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

[hightower99]

As far as tire distortion, it will vary from car to car. That is why I said the rear wheel hp isn't a perfect measurement.

What? WHP is much better than any other measure because it accounts for all loses except for one that is completely under your own control (i.e traction) Again tire distortion does not effect HP it does effect traction. Chassis dynos have (for the sake of this discussion) perfect traction, and therefore they tell you exactly how a car will perform when driven correctly.

Are you joking? "'60s muscle car engines were not underrated!" I am still amazed that what is a known fact by true '60s/early '70s muscle car fans has grown into a 30+ page thread.

What you don't seem to understand is that the Gross HP ratings had no meaning in the first place so it doesn't matter what they advertised the Gross HP as because it is still overrated compared to what the cars could put to the ground (ie WHP) which is what matters.

It was the standard way of measuring hp in the '40s, '50s and into the '60s. It was either go by those hp ratings or have nothing. And something is certainly better than nothing! And how can "several systems vary?" If an engine is tested the usual gross hp way (no accessories like water pump or alternator, no mufflers, etc, it shouldn't vary.

First there was never any standard way of testing an engines Gross HP. They could freely decide on there own how to test the engine, hence the meaninglessness of Gross HP. Also you misunderstood me again. When you are given a Gross HP rating for an engine (say 400HP) you have no idea how the car that engine is in is actually going to perform because you have no idea how much power is being used to run all the extra things like AC, water pumps ect, and you don't know how much power is stangled by the intake and exhaust. Hence two cars both with engines rated at 400 Gross HP can have performance that varies greatly (even when most of the other variables are almost identicle).

What do you mean "struggled to make 300 hp at the crank?" They made an easy 300 hp at the crank and some very easy upgrades would raise the hp a lot. The engines that stuggle to make hp are the ones that need a turbocharger to pull more hp out of a weak engine! And what about the fact that the '60s 426-Hemi made almost the same hp/cu in as the much more modern 488-cu-in Viper engine?

First you don't really know what the engine made at it's flywheel in an actual car. Second an engine isn't weak if it needs a turbocharger to make more power it is simply smaller. Also the Viper engine is equally as pathetic as a '60s 426 Hemi. try comparing the Hemi to say a merc performance V8 or even a BMW V8 (which are positively miniscule compared to the massive giants from the '60s). and if you are only thinking about specific power then you should be blown away by the V8s used in the Radicals.

also I have to say that I am disappointed with the article...

They claim that the 440 was so out of tune because it:
-Couldn't idle (Could be caused by badly tuned carb but could also be any number of other things)
-Plugs where fouled badly (probably caused by running overly rich)
-Carburettor was overly rich (aha! )

Now I seriously doubt that having checked and found out that the plugs were fouled and the Carb was rich that they didn't lean it out. This would mean that the plugs would be clean for the runs and it probably regained the ability to idle. They also explain that the 440 didn't have time to be tuned up, yet they had time to find out that the carb was rich and the plugs were fouled???

The true condition is also suspect because it was procured by "The Chrysler public relations man" who apparently picked up the car from an unnamed source in Detroit and drove it directly to the track. They would have had quite a few stock 440s running around New York that were actual stock street cars. but apparently the only one they could get was 850 miles away...

[Fleet 500]

Only by you.

They were actually DEALERSHIP MODIFIED CARS that couldn't be ordered directly from Chevy. Numerous people have pointed that out to you, but your learning problems prevent you from seeing it.

Let me try to point it out YET AGAIN: Motion Performance - History

"The Baldwin Chevrolet/ Motion Performance combine was one of a number of Chevy dealers that made special performance-oriented versions of the Camaro outside of the normal Chevrolet factory options...Other dealers active in the supercar market were Scuncio Chevrolet in Greenville Rhode Island, Yenko Chevrolet in Canonsburg, PA, Nickey Chevrolet in Chicago, Berger Chevrolet in Grand Rapids Michigan, Fred Gibb Chevrolet in LaHarpe Illinois and Dana Chevrolet in South Gate, California.

Ordering procedure
The way it worked was a car was ordered through either Baldwin Chevrolet or Motion Performance. The car was delivered through Baldwin Chevrolet. Then it was dropped off around the corner at Motion Performance where the modifications the customer desired were installed."

Oh, come on... just accept it! It was classified as a production car by NHRA rules. Yes, it was a special-order car, a limited production car, even a ringer, but it was available to the public and could be ordered from a dealer.

At least two articles have been posted here by AUTHORITIES who tested those cars when they were new (HOT ROD and SUPER STOCK magazines. Both of them said that the magazine cars were usually modified and ran FASTER than the actual production cars. Some of them were a LOT faster, like that 440 roadrunner.

Those two sources say the exact opposite of what you say. So who are were going to believe - HOT ROD and SUPER STOCK magazines or you?

Since when did Hot Rod and Super Stock become Motor Trend and Car Life?!?

YEP. ALL OF THEM (except perhaps for those running mid 15s and above).

Would you post a source making that claim?

You probably weren't even born when the "muscle cars" were built.

You are "probably" wrong. I was alive, but not old enough to drive.

Anything that is routinely being drag raced TODAY (in 2007) has been rebuilt and modified - whether or not the owners choose to tell the truth. Too much time has passed and drag racing is hard on a car.

That is just a baseless claim with nothing to back it up.

That's particularly true for the cars that run so much faster now then they did when they were new (like the 350 Olds and Tempest).

You claim that 350 Cutlasses "could have" run 13s when they were brand new.

Show me one that did.

The best result was obtained by HOT ROD and I think it was a 14.6. All the other magazines got even slower times.

You forget that low gears, like 4.33:1, were an option.

Not according to this source - unless they were MODIFIED: The 1957 Chrysler 300C letter cars

The flying mile does not mean absolute top speed.

[zilch1]

U forget that low gears, like 4.33:1, were an option [in the W31 350 Cutlass].

No I dont "forget" like you said.

I just know that those gears (or ANY others) wouldnt have put a production line stock W31 into the 13s. They could only trap in the mid 90 MPH range. That shows they couldnt run 13s.

69W31RESULTS.gif - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Someone else posted that. I hope they don't mind if I borrow it. It had 3.91 gears and couldnt even get out of the 15s.

You are saying that 4.33s would have made the same car run 13s?

LOL

Show us one that did.

Tell us more about how "untouched" 350 Pontiac Tempests and Olds Cutlasses run 13s (40 years after they were originally made).

What does your Cadillac run?

[Fleet 500]

What you don't seem to understand is that the Gross HP ratings had no meaning in the first place so it doesn't matter what they advertised the Gross HP as because it is still overrated compared to what the cars could put to the ground (ie WHP) which is what matters.

Doesn't matter... the subject of this thread was the fact that the gross hp ratings assigned to certain '60s/early '70s muscle car engines were deliberately underrated. And it's still true. It doesn't matter what "meaning" it had, the fact remains that engines like the "425" gross hp Hemi and the "335" gross hp 428 Ford had ratings lower than was on the chart they used. For instance, the 440 Mopar engine made around 410 hp at 5600 rpm, but the advertisers just picked a point lower on the hp curve and gave it a "375" hp rating at 4600 rpm.

First there was never any standard way of testing an engines Gross HP. They could freely decide on there own how to test the engine, hence the meaninglessness of Gross HP. Also you misunderstood me again. When you are given a Gross HP rating for an engine (say 400HP) you have no idea how the car that engine is in is actually going to perform because you have no idea how much power is being used to run all the extra things like AC, water pumps ect, and you don't know how much power is stangled by the intake and exhaust. Hence two cars both with engines rated at 400 Gross HP can have performance that varies greatly (even when most of the other variables are almost identicle).

Again, the claimed gross hp was, in many instances, taken at a point on the power curve lower than the maximum reached. I suggest you read the beginning of this thread again.

First you don't really know what the engine made at it's flywheel in an actual car. Second an engine isn't weak if it needs a turbocharger to make more power it is simply smaller.

I'd like to see the 1/4 mile times those cars run without a turbocharger.

Also the Viper engine is equally as pathetic as a '60s 426 Hemi. try comparing the Hemi to say a merc performance V8 or even a BMW V8 (which are positively miniscule compared to the massive giants from the '60s). and if you are only thinking about specific power then you should be blown away by the V8s used in the Radicals.

You really are ridiculous! How can you claim an engine, which 40 years, could give a heavy, non-aerodynamic '60s Mopar a top speed of over 140 mph "pathetic?" This from a detuned engine, too. And why are Hemi engines the #1 choice for drag racing?

also I have to say that I am disappointed with the article...

They claim that the 440 was so out of tune because it:
-Couldn't idle (Could be caused by badly tuned carb but could also be any number of other things)
-Plugs where fouled badly (probably caused by running overly rich)
-Carburettor was overly rich (aha! )

Now I seriously doubt that having checked and found out that the plugs were fouled and the Carb was rich that they didn't lean it out. This would mean that the plugs would be clean for the runs and it probably regained the ability to idle. They also explain that the 440 didn't have time to be tuned up, yet they had time to find out that the carb was rich and the plugs were fouled???

The true condition is also suspect because it was procured by "The Chrysler public relations man" who apparently picked up the car from an unnamed source in Detroit and drove it directly to the track. They would have had quite a few stock 440s running around New York that were actual stock street cars. but apparently the only one they could get was 850 miles away...

Congratulations! You have just set the record for the number of (poor) excuses set at Ultimate Car Page! You may now pick up your reward!
It takes about 2 minutes to pull a spark plug and discover it's fouled. (With a '69 GTX, you actually had access to spark plugs, unlike most modern cars.) And the black smoke the GTX was expelling after it was started tells you right there that it was running rich.

But keep right on with the pathetic excuses, because you will never admit to anything I post! Amazing the lengths some people go to deny things!

[zilch1]

What? WHP is much better than any other measure because it accounts for all loses except for one that is completely under your own control (i.e traction) Again tire distortion does not effect HP it does effect traction. Chassis dynos have (for the sake of this discussion) perfect traction, and therefore they tell you exactly how a car will perform when driven correctly.


What you don't seem to understand is that the Gross HP ratings had no meaning in the first place so it doesn't matter what they advertised the Gross HP as because it is still overrated compared to what the cars could put to the ground (ie WHP) which is what matters.


First there was never any standard way of testing an engines Gross HP. They could freely decide on there own how to test the engine, hence the meaninglessness of Gross HP. Also you misunderstood me again. When you are given a Gross HP rating for an engine (say 400HP) you have no idea how the car that engine is in is actually going to perform because you have no idea how much power is being used to run all the extra things like AC, water pumps ect, and you don't know how much power is stangled by the intake and exhaust. Hence two cars both with engines rated at 400 Gross HP can have performance that varies greatly (even when most of the other variables are almost identicle).



First you don't really know what the engine made at it's flywheel in an actual car. Second an engine isn't weak if it needs a turbocharger to make more power it is simply smaller. Also the Viper engine is equally as pathetic as a '60s 426 Hemi. try comparing the Hemi to say a merc performance V8 or even a BMW V8 (which are positively miniscule compared to the massive giants from the '60s). and if you are only thinking about specific power then you should be blown away by the V8s used in the Radicals.

also I have to say that I am disappointed with the article...

They claim that the 440 was so out of tune because it:
-Couldn't idle (Could be caused by badly tuned carb but could also be any number of other things)
-Plugs where fouled badly (probably caused by running overly rich)
-Carburettor was overly rich (aha! )

Now I seriously doubt that having checked and found out that the plugs were fouled and the Carb was rich that they didn't lean it out. This would mean that the plugs would be clean for the runs and it probably regained the ability to idle. They also explain that the 440 didn't have time to be tuned up, yet they had time to find out that the carb was rich and the plugs were fouled???

The true condition is also suspect because it was procured by "The Chrysler public relations man" who apparently picked up the car from an unnamed source in Detroit and drove it directly to the track. They would have had quite a few stock 440s running around New York that were actual stock street cars. but apparently the only one they could get was 850 miles away...

I agree with everything you said.

The Gross HP standard didn't FORCE the manufacturers to shave heads, install headers, port and polish the heads, etc. Some chose to only because nothing said they couldn't.

Others chose not to.

Some went somewhere in between.

Others went with whatever numbers the advertising departments came up with.

Nothing was uniform and no-one knows which engines were tested under which set of conditions.

Therefore none of those old rating mean anything and they cant even be compared to each other.

And some of the old engines couldnt make their "advertised" power even when every liberty was taken.

Fleet500 still cant see that even though a dozen people have told him so.

[zilch1]

For the record, here's what the NEWER Vipers make for power on a chassis dyno/at the rear wheels (456 HP). That one is a 2006 and was rated at 500 HP I think. (The new 2008s make 600 net HP but I haven't seen any actual dyno results for those yet).

Stock 2006 Dodge Viper SRT10 Coupe Dyno Sheet Details - DragTimes.com



This stock Z06 (427 cubic inches) made 445 rear wheel HP.

That is 130 more HP than the 426 street Hemis made in the article you mentioned. And the Corvette has to use unleaded gas, has catalytic converters and more options (like AC and power steering, which drag down the engine) and has to pass modern emissions tests.

Stock 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Dyno Sheet Details - DragTimes.com

[Fleet 500]

No I dont "forget" like you said.

I just know that those gears (or ANY others) wouldnt have put a production line stock W31 into the 13s. They could only trap in the mid 90 MPH range. That shows they couldnt run 13s

69W31RESULTS.gif - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Someone else posted that. I hope they don't mind if I borrow it. It had 3.91 gears and couldnt even get out of the 15s.

You are saying that 4.33s would have made the same car run 13s?

LOL

Show us one that did.

Tell us more about how "untouched" 350 Pontiac Tempests and Olds Cutlasses run 13s (40 years after they were originally made).

I didn't say 4.33s would have made the car run 13s. I said it was possible under ideal conditions... a low- or no-option car, a good driver, a good track and good weather conditions.
If I have an article of one with 4.33 gears, I will certainly post it, but I guess I'll have to read about a million excuses why it isn't valid!

What does your Cadillac run

Don't know; haven't run it at a track. I not sure I'd want to run a 38-year-old, original, non-rebuilt engine at the track. I did record a 4.0 second 40-60 mph on the street.
Motor Trend got a 16.5 sec 1/4 mile @ 83.8 mph with a '69 Coupe de Ville, but mine has dual exhaust and a shift kit. I figure low-16s at 87 mph with my 5,060 lb Fleetwood.
I would say that it should run low-15s or better at about 94 mph if I decide to add headers and a lower (3.21 VS 2.94) rear axle ratio, but then I would probably see about 100 posts saying it won't get out of the 16s!

[Fleet 500]

For the record, here's what the NEWER Vipers make for power on a chassis dyno/at the rear wheels (456 HP). That one is a 2006 and was rated at 500 HP I think. (The new 2008s make 600 net HP but I haven't seen any actual dyno results for those yet).

Stock 2006 Dodge Viper SRT10 Coupe Dyno Sheet Details - DragTimes.com

This stock Z06 (427 cubic inches) made 445 rear wheel HP.

That is 130 more HP than the Hemi made in the article you mentioned. And the Corvette has to use unleaded gas, has catalytic converters and more options (like AC and power steering, which drag down the engine).

Stock 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Dyno Sheet Details - DragTimes.com

Nice try, but the Viper in the comparison test was back in the '90s. Maybe you should compare the new Viper with the race Hemi!

[Fleet 500]

I agree with everything you said.

The Gross HP standard didn't FORCE the manufacturers to shave heads, install headers, port and polish the heads, etc. Some chose to only because nothing said they couldn't.

Others chose not to.

Some went somewhere in between.

Others went with whatever numbers the advertising departments came up with.

Nothing was uniform and no-one knows which engines were tested under which set of conditions.

Therefore none of those old rating mean anything and they cant even be compared to each other.

And some of the old engines couldnt make their "advertised" power even when every liberty was taken.

Fleet500 still cant see that even though a dozen people have told him so.

Again, it doesn't really matter. The "advertised" ratings for many '60s cars were taken well below their actual peak power.
That was the main point I was making with this thread.
And a magazine got 474 hp from a stock Street Hemi tested the "gross" way. Well above it's official "425" hp rating.

[zilch1]

Again, it doesn't really matter. The "advertised" ratings for many '60s cars were taken well below their actual peak power.
That was the main point I was making with this thread.
And a magazine got 474 hp from a stock Street Hemi tested the "gross" way. Well above it's official "425" hp rating.

Post the magazine article with DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE that the engine in question was PRODUCTION LINE STOCK (other than the "Gross" add ons and deleted equipment).

And so what if it did make "474 hp?"

This bone stock 6.0 liter (364 cubic inch) LS2 Crovette engine (identical to the one that came in Corvettes) made that much "Gross HP" on unleaded, 93 octane gas:

LS2 Engine Modification - Popular Hot Rodding Magazine

And that engine is a whopping 250 pounds lighter than a street hemi!

That engine is outdated now, though. Its replacement (6.2 liter LS3) makes even more power.

Nice try, but the Viper in the comparison test was back in the '90s. Maybe you should compare the new Viper with the race Hemi!

Why would I do that when the newer Vipers are 50 state emissions and safety compliant and are sold specifically as STREET cars?

The new Z06 Corvette uses a 7.0 liter, pushrod/2 valve V8 which is same basic arrangement as the 426 Hemi. It's also almost identical in displacement.

Yet, the 'Vette kicks out 445 Rear Wheel HP on unleaded gas - through cat converters and mufflers and with AC, power steering, etc!

Stock 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Dyno Sheet Details - DragTimes.com

[zilch1]

Again, it doesn't really matter. The "advertised" ratings for many '60s cars were taken well below their actual peak power.

CAR AND DRIVER'S CHIEF EDITOR disagrees with you. Somebody mentioned he has a masters degree from MIT and was also an engineer for Ford.

Hardriving posted the article a dozen times or so I think (maybe too much, but at least I got to read it).

Who should we believe - CAR AND DRIVERs cheif editor or you?

I just found it back 30 or so pages ago. I hope he doesnt mind if I borrow it:http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le...MOPARCSERE.JPG
http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le...MOPARCSERE.JPG


The Car and driver guy called those old rating ludicrous. He said they werent universally so but I doubt that one engine he mentioned is the only one that couldnt produce the advertised HP.

I bet your cadillac 472 couldn't either.

[hightower99]

Doesn't matter... the subject of this thread was the fact that the gross hp ratings assigned to certain '60s/early '70s muscle car engines were deliberately underrated. And it's still true. It doesn't matter what "meaning" it had, the fact remains that engines like the "425" gross hp Hemi and the "335" gross hp 428 Ford had ratings lower than was on the chart they used. For instance, the 440 Mopar engine made around 410 hp at 5600 rpm, but the advertisers just picked a point lower on the hp curve and gave it a "375" hp rating at 4600 rpm.

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.

I'd like to see the 1/4 mile times those cars run without a turbocharger.

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 really are ridiculous! How can you claim an engine, which 40 years, could give a heavy, non-aerodynamic '60s Mopar a top speed of over 140 mph "pathetic?" This from a detuned engine, too. And why are Hemi engines the #1 choice for drag racing?

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.

Again, it doesn't really matter. The "advertised" ratings for many '60s cars were taken well below their actual peak power.
That was the main point I was making with this thread.
And a magazine got 474 hp from a stock Street Hemi tested the "gross" way. Well above it's official "425" hp rating.

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.

[Fleet 500]

Post the magazine article with DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE that the engine in question was PRODUCTION LINE STOCK (other than the "Gross" add ons and deleted equipment).

I will post it when I find it. It hiding in my pile of car mags.

And so what if it did make "474 hp?"

It does show that it was underrated. A lot of car mags have the word "underrated" before the word "horsepower" when mentioning the 426-Hemi.

This bone stock 6.0 liter (364 cubic inch) LS2 Crovette engine (identical to the one that came in Corvettes) made that much "Gross HP" on unleaded, 93 octane gas:

Again with the comparison with modern cars which have a 40-year technology advantage? And keep in mind that the 426-Hemi was detuned for the street. It made 525-550 hp before it was detuned.

Why would I do that when the newer Vipers are 50 state emissions and safety compliant and are sold specifically as STREET cars?

Well, if you're going to compare an engine to one with 40 years tech advantage, you may as well compare it to a '60s race engine!

The new Z06 Corvette uses a 7.0 liter, pushrod/2 valve V8 which is same basic arrangement as the 426 Hemi. It's also almost identical in displacement.

Yet, the 'Vette kicks out 445 Rear Wheel HP on unleaded gas - through cat converters and mufflers and with AC, power steering, etc!

Stock 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Dyno Sheet Details - DragTimes.com

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."

[nota]

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.

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

[Fleet 500]

CAR AND DRIVER'S CHIEF EDITOR disagrees with you. Somebody mentioned he has a masters degree from MIT and was also an engineer for Ford.

Hardriving posted the article a dozen times or so I think (maybe too much, but at least I got to read it).

Who should we believe - CAR AND DRIVERs cheif editor or you?

I just found it back 30 or so pages ago. I hope he doesnt mind if I borrow it:http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le...MOPARCSERE.JPG
http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le...MOPARCSERE.JPG

The Car and driver guy called those old rating ludicrous. He said they werent universally so but I doubt that one engine he mentioned is the only one that couldnt produce the advertised HP.

I bet your cadillac 472 couldn't either.

I have a feeling we are going to go around and around with this!
The Car & Driver editor... Was he around in the '60s? Did he test muscle cars in the '60s? Did he put '60s muscle car engines on dynos in the '60s?

The advertised ratings of some '60s muscle car engines were a joke. The gross rating was set low on quite a few. Now you can claim that the gross ratings were not accurate or didn't mean anything, but that is not the subject. The subject is that many '60s muscle car engines were deliberately underrated by the factory... the Mopar Street Hemi, the 440-4 bbl and 6-bbl, the 340-4 bbl, the 351 Ford Cleveland, the 428 Ford, the L-88 527 Chevy, the 455 Buick Stage 1, the Olds 455 W-30, etc.

It is just a guess that a 472 Cadillac couldn't produce its advertised gross hp. I would not be surprised, though, if it could. It has a cam with a generous lift and duration (more than some muscle car engines) and its claimed maximum hp 375) is at only 4400 rpm and it can rev to 5200 rpm. If it made something like 385 hp at 4600 rpm, I would not be surprised at all.