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

[Fleet 500]

the ratio of hp/top speed isnt that great fleet? i dont get this point. My 160hp, 1550kg, gets me over 140mph

The ratio (for the Cadillac) is fine for the car's purpose (to transport the driver and/or passengers in luxury can comfort).

the smart roadster will easily burn rubber but does 109mph flat out, your point makes little sense and smoking tyres in this situation to me means axle tramp.

Easily burn rubber? How, on a wet road? And there is no axle tramp on my Cadillacs- they have a well-designed suspension system.

well fleet, technically i can do that on my pushbike???

Can your pushbike get to highway cruising speed under 10 or 11 seconds?

[Fleet 500]

So you're claiming that top speed was little changed because hp was little changed?

I'm claiming that the hp changed less than the advertised ratings showed.

What are the hp figures 1971 vs 1976?

Net, 1971 220 hp, 1976 190.

Well, so what?

"So what" is that it is a lot of extra weight.

Cad had a much larger engine (with higher compression?) and numerically lower final-drive, yet a DOG by comparison

They were low compression from '71-'76 (8.5:1 on all except 8.25:1 for 1974).
But they all had ample highway reserve accleration, not to mention in-town acceleration. No dogs here... look to Mercedes diesels for that! However, the '70 and earlier did have much better acceleration (low-to-high 16s depending on the year and model) and that's why I prefer the pre-'71s.

[jediali]

OK fleet, wtf, you totally changed my points?

1) so the caddys fine for comfort now, might be true but i was talking about its power/hp ratio ???
2) haha, rubber doesnt burn on wet roads...no my point was burning rubber doesnt mean fast or good engineering.

- you continually avoid confrontation and humility by changing the subject and making crap joke lines. Dont bother quoting this post, im happy to argue fairly and resolve single issues but not follow your wild goose chase.
Hit The Mole: Free online game on T45ol.com

[Fleet 500]

Bob, did you ever look at the European HP ratings for cars like the
Facel Vega, The Jensen Interceptor, the Iso Grifo and Rivolta, the Bizarrini A3, the Tomaso Mangusta and Pantera, or even the Cobra?
Were they using the same engines like being discussed here? or special blueprinted versions for the European market, in order to deliver the promised performance?

In addition to that, note the top speeds of these European cars with American V-8 engines...
Car---------------------- Engine--------- Top speed-- Price
Bizzarrini GT America------ 327 (Chevy)--- 145 mph---- $10.500
De Tomaso Mangusta----- 302 (Ford)----- 142--------- $11,150
Iso Grifo GL--------------- 327 (Chevy)--- 161--------- $13,000
Italia GFX----------------- 351 (Ford)---- 160--------- $6,675
Monteverdi 375L 2+2------ 440 (Mopar)--- 162--------- $21,900

[Fleet 500]

OK fleet, wtf, you totally changed my points?

1) so the caddys fine for comfort now, might be true but i was talking about its power/hp ratio ???
2) haha, rubber doesnt burn on wet roads...no my point was burning rubber doesnt mean fast or good engineering.

- you continually avoid confrontation and humility by changing the subject and making crap joke lines. Dont bother quoting this post, im happy to argue fairly and resolve single issues but not follow your wild goose chase.
Hit The Mole: Free online game on T45ol.com

Sorry, had to reply.
The power/hp ratio was fine for its intended use.
When I mean burning rubber, I mean burning rubber (not for just a few feet).

I avoid confrontation? Lol. I've been facing it since I began this thread! (And other threads.)

[henk4]

In addition to that, note the top speeds of these European cars with American V-8 engines...
Car---------------------- Engine--------- Top speed-- Price
Bizzarrini GT America------ 327 (Chevy)--- 145 mph---- $10.500
De Tomaso Mangusta----- 302 (Ford)----- 142--------- $11,150
Iso Grifo GL--------------- 327 (Chevy)--- 161--------- $13,000
Italia GFX----------------- 351 (Ford)---- 160--------- $6,675
Monteverdi 375L 2+2------ 440 (Mopar)--- 162--------- $21,900

yes, because these cars were more egg-shaped, they could run faster...but topspeed is absolutely not the issue, and I asked my question to somebody who did study the engines and not you.

[Matra et Alpine]

Lol. Yes, you have to think of something to say! A poor excuse is better than none, I suppose.

To quote .... "Don't be so overly dramatic."



I was pointing out a fact that it woudl have been subject to much more scrutiny than ONE typed invoice !!! Hence why I asked who made the call, as club judges often let things go that woudl be unacceptabel in the wider community.

Judges are very strict, but when they see documented evidence that a certain car had dealer-installed headers, they are satisfied.

No they're not always.
What you have presented is only "evidence" that the DEALER called it an option and installed it. As I pointed out, by giving the customer the old headers that would raise suspicion in more critical circles.

I compete in classic/historic rallies ... I know what they look for AND worked with friend entering an A110 in the UKs most prestigious councourse show in the UK. I've only asked those questions to understand who made that "decision" you presented.

"grow up" ... my quote this time



oh and re the headers and you're quote of them being "holley" and so ignoring the point abotu road legal, again I quote -- this time from THEIR web .... "That commitment to excellence has made Hooker Headers the winningest header manufacturer in automotive drag racing history." Care to explain ?


and I *LURVED* the pic of the caddy "burning rubber" ... that's what happens when you've 3 tons of metal and not enough of it over the driven wheels Simple physics

[harddrivin1le]

I can actually break traction with my '76 Limousine, of all cars.

That's because it doesn't have a LIMITED SLIP DIFFERENTIAL and you're therefore confusing poor traction with power.
Limited slip differential - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is because torque is more of a factor in acceleration.

That is FLAT OUT WRONG!
Here's why: Yaw Power Products / Where Performance Meets Technology

Summarily, physics tells us:

POWER = FORCE * VELCOCITY

HENCE: POWER = MASS * ACCELERATION * VELOCITY

THUS: ACCELERATION = POWER/(MASS * VELOCITY)

DRIVEN WHEEL TORQUE is what dictates acceleration.

And at any given vehicle speed, DRIVEN WHEEL TORQUE is proportional to engine HP (as dictated by the selected gear, which establishes the corresponding RPM - and hence HP - at that vehicle speed) minus total drive-line loss.

That's how a Honda S2000 (hardly light at 3,200 pounds with driver) can run a 14.0 @ 100 MPH with just 156 FT-LB of torque (but 240 SAE NET HP).

And that's why those torque monster Cadillacs couldn't get out of their own way.

[henk4]

REAR WHEEL TORQUE is what dictates acceleration.

would explain why my front wheel drive car is so slow....

[harddrivin1le]

would explain why my front wheel drive car is so slow....

Good point.

It should be "DRIVEN WHEEL TORQUE" and I'll change it.

[henk4]

Good point.

It should be "DRIVEN WHEEL TORQUE" and I'll change it.

OK, did you see my question about the US engines fro European sports cars? (Never mind Fleet's reply...)

[kingofthering]

Fast enough to reach 120 mph. Fast enough to burn rubber. Fast enough to accelerate up an onramp with no problem.

An Acura Integra can do that and more while returning (probably) twice the mileage.

[harddrivin1le]

Bob, did you ever look at the European HP ratings for cars...

I haven't, though there's no reason that Hale's Trap Speed formula will be any less accurate for those cars.

My interest in Hale's formula intensified as a result of hearing the baseless claims that old American "musclecars" were under-rated.

All that matters is what an engine produces in its "as delivered" (SAE Net, in America) condition. And in that condition, not a single "musclecar" could achieve its advertised power level, let alone exceed it.

Many "musclecar" fanatics and even some people in the press don't understand that differences between Gross and Net figures and attempt to directly compare the two.

[harddrivin1le]

An Acura Integra can do that and more while returning (probably) twice the mileage.

My wife's 1990 Civic EX would do an honest 115 MPH and my 1993 Sentra SER (140 HP, 2.0 liter 4 cylinder) would crest 125 MPH.

Most Integras built within the past decade or so should be able to crest 125 MPH without a huge effort, provided that any electronic governor that might be in place were disconnected (easy enough to do with am after-rmarket programmer).

A new Civic Si (4 cylinder, 197 SAE NET HP) will do an honest 135 MPH...(and many sources have recorded top speeds that are comparable to the example in this video.):

YouTube - Civic Si top speed

[henk4]

I haven't, though there's no reason that Hale's Trap Speed formula will be any less accurate for those cars.

My interest in Hale's formula intensified as a result of hearing the baseless claims that old American "musclecars" were under-rated.

All that matters is what an engine produces in its "as delivered" (SAE Net, in America) condition. And in that condition, not a single "musclecar" could achieve its advertised power level, let alone exceed it.

Many "musclecar" fanatics and even some people in the press don't understand that differences between Gross and Net figures and attempt to directly compare the two.

Well I probably can retrieve the SAE HP quoted for those cars in Europe (as opposed to DIN, which comes close to SAE-net), yet I would like to know whether these engines suffered from the same problems that you identified, in other words were these overly exaggerated as well. Alternatively, were the European builders keen enough to make sure that stated power also could actually be delivered?