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

[Fleet 500]

Originally Posted by henk4

A commendable effort to put things in perspective. I am however increasingly convinced that Fleet's purpose on this forum is just to pull our leg and to provocate. I think it is absolutely impossible to amass so many stupidities and still pretend to be a serious poster.

Is your purpose on this forum to attack members you don't agree with?

[harddrivin1le]

Originally Posted by Fleet 500

Is your purpose on this forum to attack members you don't agree with?

I have never seen that as being his purpose.

However, it is quite clear that YOUR "purpose on the board" is to make outlandish claims without producing a shred of supporting EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and while denying such evidence as presented by others.

Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Fleet 500]

Originally Posted by harddrivin1le

I have never seen that as being his purpose.

However, it is quite clear that YOUR "purpose on the board" is to make outlandish claims without producing a shred of supporting EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and while denying such evidence as presented by others.

Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lol. "No evidence."
Your purpose, not only on this board, but on the entire Internet, is to degrade 1960s American muscle cars!

[Fleet 500]

Originally Posted by jediali

I think Fleets attitude is highly reflective of a lot of Americans who cause car desgners of late to redesign their cabin in order to help protect Americans who dont wear seatbelts. Thats absurd! and so is Fleets situation.

No, I think seatbelts should always be used; I always use them myself. I'm saying that a '60s car has thicker sheet metal and may safe the life of a driver or passenger in a severe accident.

He understands the basic physics of crashes and has sees these cars on a daily basis. The only reason he posted was becasue you where spouting. He is the least ignorant! We are interested in your opinions but we are not kids, stupid replys like this just make you look like your avoiding the obvious, ie we were right!

I have posted photos of several collisions of older cars in which the occupants survived. Here they are again:

[Fleet 500]

Originally Posted by harddrivin1le

Why do you select one data point while ignoring the others? The 55 MPH Federal Speed Limit was ABOLISHED in 1995, yet fatality rates went DOWN the following year! Many studies have shown that RAISING speed limits results in LOWER fatality rates because doing so tends to lower speed differentials among vehicles while increasing driver concentration and awareness.

ON THE WHOLE AND REGARDLESS OF SPEED LIMITS, FATALITY RATES IN THE COUNTRY HAVE STEADILY BEEN DROPPING AND ARE NOW ROUGHLY 25% OF WHAT THEY WERE IN 1969.

http://www.saferoads.org/federal/200...s1899-2003.pdf

Along with safety advancements, another reason for the dropping rate is that many more people use seat belts.

[Fleet 500]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

MORE people survive todays accidents. You should think more before posting

One reason for that is because most people today use the safety belts in their cars. In the early '70s, fewer than 10% of drivers whose cars had shoulder belts actually used them.
Of course the death rate is going to go down when the majority of people now use them.
You should also think more before posting.

[Fleet 500]

Originally Posted by kingofthering

Ok.... so... looks like there's a bit o' discrepency. I am aware that it's gross HP, but that would be some nasty loss for HP to drop such a dramatic amount at the wheels.

Strange... when you made the comment below, you didn't seem to be concerned about gross or rear wheel hp:

(Thread: Your 5 Favorite Years For Cars)
"Late '60s. The muscle car glory years."
Posted by kingofthering, 4-22-07.

I guess that was before you jumped on the harddrivin bandwagon!

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Fleet 500

I have posted photos of several collisions of older cars in which the occupants survived. Here they are again:

Fleet you make it difficult for all UCPers not to slag you off

So what, you foudn "several" pictures.
How many times do we need to waste time and effort explaining things to you.
With only a tiny amount of research you can also find pictures of collisions of modern cars at high speed and the driver survived !
Finding a "few" is IRRELEVANT.

Comprehending what has been said to you already about the investment and improvement in fatalities and injuries would be time better spent by you.

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Fleet 500

You should also think more before posting.

I have, have you ?
Yes seatbelts have made a difference and so have air-bags, side bags, seat design, pre-tensioners, crumple zones, soft dashes, deformable steering column and wheel, no protruding switches, reduction in "hard" ares at legs/knees/hips, absorbable foam/plastics on pillars.
The list can go on as long as we woudl chose to THINK.
Shame you seem to stop at one

[harddrivin1le]

Originally Posted by Fleet 500

Lol. "No evidence."
Your purpose, not only on this board, but on the entire Internet, is to degrade 1960s American muscle cars!

How could they have been "muscle cars" when most of them weren't any faster than new V6 family sedans such as the Camry?

Is the new V6 Camry a "muscle car?"


My "purpose," both in life and on various bulletin boards, is to promote the truth, as demonstrated by objective, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and as determined by THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The notion that "muscle car" engines were "under-rated" by your own stated definition of gross HP (production-line-stock engines fitted with OEM exhaust manifolds and without any engine accessories) is utterly baseless because there is no solid EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support it.

SOME of those engines would have undoubtedly exceeded their "Gross" ratings once they were fitted with long tube headers, some worked cylinder heads and optimized tuning. That is a moot point, however, since the engines were not delivered to the customer in such MODIFIED forms.

Other engines used some/all of those mods to achieve their "advertised" ratings. As such, those engines were OVER-RATED. The "450 HP" 454 LS6 is a good example of that.

Still others were unable to achieve their "advertised' ratings even WITH all of those mods. Your Cadillac engine is a good example of that.

Summarily, none of them were "under-rated," though some were more OVER-rated than others.

If that weren't the case we'd be seeing HUNDREDS of examples of DOCUMENTED PRODUCTION LINE STOCK "muscle car" engines producing huge amount of power when configured in your stated "gross hp" form.

Yet, we don't see that. Such information is exceedingly rare because most of the REAL results would be embarrassing. A few people are honest and open enough to put the truth out there. The two ZL1 dyno tests and the one Stage 1 dyno test I posted are good examples.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Fleet 500

Is your purpose on this forum to attack members you don't agree with?

My "purpose" on this forum is to deal with serious posters and/or to exchange opinions with open minded people. I don't think you belong to either one of those categories.

[kingofthering]

Originally Posted by Fleet 500

Strange... when you made the comment below, you didn't seem to be concerned about gross or rear wheel hp:

(Thread: Your 5 Favorite Years For Cars)
"Late '60s. The muscle car glory years."
Posted by kingofthering, 4-22-07.

I guess that was before you jumped on the harddrivin bandwagon!

er... yeah...

I said that the there's some HP loss, but that doesn't affect my desire for muscle cars. HP isn't everything. A Ferrari 250 GTO has less horsepower than a Nissan Skyline GT-R, but that doesn't make it any less desirable.

Hell, even you can prove that I still want a muscle car. If I remember correctly, I said I'd rather have a Superbee than a Suzuki.

[Fleet 500]

Originally Posted by henk4

My "purpose" on this forum is to deal with serious posters and/or to exchange opinions with open minded people. I don't think you belong to either one of those categories.

I have made many valid posts on many threads.
Unlike harddrivin, I am not a "one-thread" poster.
It seems like harddrivin is the one who doesn't belong in the above categories you mentioned.
He plays the same record over and over again; a one-note Charlie!

[harddrivin1le]

Originally Posted by Fleet 500

I have made many valid posts on many threads.
Unlike harddrivin, I am not a "one-thread" poster.
It seems like harddrivin is the one who doesn't belong in the above categories you mentioned.
He plays the same record over and over again; a one-note Charlie!

But the name of my record is "EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE" - a song with which you are clearly unfamiliar.

Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The only "points" you have made is what you have parroted from "muscle car" fantasy books that are based on little more than myth, legend and ADVERTISED engine specs that had nothing to do with reality.

EXAMPLES:
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/737899-post46.html
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/731283-post30.html

There isn't a shred of well documented, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to back those ridiculous claims and the idiot who wrote it clearly doesn't understand what NHRA FACTORING is.

This thread now contains actual dyno results for TWO ZL1s (hotter than the L-88 referenced in your fantasy book), one 1970 Buick Stage 1 and one 340 Mopar - all in stock (or something very close to it) state. It also contains testimony on the 426 Hemi's actual output from Chrysler's chief dyno man during the street Hemi era.

Now one of those sources (not to mention simple logic) backs the ridiculous claims promoted in your fantasy book.

The "410 HP" figure for the Cobra Jet is particularly laughable. The thing made ~ 275 HP in its "as installed" condition. Where was the other 130 HP hiding? Does an exhaust system, a fan, an air cleaner and an alternator require 130 HP? Answer: NO!

The only statement in those parroted claims that has any basis in fact is the 351 Cleverland - but only in 1971 Boss 351 form.
They could produce something on the order of 340 Gross HP - with open OEM manifolds and stripped of all engine accessories.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Fleet 500

I have made many valid posts on many threads.
Unlike harddrivin, I am not a "one-thread" poster.
It seems like harddrivin is the one who doesn't belong in the above categories you mentioned.
He plays the same record over and over again; a one-note Charlie!

I never ever had the illusion that you would agree with me...