of what the "rated" figure was.

In other words, both ratings were MEANINGLESS! One number was merely a greater exaggeration than the other and neither had any basis in fact.

[johnnynumfiv]

And that SAME ENGINE made about 280 SAE NET (ACTUAL) HP as delivered in the car to the customer.

In other words, both ratings were MEANINGLESS!

Exactly. Chevrolet's marketing dept wasn't stupid, advertise a higher HP rating in the more expensive vehicle in hopes of selling more of them.