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

[Fleet 500]

Most muscle car enthusiasts know that the horsepower ratings of the engines were deliberately set lower than what they actually made. Usually for insurance reasons and so the cars could run in a more favorable class in drag races.

Noted auto journalist Roger Huntington wrote an article about what these engines actually put out; here is the list: (All are gross hp & torque figures.)

Engine------------------Advertised----Rated----------True
------------------------HP @ RPM---- Torque@ RPM-- HP @ RPM

Buick 455 Stage 1-------360@5000----510@2800------420@5400
Camaro Z/28 302--------290@5800----290@4200------310@6200
Chevelle 396 L-78-------375@5600----415@3600------400@5600
Corvette 427 L-88-------430@5200----450@4400------480@6400
Mopar 340-4 bbl---------275@5000----340@3200------320@5600
Mopar 440-Magnum------375@4600----480@3200------410@5400
Mopar 440 Six-Pack------390@4700----490@3200------430@5600
Mopar 426 Street Hemi---425@5000----490@4000------470@6000
Mustang Boss 302--------290@5800----290@4300------310@6200
Ford 351-4 bbl Cleveland--300@5400----380@3400------340@5600
Mustang Boss 351--------330@5400----370@4000------360@6000
Mustang 428 Cobra-Jet---335@5200----440@3400------410@5600
Mustang Boss 429--------375@5200----450@3400------420@5600
Oldsmobile 455 W-30-----370@5300----500@3600------440@5600
Oldsmobile 350 W-31-----325@5400----360@3600------350@5800
Pontiac Ram Air 400------366@5100----445@3600------410@5600

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Notes:
-The most underrated was probably the 428 Cobra Jet engine... its official rating of 335 hp was a joke, especially considering that the 390-4 bbl engine was also rated at 335 hp.

-The second-most underrated was probaby either the Mopar 426-Hemi or the 340-4 bbl. The 340-Six Pack was not listed, but with an advertised hp of 290@5000 rpm and torque of 340@3200 rpm, I would guess about 335 hp @ 6000 rpm.

-The actual power output of that 455 Olds W-30 is very impressive... 440 hp!

[fisetdavid26]

Very interesting Fleet, thanks for sharing. :)

[Fleet 500]

Very interesting Fleet, thanks for sharing. :)
Glad you like it.
It makes for a better comparison when you know the actual horsepower. There were comments on some of the cars in the text of the article, which I'll post in a little while.

[Ferrer]

I'd also be interesting to know the actual net power of those engines. ;)

[Matra et Alpine]

Did the specs under-rate the torque too ?

[Fleet 500]

Did the specs under-rate the torque too ?
Good question!
No, according to Huntington, the torque ratings were not underrated, probably because insurance companies didn't go by torque ratings.

[Fleet 500]

I'd also be interesting to know the actual net power of those engines. ;)
I can look that up, too.
Huntington wrote a book called "American Supercar," and he did list estimated net hp for most of the muscle car engines. I'll post them soon. :)

[taz_rocks_miami]

Nice list, looks like the current crop of muscle cars isn't that far behind their ancestors. Even if they are officialy watered down stats. Another notable "underated" engine was the 454 LS6 un the Chevelle SS. Rated at 450 hp. When I was in high school it was said that it's real output was 500+ hp. :)

[Fleet 500]

Nice list, looks like the current crop of muscle cars isn't that far behind their ancestors. Even if they are officialy watered down stats. Another notable "underated" engine was the 454 LS6 un the Chevelle SS. Rated at 450 hp. When I was in high school it was said that it's real output was 500+ hp. :)
Yeah, I would not be surprised if the 454 LS6 put out more than its claimed hp.

[Fleet 500]

I'd also be interesting to know the actual net power of those engines. ;)
Here are some figures from the book I mentioned:

Engine-----------------------Rated Hp--Est. Net Hp

'64 Olds 330------------------ 310------ 240
'66 Olds 400------------------ 360------ 320
'68 Buick 400----------------- 345------ 290
'68 Chevy 396 L-78----------- 375------ 360
'69 Pontiac GTO 400---------- 370------ 340
'67 Pontiac GTO 400 ram air--- 360------ 310
'68 Olds 400------------------ 370------ 320
'68 Chevy 427 L-72----------- 425------ 390
'69 Dodge 440-6 Pack--------- 390------ 370

'65 Mustang HP 289----------- 271------ 190
'65 Barracuda 273------------- 235------ 190
'67 Mustang 390--------------- 335------ 250
'68 AMC AMX 390-------------- 315------ 290
'67 Chevy Camaro 350--------- 295------ 230
'68 Plymouth 'Cuda 340-------- 275------ 290
'68 Ford Mustang 428---------- 335------ 320
(Note that the net rating for the 340 is actually higher than the rated gross hp!)

The Mopar Hemis gained hp as refinements were made. For instance the '68-'69 had a camshaft with more lift and duration compared to the '66-'67. The '70-'71 Hemis had hydraulic lifters while the '66-'69 still had solid lifters.

'66 Mopar 426-Hemi----------- 425------- 330
'67 Mopar 426-Hemi----------- 425------- 360
'68 Mopar 426-Hemi----------- 425------- 390
'69 Mopar 426-Hemi----------- 425------- 420

--------------------------------------------
Corvette engines:
Base 350-cu-in--------------- 300------- 200
350 L-46--------------------- 350------- 290
427 L-36--------------------- 390------- 280
427 L-71--------------------- 435------- 400

[rev440]

Ive read a boss 429 stang would out perform a Hemi car in stock form. Is this true fleet?

[Fleet 500]

Ive read a boss 429 stang would out perform a Hemi car in stock form. Is this true fleet?
Not typically, unless the Mustang had really low gears like 4.30.
This was mentioned in the same book by Roger Huntington...
"It would be nice if I could say the new Boss 429 went and out beat Chrysler's nasty old Street Hemi hands down. It didn't quite work out that way. As I said, those Shotgun ports were just too big for the street. Even with all the detuning and choking down by Ford engineers, they could not quite get their act together. Big ports made the low end and mid-range weak. And just about the time the big ports started to work on the top end, the restrictive carburetion and camming took over. The street Boss 429 didn't perform really well anywhere in the speed range.

It was an intersting lesson in standing-start acceleration curves. With the street Bosses' huge ports and the soft low-end and mid-range torque, the car spent too much time getting up to 70 or 80 mph where the flow in the ports was decent. At that point, there wasn't enough left of the 1/4 mile to turn good numbers. All else being equal, the Street Hemi could could up to 60 mph 1- to 1.5-seconds quicker. And to top it off, the street Boss 429 didn't have the carburetion and manifolding to haul on the top end. The single 735-cfm Holley and two-plane manifold were poorly matched to the size of the ports and valves underneath. Flow velocity was fine through the carb and manifold, but slowed at the big ports, hurting air/fuel mixture. Interesting engine"

Roger did test a '69 Boss 429 Mustang with a four-speed manual and 3.91:1 rear axle ratio and got these times:
0-30 mph-------------- 3.2 secs
0-60 mph-------------- 7.1
1/4 mile---------------- [email protected] mph
Estimated net hp------- 370

Compare with a Car Life test of a '69 Dodge Charger R/T with 426-Hemi, 4-speed manual and 3.54:1 gears:
0-30 mph--------------- N.A.
0-60 mph--------------- 5.7 secs
1/4 mile----------------- 13.9@104 mph
Estimated net hp-------- 420

[Ferrer]

Here are some figures from the book I mentioned:

Engine-----------------------Rated Hp--Est. Net Hp

'64 Olds 330------------------ 310------ 240
'66 Olds 400------------------ 360------ 320
'68 Buick 400----------------- 345------ 290
'68 Chevy 396 L-78----------- 375------ 360
'69 Pontiac GTO 400---------- 370------ 340
'67 Pontiac GTO 400 ram air--- 360------ 310
'68 Olds 400------------------ 370------ 320
'68 Chevy 427 L-72----------- 425------ 390
'69 Dodge 440-6 Pack--------- 390------ 370

'65 Mustang HP 289----------- 271------ 190
'65 Barracuda 273------------- 235------ 190
'67 Mustang 390--------------- 335------ 250
'68 AMC AMX 390-------------- 315------ 290
'67 Chevy Camaro 350--------- 295------ 230
'68 Plymouth 'Cuda 340-------- 275------ 290
'68 Ford Mustang 428---------- 335------ 320
(Note that the net rating for the 340 is actually higher than the rated gross hp!)

The Mopar Hemis gained hp as refinements were made. For instance the '68-'69 had a camshaft with more lift and duration compared to the '66-'67. The '70-'71 Hemis had hydraulic lifters while the '66-'69 still had solid lifters.

'66 Mopar 426-Hemi----------- 425------- 330
'67 Mopar 426-Hemi----------- 425------- 360
'68 Mopar 426-Hemi----------- 425------- 390
'69 Mopar 426-Hemi----------- 425------- 420

--------------------------------------------
Corvette engines:
Base 350-cu-in--------------- 300------- 200
350 L-46--------------------- 350------- 290
427 L-36--------------------- 390------- 280
427 L-71--------------------- 435------- 400
Fleet, that's really interesting. Thanks for posting it.

[fisetdavid26]

Fleet, that's really interesting. Thanks for posting it.
Albert, is that the first time you and Fleet quote each other without arguing? :eek:

[Ferrer]

Albert, is that the first time you and Fleet quote each other without arguing? :eek:
No there have been other rare occasions where this has happened too... :p

I have to say some engines are quite disappointing, like the 289 Ford and the 350 Chevrolet.

[Fleet 500]

No there have been other rare occasions where this has happened too... :p

I have to say some engines are quite disappointing, like the 289 Ford and the 350 Chevrolet.
Also the Chevy and Ford 302. The hp is okay, but 290 lbs-ft of torque is not that much... the garden-variety 318-2 bbl Mopar had 340 lbs-ft!

[henk4]

Good question!
No, according to Huntington, the torque ratings were not underrated, probably because insurance companies didn't go by torque ratings.

clever guys, these insurance people...if you know revs and torque, calculating HP would not be too difficult...

[Fleet 500]

clever guys, these insurance people...if you know revs and torque, calculating HP would not be too difficult...
I guess they didn't know that. If so, lucky for us muscle car guys!

[Ferrer]

Also the Chevy and Ford 302. The hp is okay, but 290 lbs-ft of torque is not that much... the garden-variety 318-2 bbl Mopar had 340 lbs-ft!
Well but 395Nm for a 4.9-litre engine isn't bad at all. The Mopar's torque is actually better in terms of specific output (460Nm from a 5.2-litre), but probably the smaller Chevy and Ford 302s would make the car less nose heavy.

[Fleet 500]

Well but 395Nm for a 4.9-litre engine isn't bad at all. The Mopar's torque is actually better in terms of specific output (460Nm from a 5.2-litre), but probably the smaller Chevy and Ford 302s would make the car less nose heavy.
Yeah, the 302s are not too heavy.

[ruim20]

Nice list, if only that were the case for todays cars, most of the times the power is less than specified by the brand...

[Ferrer]

Nice list, if only that were the case for todays cars, most of the times the power is less than specified by the brand...
Not always. For isntance the Volkswagen Golf 1.4 TSI 170bhp actually has 190bhp and the Audi S3 265bhp actually has 280bhp.

[drakkie]

Not always. For isntance the Volkswagen Golf 1.4 TSI 170bhp actually has 190bhp and the Audi S3 265bhp actually has 280bhp.

Our Citroën also did a little more than the 86 kW the factory stated, when tested on school. To be precise 87 kW :D

[-What-]

This list is garbage and false. Put some old muscle on a dyno and watch those numbers TANK to today's inline-4 specs.

This is abominable hogwash.

[Slicks]

This list is garbage and false. Put some old muscle on a dyno and watch those numbers TANK to today's inline-4 specs.

This is abominable hogwash.

HA! you fail at life.

[-What-]

HA! you fail at life.

I'm actually pretty good at reality, which is why I can confidently call bullsh*t on these specs.

I'd take a 2007 400hp over a 60's 400hp any day of the week, and minute of the hour, any second of the 30.

[henk4]

I'm actually pretty good at reality, which is why I can confidently call bullsh*t on these specs.

I'd take a 2007 400hp over a 60's 400hp any day of the week, and minute of the hour, any second of the 30.

so what your mysterious post #121 was trying to tell us is that those 60-ties figures are far too high?

[Fleet 500]

This list is garbage and false. Put some old muscle on a dyno and watch those numbers TANK to today's inline-4 specs.

This is abominable hogwash.
One of those muscle car magazines tested a stock 426-Hemi engine on a dyno measured the old way (gross brake horsepower) and got 474 hp, which backs up the 470 hp rating in the chart I posted.

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

Not always. For isntance the Volkswagen Golf 1.4 TSI 170bhp actually has 190bhp and the Audi S3 265bhp actually has 280bhp.

That's because VAG record their engine temperatures at a stifling 40ºC (104ºF for the Yanks). As a result, the power is seriously compromised! Just down the road, a place which specialises in diesels noted that the VAG diesels were putting out values significantly higher than quoted. The Golf 1.9TDi GT PD 150 (catchy title :rolleyes: ) is meant to have (surprise!) 150bhp, but the business in the TRL have seen none with under 170bhp from their rolling road.

[Fleet 500]

There were comments in the article about some of the engines. I'll post some now and some more a little later...

Corvette L-88:
"We mentioned earlier the true peak on this one works out to 480 hp at 6400 rpm. But keep in mind this was with the stock Corvette exhaust manifolds. With just a set of 2-inch tubing headers the true power jumped to over 550 hp. This was a wild engine, with 12.5-to-1 compression, 850-cfm Holley carb and a monster cam. Chev engineers really fudged this one."

Mopar Street Hemi:
"It's well known that the Street Hemi was an out-and-out racing engine that was mildly detuned for street driving. Even with the 10.25-to-1 compression ratio and 284-degree low-lift cam, this was still one of the strongest engines of the muscle car era. The official rating of 425 hp at 5000 rpm was a pinpoint well down on the power curve. The monster would really kick out about 470 horses at 6000 rpm- with street exhaust manifolds!"

Ford Cobra Jet 428:
"The advertised rating of 335 hp here was a joke. This 428-cu-in long stroke version of the famous FE block took advantage of all the performance lessons learned on the Ford 406 and 427 engines of the '60s. The 428 Cobra Jets used medium-riser 427 heads, 735-cfm carburetion, Interceptor manifolding, and the well proved 390 GT cam. Tremendous torque with the long stroke, and an easy power peak of 410 hp at 5600 rpm. Look at the drag strip records if you wonder if these were honest horses."

[Fleet 500]

Here is the explanation as to how and why many '60s muscle car engines were underrated:

"Insurance companies started to balk about insuring these wild engines on the street, especially with young drivers under 21. Some insurers set an arbitrary minimum of 10 pounds per horsepower for young drivers. This the the reason for the GM front office policy in the late '60s of limiting production models to the 10 lbs/minimum on curb weight. (This is why Chevy cut the rating of the L-79 327 engine from 350 to 325 hp in '66.)

And then there were the safety critics. Ralph Nader was hollering about more than the Corvair in the mid-'60s. The safety do-gooders were saying that horsepower was a chief killer on the streets and highways. Detroit didn't pay much attention until some Washington Congressmen began singing the truth. Then it was Panic City.

What it all boiled down to is that Detriot never raised hp ratings above the range of 425-450 hp, regardless of what the engines actually put out. And the companies were more apt to keep the ratings below 400 hp if at all feasible.

Did they lie? Not necessarily. What they did was use a rating trick that had been used for years for trucks and marine engines. They simply rated the power at some point below the power curve. You're all familiar with how a full-throttle power curve for an engine rises very swiftly in the medium range, then bends over into a smooth, round peak at the top. There's no law that says you have to rate the engine right at the very peak of the curve.

The trick worked just as well on free-breathing car engines. Take the Mopar 440-6 Pack. It was rated at a modest 390 hp at 4700 rpm. But the true peak here was 430 hp at 5600 rpm. Chrysler engineers just looked at the line at the power curve, and maybe stuck a pin in the line at 4700 rpm. The 390 hp sounded a lot less dangerous to insurance people than the true peak of 430 hp.

The next question is: How do we figure the true power peak from the advertised torque figure?
Easy. If you study dozens of power and torque curves for high-performance V-8 engines, you will find an interesting pattern emerging. That is, the torque at the peak of the power curve is roughly 15% below the maximum torque in the mid-range (where torque is rated). And the rpm at peak power is roughly 50% above the rpm at peak torque. So really all we need to know the estimate of true peak power is the true peak torque at what rpm. And since the factories never fudged on torque ratings, this gives us a perfect way to estimate what the various muscle car engines actually put out at the peak of the power curve.

Just as an example, assume the engine has a maximum torque of 470 lbs/ft at 4000 rpm. The torque at peak power would be .85x470=400 lbs/ft, and the peak of the power curve would be 1.5x400=6000 rpm. And the actual hp at the peak calculates out to 457 hp. That's all there is to it."

[P4g4nite]

What was the quality of fuel like in the 60's in the US? Because a lot of these engines ran really high compression ratios am I right?

[Bob]

This list is garbage and false. Put some old muscle on a dyno and watch those numbers TANK to today's inline-4 specs.

This is abominable hogwash.Based on what? Your extensive experience with muscle car engines? Or your experience with stock four bangers that put out over 400 hp? (Hint: If you're talking about Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Subaru, Mitsubishi... therer aren't any.)

So go ahead and "call bs" on the numbers... I'm sure you know much better than they dynoes, the car magazines, the guys who spend every day working on these cars.





Put some old muscle on a dyno and watch those numbers TANK to today's inline-4 specs. I just had to bring that up again. Find me one inline four that puts out four hundred horses... most likely it has MPFI, Forced Induction, VVT, 4 valves/cylinder, (you probably don't know what those are...) and costs by itself than most vehicles.

[henk4]

I just had to bring that up again. Find me one inline four that puts out four hundred horses... most likely it has MPFI, Forced Induction, VVT, 4 valves/cylinder, (you probably don't know what those are...) and costs by itself than most vehicles.

Sorry, could not resist...

[The_Canuck]

^ Der uber 4...

But I think what's trying to be said is that today the cars horsepower would have dropped. I'm thinking back to the top gear episode where the Lamborghini only had 90 horsepower left...

[Matra et Alpine]

Sorry, could not resist...
neither can I .... and all done with a USED engine block that had ALREADY clocked up 100Ks :D :D :D

[kingofthering]

^ Der uber 4...

But I think what's trying to be said is that today the cars horsepower would have dropped. I'm thinking back to the top gear episode where the Lamborghini only had 90 horsepower left...

No- that was a Maserati Merak, which had a pathetic 190hp engine.

[The_Canuck]

No- that was a Maserati Merak, which had a pathetic 190hp engine.

Whatever, you get the point though, it lost horsepower over time due to various factors.

[Fleet 500]

What was the quality of fuel like in the 60's in the US? Because a lot of these engines ran really high compression ratios am I right?
You are right. In the late '60s, 98 and 100 octane was available at the pump. Now, the highest at the pump (where I live) is only 91 octane. Although, there are gas pumps near airports which have 111 octane (for $8.25/gallon).

[P4g4nite]

You are right. In the late '60s, 98 and 100 octane was available at the pump. It's a perfect recipe for big power. Big displacement, racing competition plus it's associated homologation and excellent fuel available to the public.
Good times.

Although, there are gas pumps near airports which have 111 octane (for $8.25/gallon). you know how much it costs? :D

[jediali]

you know how much it costs? :D
ironicaly, around the same as regular petrol in the UK

[Fleet 500]

=P4g4nite;731748]It's a perfect recipe for big power. Big displacement, racing competition plus it's associated homologation and excellent fuel available to the public.
Good times.

Yes, it was nice when you could buy real fuel at the corner gas station. BTW, I remember a gas station in 1979 in the city of San Fernando in which premium fuel was still labeled as "Ethel."



you know how much it costs? :D

One of the muscle car guys I know buys it. He mixes 111 octane with 91 octane. For anyone living in the valley, the station is on Oxnard St. and Hazeltine Ave. in the city of Van Nuys.

[kingofthering]

Whatever, you get the point though, it lost horsepower over time due to various factors.

It doesn't really help because it was recently rebuilt and it was about to blow.

[johnnynumfiv]

One of the muscle car guys I know buys it. He mixes 111 octane with 91 octane. For anyone living in the valley, the station is on Oxnard St. and Hazeltine Ave. in the city of Van Nuys.

A buddy of mine has to run half racing fuel half premium in his chevelle so it won't spark knock. If he runs straight pump gas, it will spark knock like crazy above 2500rpm.

[hightower99]

A buddy of mine has to run half racing fuel half premium in his chevelle so it won't spark knock. If he runs straight pump gas, it will spark knock like crazy above 2500rpm.
crap combustion chamber design will do that...

and is that carbon fiber on the turbocharger housing? (talking about the Uber 4 TCed BMW F1 engine)

[Fleet 500]

I meant to add more of the text from the article, so here it is...

Buick 455 Stage 1
"This one had the highest torque of at at 510 lbs/ft. and the torque curve was pretty flat from 2500 to 3500 rpm. We have assigned it a true peak rating of 420 hp at 5400 rpm, well up from the factory rating of 360 hp."

Camaro Z/28 and Boss 302 Mustang
"Both of these engines were rated at 290 hp at 5800 rpm, with 290 lbs/ft torque. These ratings were obviously fudged to get the cars into the lower stock classes at the drag strip. It didn't work. NHRA officials immediately factored their horsepower up to 310, and put them in a higher class. And that was their true power peak- 310 hp at 6200 rpm."

Mopar 340-4 bbl
"This was another small block engine that was conservatively rated to get it into a more favorable drag strip class. And it did work for a while. But actually this was one of the sweetest small block street engines of the period, and that factory rating of 275 hp at 5000 rpm should really be 320 hp at 5600 rpm. The mill would put out more than 275 hp net."

Ford Cleveland 351-4 bbl
"This one was marketed as a 'peppy, responsive' passenger car engine for the mass market. But actually it was a thinly desguised high-performance V-8 for the youth market. The advertised rating of 300 hp was very conservative. With 11-to1 compression, huge ports and valves, long camming and 650 cfm carburetion, the 351-4 bbl Cleveland would dyno 340 hp at 5600 rpm very easily. Note also that the optional Boss 351 version, with better camming and manifolding was good for another 20 hp at 6000 rpm. Healthy engines for 351 cubes."

Boss 429 Mustang
"On paper this engine should have been close to the Chrysler Street Hemi in dyno performance. It actually had bigger ports and valves. But, alas, those huge ports and valves were the Boss 429s downfall on the street. Mid-range response and torque were soft. And with the limited carburetion and camming necessary for street driving, the act never really got it together even above 5000 rpm. The Boss 429 was a lost soul, with no rpm range where it was really comfortable. The true dyno peak of 420 hp at 5600 rpm was very little better than the 428 Cobra Jet."

I'll post the last three from the text in a little while.

[Fleet 500]

Here are the last three comments from the text of the same article...

Oldsmobile 455 W-30
"Here was an engine that didn't look all that great on paper, no huge ports and valves or big Holley carb. But it happened to have one of the best matches between port design and camshaft timing of any engine of the musclecar era. That 328 degree cam with .470 inch lift, in conjunction with the medium-size ports and valves, plus the long stroke, gave tremendous volumetric efficiency from 3000 rpm clear to 5500 rpm. Result: 500 lbs/ft of torque at 3600 rpm and a great peak dyno output of 440 hp at 5600 rpm. And it was probably all an engineering accident."

Oldsmobile 350 W-31
"Or maybe the 455 wasn't an accident. Because Olds engineers did it right again with the 350 cu in block for the W-32 Cutlasses. Relatively small ports and valves, 700 cfm Quadrajet carburetion, but a lot of cam timing and lift. The magic formula scored again on the 350 W-31. This combination would dyno 350 hp at 5800 rpm, and would turn to 6600 rpm with hydraulic lifters. Wild little engine, and one that's almost forgotten now in musclecar nostalgia."

Pontaic Ram Air 400
"This is the one with that odd advertised power rating of 366 hp at 5100 rpm. Obviously a rating taken well down on the power curve, as shown by the torque rating of 445 lbs/ft at 3600 rpm. With 301 degree cam and late big-valve heads, the Ram Air 400 had a lot of potential above 5000 rpm. The true dyno peak should have been about 410 hp at 5600 rpm."

[-What-]

I just had to bring that up again. Find me one inline four that puts out four hundred horses... most likely it has MPFI, Forced Induction, VVT, 4 valves/cylinder, (you probably don't know what those are...) and costs by itself than most vehicles.

I just noticed your ridiculous statements.

Find ME one 60s/70s Muscle Car engine claiming to make 400 hp that actually makes it on a dyno. And I don't give a damn how an inline 4 goes about making its power as long as its there.


The list posted in this thread is foolishness.

[Fleet 500]

Find ME one 60s/70s Muscle Car engine claiming to make 400 hp that actually makes it on a dyno. And I don't give a damn how an inline 4 goes about making its power as long as its there.

Gross or net hp?


The list posted in this thread is foolishness.

I agree. The "advertised" ratings of most of the muscle car engines is foolishness. ;)

[a440plus6®]

I just noticed your ridiculous statements.

Find ME one 60s/70s Muscle Car engine claiming to make 400 hp that actually makes it on a dyno. And I don't give a damn how an inline 4 goes about making its power as long as its there.


The list posted in this thread is foolishness.

You MUST be YOUNG........your lack of respect and knowledge of Detroit MuscleCars shines thru on your foolish remarks.:eek:

[Juggs]

crap combustion chamber design will do that...


yeah but in his case its probably the high compression :rolleyes:

[hightower99]

yeah but in his case its probably the high compression :rolleyes: well seeing as he probably has a static CR of 11:1 and maybe (if he is lucky) a dynamic CR of 9:1...

it's the crap combustion chamber design ;)

[Fleet 500]

well seeing as he probably has a static CR of 11:1 and maybe (if he is lucky) a dynamic CR of 9:1...

it's the crap combustion chamber design ;)
It's more like what is supposed to be gasoline these days. '60s cars with a compression ratio of over 10.0:1 were meant to run on 98-101 octane; "premium" today is 91-92 octane.
My '69 Cadillac (10.5:1 compression ratio) does not like today's "gasoline," so I add octane boost.

[hightower99]

It's more like what is supposed to be gasoline these days. '60s cars with a compression ratio of over 10.0:1 were meant to run on 98-101 octane; "premium" today is 91-92 octane.
My '69 Cadillac (10.5:1 compression ratio) does not like today's "gasoline," so I add octane boost.

That is because your cadillac has crap combustion chamber design...


Think about it there are plenty of modern cars out there that run happy on premium pump gas even though they have CR ratios 11:1 or higher... Also because of advancements in manufacturering processes your cadillac has a much lower dynamic compression ratio then a modern car which runs 10.5:1 static.

They can do that because they have excellent combustion chamber design.

:p

[Matra et Alpine]

That is because your cadillac has crap combustion chamber design...


Think about it there are plenty of modern cars out there that run happy on premium pump gas even though they have CR ratios 11:1 or higher... Also because of advancements in manufacturering processes your cadillac has a much lower dynamic compression ratio then a modern car which runs 10.5:1 static.

They can do that because they have excellent combustion chamber design.

:p
We need to stop you buying petrol in cans :)

99% wrong.

Modern FUEL INJECTION and engine management with knock sensors is what lets moden cars achieve that. Try it in a carburetted setup and you need to adjust the mix and if "on the edge" the timing too !!!

The 1% is improved understanding of air/fuel flow and chamber shape :)

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

Agreed- the Hemi worked so well back then, it's still being used today. :)

[hightower99]

We need to stop you buying petrol in cans :)

99% wrong.

Modern FUEL INJECTION and engine management with knock sensors is what lets moden cars achieve that. Try it in a carburetted setup and you need to adjust the mix and if "on the edge" the timing too !!!

The 1% is improved understanding of air/fuel flow and chamber shape :)


That just reminds me of the quote "96% of statisical references are made up 100% of the time"

Modern fuel injection helps by making sure that all cylinders get roughly the same amount of fuel (as opposed to carburetted motors where the fuel is less evenly divided). But for actual controling overall A:F ratio carburettors shouldn't lower knock limits... in fact they should increase the knock limit as most of the time carburettors are tuned to run rich. EFI does much more for economy by constantly trying to run the engine as close to 14.7:1 for the majority of the time and running lean when cruising. Modern ECU systems with knock sensors keep the engine from damaging itself from detonation/pre-ignition, but again they don't raise the actual knock limit of the engine much.

Also I would like to note that when I say "Combustion chamber design" I am not only talking about the shape of the combustion chamber. I am talking about manufacturering processes that allow closer clearences, I am talking about optimised positioning of all the parts in the combustion chamber, and of course optimised air/fuel flow and control.

Also they did not say that they could run on pump premium if they tuned their carbs and adjusted timing they said they couldn't run on pump premium. Modern cars run on pump premium with higher static CR and and higher dynamic CR. Granted that EFI, ECU with knock sensors make sure that the engine doesn't blow up but the actual knock limit (when knocking starts) has alot to do with combustion chamber design.

[Ferrer]

Agreed- the Hemi worked so well back then, it's still being used today. :)
I've read articles which say that modern Hemis aren't Hemi at all...

[hightower99]

I've read articles which say that modern Hemis aren't Hemi at all...

What articles? AFAIK the new 5.7L and 6.1L engines do have hemisphereical combustion chambers...

[Ferrer]

What articles? AFAIK the new 5.7L and 6.1L engines do have hemisphereical combustion chambers...
The new Dodge Hemi V8 engine (http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new-mopar-hemi.html)

Scroll down until you reach "General hemi engine notes", alomst at the end of this part.

[Fleet 500]

That is because your cadillac has crap combustion chamber design...

No, it just has a combustion chamber designed for premium (98 or higher) octane). Its design is fine; it just wasn't made for today's crap gasoline. ;)



Think about it there are plenty of modern cars out there that run happy on premium pump gas even though they have CR ratios 11:1 or higher... Also because of advancements in manufacturering processes your cadillac has a much lower dynamic compression ratio then a modern car which runs 10.5:1 static.

They can do that because they have excellent combustion chamber design.

:p

As Matra said, modern engines can automatically adjust to prevent engine knock. A high-compression '60s engine is going to knock on regular-grade fuel- do they all have "crap combustion chambers?"

[hightower99]

The new Dodge Hemi V8 engine (http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new-mopar-hemi.html)

Scroll down until you reach "General hemi engine notes", alomst at the end of this part.
The only mention of the new hemi engines not being real hemi's is a quote talking about emissions... Basically the new engines don't have true hemisphereical combustion chambers they are filled in around the edges.


No, it just has a combustion chamber designed for premium (98 or higher) octane). Its design is fine; it just wasn't made for today's crap gasoline.
You got that backwards it's the crap combustion chamber design that can't handle todays lower octane gas. The design is crap and it was made in the 60's


As Matra said, modern engines can automatically adjust to prevent engine knock. A high-compression '60s engine is going to knock on regular-grade fuel- do they all have "crap combustion chambers?" Modern engines can adjust themselves to stop knocking and yes most of the american V8s from the 60's had crap combustion chamber design. If you want to see good combustion chamber design from the 60's you are going to have to look at european and japanese cars-

[Fleet 500]

You got that backwards it's the crap combustion chamber design that can't handle todays lower octane gas. The design is crap and it was made in the 60's

Again, those '60s engines were designed to run on real gasoline. For instance, a Mopar 426-Hemi could be modifed to produce 700-750 hp running on pump gas (1960s pump gas) and unblown.


Modern engines can adjust themselves to stop knocking

That's my point... you can stop or minimize knocking on '60s engines by retarding the timing, but it couldn't be done automatically. It still doesn't mean the engines were poorly designed... far from it- many '60s engines were excellent.


and yes most of the american V8s from the 60's had crap combustion chamber design. If you want to see good combustion chamber design from the 60's you are going to have to look at european and japanese cars-

The engine (472-cu-in) in my '69 Cadillac first appeared in 1968. Cylinder bores were honed to a tolerance of .0002 (two ten-thousandths) of an inch, the entire range between the smallest and largest bore. Each bore was then matched with a piston of the same size. The maximum clearance for a piston pin, which fastens the connecting rod to the piston, was .00015 (15 one-hundred thousandths) of an inch. Every crankshaft was balanced dynamically (balanced while rotating). This was done to cancel damaging vibration and to aid performance.
All of this was done in air conditioned rooms so there would be no expanding or contracting of metal parts.

The crankshaft was a nodular iron casting that had an exceptionally fine surface finish for added durability. Two compression rings were molybdenum-coated for longer wear characteristics. The oil ring was chrome-plated for long life and better high-mileage oil economy.

It didn't have computers or sensors or high-tech electronics, but it was a dependable old bullet-proof V-8 with low-end torque that won't quit.

What were the engine clearances and tolerances on the '60s European and Japanese cars you mentioned?

[bullitt6312]

The boss 429 on dream car garage beat the 426 hemi and the 454

[Fleet 500]

The boss 429 on dream car garage beat the 426 hemi and the 454
"Beat" them how?
The Boss 429 wasn't a very good street engine; it had huge ports (bigger than the Hemi's) and that hurt the low-end and mid-range. Then just about the time the big ports started to work on the top end, the restrictive carburetion and camming took over.

That was for 1969. For 1970, Ford engineers tried to upgrade performance of the Boss 429 by going to a more radical, 300 degree cam and solid lifters. But 1/4 mile times weren't helped a whole lot.

The fact is that both the Mopar 426-Hemi and the LS6 454 Chevy engines put out more hp than the Boss 429.

[hightower99]

Again, those '60s engines were designed to run on real gasoline. For instance, a Mopar 426-Hemi could be modifed to produce 700-750 hp running on pump gas (1960s pump gas) and unblown. Yet it fails miserably when trying to make 400hp on today's pump gas? You don't design engines to run on certain octanes directly. You design engines to take advantage of the octane available and that is what they did. However to take full advantage of 60's pump gas you should be up at 14:1 static CR or more and I would understand if an engine running that high a CR doesn't like today's pump gas. However the engines you are talking about don't have static CRs that are any higher than today's engines and the dynamic CR of 60's american V8s are notoriously lower than what is achieved in modern engines. This is one of the reasons why I question why your engine can't handle today's gas. Some of the fault lies in the fact that your engine has poor combustion chamber design.




That's my point... you can stop or minimize knocking on '60s engines by retarding the timing, but it couldn't be done automatically. It still doesn't mean the engines were poorly designed... far from it- many '60s engines were excellent. You realise that modern engines automatically run themselves as close to the knock limit as possible... The systems are designed to increase efficiency and decrease emissions, not directly to increase the knock limit of the engine. The actual knock limit is defined primarily by combustion chamber design.




What were the engine clearances and tolerances on the '60s European and Japanese cars you mentioned? Ever heard of the Honda S500? way back in 1963 it had an engine that had the crankshaft supported by needle roller bearings and could safely rev up to 11000rpm (factory redline was set at 9500rpm). 531cc engine making 44HP was pretty good for the time.

[Fleet 500]

Yet it fails miserably when trying to make 400hp on today's pump gas? You don't design engines to run on certain octanes directly. You design engines to take advantage of the octane available and that is what they did. However to take full advantage of 60's pump gas you should be up at 14:1 static CR or more and I would understand if an engine running that high a CR doesn't like today's pump gas. However the engines you are talking about don't have static CRs that are any higher than today's engines and the dynamic CR of 60's american V8s are notoriously lower than what is achieved in modern engines. This is one of the reasons why I question why your engine can't handle today's gas.

I don't know what the '60s Hemi makes on today's gas. One muscle car magazine tested one using the old "gross hp" method and got 474 hp. But I don't know what octane fuel was used. Incidentally, the Mopar Max Wedge engines of 1963 (426-cu-in) were available with either 12.0:1 or 13.5:1 compression ratios. Needless to say, the 13.5 one needed at least 102 octane fuel.
When a 1968 car engine was being built, the engineers had no idea that for premium fuel would drop from 100 or 98 octane to 91-92 by the late '70s... how could they have "properly" built an engine without being able to see 10 years into the future? If an engine is known to be proven (can last for 100,000 or 150,000+ miles with no major repairs) and runs properly with the fuel it was designed to run on, then I would consider it well-built. Claiming that a 10.5:1 or 12.0:1 compression engine which knocks on 86 octane fuel has "poor" combustion chambers is ridiculous because they were built to run on premium fuel.


Some of the fault lies in the fact that your engine has poor combustion chamber design

On what do you base your claim that my engine has "poor combustion chamber design?" It ran fine on the gasoline it was meant to run on. A mild '60s V8 like a 318 or 327-2bbl could run fine on today's regular fuel- does that mean they are better engines than the high-compression V-8s?


You realise that modern engines automatically run themselves as close to the knock limit as possible... The systems are designed to increase efficiency and decrease emissions, not directly to increase the knock limit of the engine. The actual knock limit is defined primarily by combustion chamber design

Still, the electronics of the modern engine will prevent knocking. On my Town Car, it's known as "Electronic engine control." Of course, it wouldn't be necessary if '60s-type fuel was still available.


Ever heard of the Honda S500? way back in 1963 it had an engine that had the crankshaft supported by needle roller bearings and could safely rev up to 11000rpm (factory redline was set at 9500rpm). 531cc engine making 44HP was pretty good for the time

Sorry, but I think the info about the tight engine clearances on the Cadillac engine is much more impressive than an engine with a high factory redline. I'm more interested in an engine lasting 200,000+ miles than a 11,000 rpm redline. What are the tolerances of the cylinder bores and piston pins on that Honda engine? In general, a high-revving engine is going to wear out faster than a low-revving engine.

[Matra et Alpine]

You realise that modern engines automatically run themselves as close to the knock limit as possible... The systems are designed to increase efficiency and decrease emissions, not directly to increase the knock limit of the engine. The actual knock limit is defined primarily by combustion chamber design.
:crying:
You have forgotten about fuel consumption :) ( ie "efficiency" :) )
"knock limit" is MUCH MORE reliant on fuel/air mix. You can adjust a mixture guaranteed never to knock in ANY engine. But you're over-fueling it for most cases and that increases emissions and decreases "efficiency" :)
So combustion chamber is a FACTOR in what fuel/air mixture and flame wave front. But stop making it sound as if it's the be all and end all jsut to try to make Fleet look "wrong".

Perhaps if we can devise a "human knock management" we can stop you pouring too much fuel before igniting yourself again :) :)

Ever heard of the Honda S500? way back in 1963 it had an engine that had the crankshaft supported by needle roller bearings and could safely rev up to 11000rpm (factory redline was set at 9500rpm). 531cc engine making 44HP was pretty good for the time.
Now, THAT Is a "Fleet argument".
Good find on one VERY state-of-the-art example.
That's comparable to matching the Veyron with a Ford Taurus engine :)

PS: FLeet, I'll try to find the specs, but I'm certain you'll find the Honda is to as close as if not closer tolerances. They brought their experience in bike racing engines to the market :)

[jediali]

i agree with ht99's point of view that by utilizing the maximum effective compression ratio will increase thermal efficieny and fuel consumption. I read that this maximum effective compression ratio depends on where the first 'hotspot' occurs hence leading to reliance on combustion chamber design. Soooo while knock limit relies an awful lot on the fuel mixture (its temperature and air/fuel ratio) surely a better design combustion chamber and well placed spark plugs would help - plus a not so hot exhaust valve helps. It could be twoddle, just what my books say :).

[Matra et Alpine]

You are right j.
Combustion chamber and plug location ( and spark size ) HELP.
Of course that's not quite what ht is slapping on Fleet about, claiming it is THE thing.

To claim "bad design" instead of realistically identifying as "good for the day" reflects badly on ht :)

[Fleet 500]

Now, THAT Is a "Fleet argument".

Please don't compare his arguments with mine. At least mine are realistic. ;)

[Matra et Alpine]

Please don't compare his arguments with mine. At least mine are realistic. ;)
:) yeah OK :)
But you have to admit he HAS pulled ONE example to support a very broad claim !!!!

You and me on the same side of a discussion -- who wouldhave thought :D :D :D

[Fleet 500]

:) yeah OK :)
But you have to admit he HAS pulled ONE example to support a very broad claim !!!!

You and me on the same side of a discussion -- who wouldhave thought :D :D :D
Yeah, who woulda thunk? :)

[johnnynumfiv]

You and me on the same side of a discussion -- who wouldhave thought
http://www.avclub.com/content/files/images/Apocalypse-Now.jpg
*Heads for cover

[hightower99]

:crying:
You have forgotten about fuel consumption :) ( ie "efficiency" :) ) No I didn't it is under the word efficiency in the part you quoted...


"knock limit" is MUCH MORE reliant on fuel/air mix. You can adjust a mixture guaranteed never to knock in ANY engine. But you're over-fueling it for most cases and that increases emissions and decreases "efficiency" :) You are making a point in a very odd way! First I said that whether or not an engine starts knocking is affected by fuel/air mixture (I was subtle and mentioned it indirectly). But the ability to handle leaner and or less homogenous mixtures can be attributed to combustion chamber design and ignition timing. Yes you can make A:F ratio rich enough that it won't knock in any given engine but that isn't the point. The point is that these engines fail to run on today's pump fuel even though they have design parameters that are the same as or lower than many modern engines. One of the contributing factors is the combustion chamber design. I have not said this is the be all end all of the arguement just that it is one of the major contributing factors along with the several other factors you have mentioned. It seems your problem with my posts has more to do with your interpretation of my tone then what I actually say?


So combustion chamber is a FACTOR in what fuel/air mixture and flame wave front. But stop making it sound as if it's the be all and end all jsut to try to make Fleet look "wrong". I am just trying to make it stand out as one of the major points of interest in the question/problem/arguement. I am not trying to make Fleet look "Wrong" I am simply tired of his idea that IC engines had their technological golden age in the 60's.... in america.


Now, THAT Is a "Fleet argument".
Good find on one VERY state-of-the-art example.
That's comparable to matching the Veyron with a Ford Taurus engine :) Damn Straight! I figured that I would spare his intellect and give forth an example that appeals to his form of thinking...


PS: FLeet, I'll try to find the specs, but I'm certain you'll find the Honda is to as close as if not closer tolerances. They brought their experience in bike racing engines to the market :) Yeah sorry I couldn't find the actual specs but I figured they would be close... for basically the same reason you mention.


To claim "bad design" instead of realistically identifying as "good for the day" reflects badly on ht Ok it was "good" for the time and the market they were sold in, however they are not by any means anywhere close to good for today's standards and global markets. Good design only is so for a short time... Great design is timeless (almost) ;)

[Fleet 500]

Hightower, don't automatically assume that the tolerance for the internal engine parts of the Honda are the same (or closer) than the Cadillac's.

Also, you didn't mention the compression ratio of that Honda engine, but if it was high-compression, it would most likely also knock on today's fuel.

[454MAG]

Horsepower dropped in 1972 so did compression on all muscle cars sad but true!

[Matra et Alpine]

Hightower, don't automatically assume that the tolerance for the internal engine parts of the Honda are the same (or closer) than the Cadillac's.
Well being realistic, Fleet getting 45hp from <500cc and 80ish from the 690cc engine isn't possible without MUCH Closer tolerances :)
Different materials and smaller block size DOES mean that Honda probably woulnd't have had to put in as much effort as Cadillac in maintaining temperature in a large block, but that's just "smarter" engineering :) :)
Not taking a sledge hammer to the nut !!

Also, you didn't mention the compression ratio of that Honda engine, but if it was high-compression, it would most likely also knock on today's fuel.
Possibly, but it also was very high gas flow rates and small chamber size so actually LESS likely :)
What I could't say though is how efficient it would have been at cooling and so pre-ignition from hot-spots is possible.
But what has knocking to do with tolerance ? :)

[Fleet 500]

Well being realistic, Fleet getting 45hp from <500cc and 80ish from the 690cc engine isn't possible without MUCH Closer tolerances :)
Different materials and smaller block size DOES mean that Honda probably woulnd't have had to put in as much effort as Cadillac in maintaining temperature in a large block, but that's just "smarter" engineering :) :)
Not taking a sledge hammer to the nut !!

Yes, but it would depend on what the actual tolerance figures are.


Possibly, but it also was very high gas flow rates and small chamber size so actually LESS likely :)
What I could't say though is how efficient it would have been at cooling and so pre-ignition from hot-spots is possible.
But what has knocking to do with tolerance ? :)

I was pointing out the fact that just because a high-compression engine knocks on regular fuel does not mean it has "poor" combustion chambers as Mr. Hightower claims.

I do remember something my dad did years ago with his '69 Cadillac (10.5:1 compression). He once said that he made adjustments on the carburetor so it could run on regular fuel. He never really said what exactly he did and I don't even know if it really worked (I was only about 15 years old at the time). Who know? Maybe he just set the timing way back!

[hightower99]

I was pointing out the fact that just because a high-compression engine knocks on regular fuel does not mean it has "poor" combustion chambers as Mr. Hightower claims.
No you were not. You where trying to claim that several 60's american V8s knock only because "they where designed for 1960's fuel" which unless you mean leaded fuel means nothing...

I am saying that part of the reason why they have such a hard time with today's pump gas (including 91 octane premium) is because of outdated combustion chamber design.

[henk4]

I am saying that part of the reason why they have such a hard time with today's pump gas (including 91 octane premium) is because of outdated combustion chamber design.

in the mid seventies a Dodge Charger and a Camaro participated in the 24 Hours Le Mans race. (or at least tried to..). They could not deal with the prescribed lower octane fuel and both suffered engine damage. There was nothing wrong with the combustion design chamber, the cars were simply tuned to higher octane fuel. A replica of the Charger now runs in the Classic Endurance Races and has more handling than engine problems:)

[hightower99]

in the mid seventies a Dodge Charger and a Camaro participated in the 24 Hours Le Mans race. (or at least tried to..). They could not deal with the prescribed lower octane fuel and both suffered engine damage. There was nothing wrong with the combustion design chamber, the cars were simply tuned to higher octane fuel. A replica of the Charger now runs in the Classic Endurance Races and has more handling than engine problems:)

Explain to me then how you "design" an engine including combustion chamber design, for a high octane? Nothing in the designs back then are more extreme (i.e require a higher octane to stop knock) than many modern cars that run on today's pump gas.

They had low knock limits and part of the reason/fault is combustion chamber design.

[henk4]

They had low knock limits and part of the reason/fault is combustion chamber design.

they had a high compression ratio......which you can achieve with any design.

[Fleet 500]

No you were not. You where trying to claim that several 60's american V8s knock only because "they where designed for 1960's fuel" which unless you mean leaded fuel means nothing...

It means what it says; nothing more, nothing less.


I am saying that part of the reason why they have such a hard time with today's pump gas (including 91 octane premium) is because of outdated combustion chamber design.

Outdated combustion chambers and poor combustion chambers are two different things.

Also, '60s engines with lower compression ratios, like 9.0:1 or 8.5:1 ran fine on regular. Where their combustion chambers better than those on the high-compression engines? I don't think so.

[hightower99]

they had a high compression ratio......which you can achieve with any design.

But there are several modern engines with just as high compression ratios and some with even higher that run just fine on premium pump gas.

Why is it that a 1960's american V8 with a static CR of 11:1-12:1 can't handle today's 91 octane premium pump gas when today's engines can?


It means what it says; nothing more, nothing less. Well I bet you don't know what you are talking about. Explain how you design an engine to run on 1960's fuel? and how that is any different from how you design engines to run on today's fuel.


Outdated combustion chambers and poor combustion chambers are two different things.
The design was outdated back in the day therefore they were poor for the time. I am not saying they where the worst combustion chamber designs of the day just that an overly simple design philosiphy was used.


Also, '60s engines with lower compression ratios, like 9.0:1 or 8.5:1 ran fine on regular. Where their combustion chambers better than those on the high-compression engines? I don't think so. I doubt a 1960's american V8 with a static CR of 9:1 will run very well on today's regular pump gas. 8.5:1 sure probably but what is your point? They have a much lower CR meaning they can run on lower octane even with poor combustion chamber design.

I still want to know how the engine was designed to run on 1960's fuel and how that disproves that 1960's american V8s didn't and don't have good combustion chamber design...

[henk4]

But there are several modern engines with just as high compression ratios and some with even higher that run just fine on premium pump gas.

Why is it that a 1960's american V8 with a static CR of 11:1-12:1 can't handle today's 91 octane premium pump gas when today's engines can?


Today's HC engines run on 98 ROZ...which is possibly not the same as the American indication...

[Fleet 500]

Well I bet you don't know what you are talking about. Explain how you design an engine to run on 1960's fuel? and how that is any different from how you design engines to run on today's fuel.

I didn't say an engine should be designed to run on 1960s fuel; I'm saying (for about the third time now) that many 1960s engines can't run on today's fuel without pinging due to their high-compression. They do run okay on fuel with a high enough octane rating.


The design was outdated back in the day therefore they were poor for the time. I am not saying they where the worst combustion chamber designs of the day just that an overly simple design philosiphy was used.

They were "outdated back in the day therefore they were poor?" You mean there were absolutely NO good engine/combustion chamber designs in the 1960s or earlier?


I doubt a 1960's american V8 with a static CR of 9:1 will run very well on today's regular pump gas. 8.5:1 sure probably but what is your point? They have a much lower CR meaning they can run on lower octane even with poor combustion chamber design.

My '66 Dart GT V-8 (8.8:1) and my brother's '66 Plymouth Fury III (9.0:1) ran on modern fuel without knocking or pinging. And will you stop saying all '60s cars had poor combustion chamber designs!!! Don't blame the engines if they can't run properly on today's poor excuse for gasoline!


I still want to know how the engine was designed to run on 1960's fuel and how that disproves that 1960's american V8s didn't and don't have good combustion chamber design...

You want to know "how the engine was designed to run on 1960s fuel..." What does that mean? :confused:
The Mopar 426-Hemi has been the most successful drag racing engine ever. I believe the fastest 1/4 mile time is with a dragster with a Hemi engine, which is under the 5-second bracket. Why aren't modern engines, with their "superior combustion chambers" faster than the Hemi?

[Fleet 500]

But there are several modern engines with just as high compression ratios and some with even higher that run just fine on premium pump gas.

I thought this was answered already? It's because modern engines can automatically adjust for different octane fuel. On my Lincoln, it's called "Electronic Engine Control."


Why is it that a 1960's american V8 with a static CR of 11:1-12:1 can't handle today's 91 octane premium pump gas when today's engines can?

I think this was answered already, too. Because '60s American engines with a CR of 11.1-12.1 were meant to run on 98 to 100 octane. That's why some owners mix 91 fuel with 111 octane fuel found at some gas stations near the airports.

[hightower99]

Today's HC engines run on 98 ROZ...which is possibly not the same as the American indication...

98ROZ is roughly 93-95 american octane basically high premium pump gas.

Regular gas is 89 in america roughly 91 octane in UK/Europe
Premium is 91-92 in america roughly 95 octane in UK/Europe
High Premium is 95 in america roughly 98 octane in UK/Europe

There are many modern high CR engines that run on 95 octane (UK/Europe values) which is 91-92 in america.


I didn't say an engine should be designed to run on 1960s fuel; I'm saying (for about the third time now) that many 1960s engines can't run on today's fuel without pinging due to their high-compression. They do run okay on fuel with a high enough octane rating.
I don't know how to make myself any more clear... The CR that 1960's america V8s run does not warrant more than 92-95 octane (american values) Yet they have to be fed with fuel that is over 98 octane (american values) to run without knocking. My point is that they need too high octane values before they run well. This is in part due to bad combustion chamber design.


They were "outdated back in the day therefore they were poor?" You mean there were absolutely NO good engine/combustion chamber designs in the 1960s or earlier? WTF!?! where did you get that from? I have been talking about 1960's "Performance" american V8s... There are many engines from the 60's from other parts of the world and even a few in america that had excellent combustion chamber design.


My '66 Dart GT V-8 (8.8:1) and my brother's '66 Plymouth Fury III (9.0:1) ran on modern fuel without knocking or pinging. And will you stop saying all '60s cars had poor combustion chamber designs!!! Don't blame the engines if they can't run properly on today's poor excuse for gasoline! Your Dart should run on regular (ie 89 octane american) and so should your brother's Plymouth. However since you used past tense I figure they didn't run that well for long anyways ;) Stop blaming the gas for the engines' faults! :p


You want to know "how the engine was designed to run on 1960s fuel..." What does that mean? You tell me you are the one who keeps repeating that! You keep saying that it has to do with the gas and how the engines where designed to run on 1960's fuel.:rolleyes:

The Mopar 426-Hemi has been the most successful drag racing engine ever. I believe the fastest 1/4 mile time is with a dragster with a Hemi engine, which is under the 5-second bracket. Why aren't modern engines, with their "superior combustion chambers" faster than the Hemi? Nope fastest time is in the 4 second bracket and is done with a chevy 500Ci engine. Now what exactly was your point? Ask yourself what is most important for a drag engine? Big displacement (set by rules at 500Ci) Strong block, and most importantly simple and easy to take apart and overhaul as this needs to be done every time you run the engine. The Combustion chamber only has to allow the most air/fuel in and exhaust out as fast as possible. Knocking is taken care of by running ultra rich mixtures and using Nitro blends.

[Fleet 500]

98ROZ is roughly 93-95 american octane basically high premium pump gas.

Back in 1971, 91 octane was classified as "regular." How do I know? Because the owner's manual for one of the Cadillacs I owned (a '71 Fleetwood with an 8.5:1 CR) said "regular fuel of at least 91 octane may be used."


There are many modern high CR engines that run on 95 octane (UK/Europe values) which is 91-92 in america.

Again, that is because modern high CR engines can automatically adjust for different octane. '60s high CR engines can run 91-92 octane, but with adjustments like setting the timing back, carb adjustments and colder spark plugs, but they really should be running higher octane.


I don't know how to make myself any more clear... The CR that 1960's america V8s run does not warrant more than 92-95 octane (american values) Yet they have to be fed with fuel that is over 98 octane (american values) to run without knocking. My point is that they need too high octane values before they run well. This is in part due to bad combustion chamber design.

That is not so. I have dozens upon dozens of '60s car mags and they said that high CR engines needed about 98 and higher octane. It is not "bad combustion design" because the octane you claim they ran on is not right. Too low!
One test of a '64 Cadillac (429-cu-in engine, 10.5:1 CR), by Autocar, said that the fuel used was "Super premium grade 100-102 octane RM."

The following is from an article from "Hot Cars" May, 1970:
Engines with a compression ratio of 9.0:1 use regular fuel having an octane rating of about 95. Premium fuel (100 octane) must be used with compression ratios of around 10.0:1. Most street/strip engines are limited to a compression ratio of about 12.5:1 because they require approximate 105 octane gas, which is about the higest superpremium available from the pump."


WTF!?! where did you get that from? I have been talking about 1960's "Performance" american V8s... There are many engines from the 60's from other parts of the world and even a few in america that had excellent combustion chamber design.

Yes, you were claiming that all '60s performance American V-8s had "poor" combustion chambers because they knock on regular fuel, but many '60s non-performance American V-8s (but with high CR) also would knock on regular fuel.
As you said, there were many engines from the '60s (and, btw, what do you mean "even a few" in American had excellent combustion chamber design? It was a lot more than "a few!") that had excellent combustion chamber design.


Your Dart should run on regular (ie 89 octane american) and so should your brother's Plymouth. However since you used past tense I figure they didn't run that well for long anyways ;) Stop blaming the gas for the engines' faults! :p

Yes, because they were not high-compression, they did run okay on regular fuel. However, if my Dart had the high-compression (10.5:1) version of the 273 V-8, it would have knocked on regular.
I owned my Dart a long time, from 1979 to 2002; my brother owned his Fury from 1976 to 1998... I would say we got our money's worth out of them!!! They did run long... my Dart had about 235,000 miles and the Fury was at 250,000+. The engines in both were well-built, reliable and had good longevity. And I drove my Dart hard many times... burnouts, 2nd to 3rd shifts at 75 mph, etc.


You tell me you are the one who keeps repeating that! You keep saying that it has to do with the gas and how the engines where designed to run on 1960's fuel.:rolleyes:

Well, isn't it? If you put 87 or even 91 octane fuel in an engine designed for 98 or 100 octane fuel, and it knocks, why blame the engine? I knew when I bought my '69 Cadillac (10.5:1 CR) that I would have to use "premium" fuel (91 octane out here) with octane boost and bigger jets in the carb.


Nope fastest time is in the 4 second bracket and is done with a chevy 500Ci engine. Now what exactly was your point? Ask yourself what is most important for a drag engine? Big displacement (set by rules at 500Ci) Strong block, and most importantly simple and easy to take apart and overhaul as this needs to be done every time you run the engine. The Combustion chamber only has to allow the most air/fuel in and exhaust out as fast as possible. Knocking is taken care of by running ultra rich mixtures and using Nitro blends.

I haven't kept up with what is currently the fastest, but I do know that the 4-second bracket was broken by a dragster with a Mopar Hemi engine. It was 4.990 seconds at Houston, Texas, in 1988. One of my muscle car mags covered it.
The NHRA does say that the engine choice for most teams is an aluminum version of the famed 426-Hemi.

[henk4]

at the time all gasoline still contained lead as the main anti knock compound as far as I remember. Leadfree petrol may be less suitable for historic higher CR engines.

[Fleet 500]

at the time all gasoline still contained lead as the main anti knock compound as far as I remember. Leadfree petrol may be less suitable for historic higher CR engines.
I do add a lead additive to my '69 (Cadillac). I haven't added octane boost for the last few refuels and it hasn't been knocking. Maybe the lead helps more than the octane boost?
(I never fill the tank up all the way; I just put in $20 or $25 worth.)

[hightower99]

OK let me try to say it differently:

If your engine has a static CR of <9:1 then the highest octane needed to run properly should be 89 octane regular (in america) or 91 octane regular (in UK/Europe).

If your engine has a static CR >9:1 but <12:1 then the highest octane needed to run properly should be 95 octane (in america) or 98 octane (in UK/Europe).

Now given those broad guidelines there are exceptions to the rule.

There are a few engines with static CRs of >9:1 that run very well on 89/91.
There are also engines that have static CRs >12:1 but run fine on 95/98.

Now most of the high CR american engines of the time (1960's) where between 9:1 and 12:1 yet they need to be fed with 98/102 octane gas to run properly... part of the reason why this is so is because of combustion chamber design.

Also engines that where designed to run on leaded gas will be damaged if run on unleaded gas. They need several modifications before they can run on unleaded gas. Lead additives are effectively super-octane booster.

[charged]

Nope fastest time is in the 4 second bracket and is done with a chevy 500Ci engine. Now what exactly was your point? Ask yourself what is most important for a drag engine? Big displacement (set by rules at 500Ci) Strong block, and most importantly simple and easy to take apart and overhaul as this needs to be done every time you run the engine. The Combustion chamber only has to allow the most air/fuel in and exhaust out as fast as possible. Knocking is taken care of by running ultra rich mixtures and using Nitro blends.

Nope most are a variant of the Hemi design with 2 plugs per cylinder and massive magnetos to ignite the spark. Head design is really irrelevent due to the superchargers running at 85% overdriven down from 100% plus with Nitro producing O2 when ignited it just being able to get as much in the combustion chamber as possible. My nephew who is the director for sports compact racing for ANDRA ( Australian Drag Racing Association) here talks to a lot of the tuners and they are poring huge amounts of nitro into the cylinders they are nearly hyraulicing. They are running like this because of the new overdriven blower rules

Specs on Tony Schumacers T/F Dragster holds both speed and et records


The Car
> 2005 Hadman Chassis
> 300” wheelbase (25 feet from front axle to rear axle centerlines)
> American Racing wheels
> Goodyear tires (replaced every 2 runs)
> Alan Johnson fuel system
> J.T. Stewart pneumatic clutch system
> Strange Engineering 12” aluminum rear end assembly
> Strange Engineering carbon-fiber brake system
> ARP fasteners
> Impact safety equipment and parachutes
> Rolling weight – 2,225 pounds

The Engine
> 500-cubic-inch TFX aluminum hemi (8000 horsepower)
> Nitro-methane racing fuel (12 gallons per run)
> Billet steel crankshaft (replaced every 8 runs)
> PSI 14-71 supercharger
> Gates Belts & Hose
> Fel-Pro Gaskets
> Alan Johnson aluminum hemi heads & manifold
> Venolia forged aluminum pistons
> MSD dual ignition systems
> Childs & Albert aluminum connecting rods

Performance
> Best quarter-mile elapsed time - 4.437 seconds (NHRA national record – Joliet, IL. -- 10/05)
> Best finish line speed - 337.58 MPH (Brainerd, MN, 8/05)
> 0 to 100 MPH in .8 seconds (the first 60 feet of the run)
> 0 to 200 MPH in 2.2 seconds (the first 350 feet of the run)
> 6 g-forces at the starting line (nothing accelerates faster on land)
> 6 negative g-forces upon deployment of twin ‘chutes at 300 MPH

[Fleet 500]

OK let me try to say it differently:

If your engine has a static CR of <9:1 then the highest octane needed to run properly should be 89 octane regular (in america) or 91 octane regular (in UK/Europe).

If your engine has a static CR >9:1 but <12:1 then the highest octane needed to run properly should be 95 octane (in america) or 98 octane (in UK/Europe).

Now given those broad guidelines there are exceptions to the rule.

There are a few engines with static CRs of >9:1 that run very well on 89/91.
There are also engines that have static CRs >12:1 but run fine on 95/98.

That is true for modern engines because they can automatically adjust for different octane. But I wouldn't run a '60s engine with 12:1 on 95 octane. No way!


Now most of the high CR american engines of the time (1960's) where between 9:1 and 12:1 yet they need to be fed with 98/102 octane gas to run properly... part of the reason why this is so is because of combustion chamber design.

It is NOT because of the combustion chamber; it's because of the high compression ratio. The same engine with a lower CR will run properly on lower octane. I've read many car articles in which a '60s car owner would lower the compression ratio so it could run on modern fuel. And that's all it needed. If part of the problem was the combustion chamber, it would still run poor on modern fuel and that's not the case if you lower the CR.


Also engines that where designed to run on leaded gas will be damaged if run on unleaded gas. They need several modifications before they can run on unleaded gas. Lead additives are effectively super-octane booster

I do know that. That's one reason why I use the lead additive on my '69 Fleetwood, but not on my '76 limo because starting in 1971 the engines had hardened valve seats which allowed unleaded fuel.

[2ndclasscitizen]

at the time all gasoline still contained lead as the main anti knock compound as far as I remember. Leadfree petrol may be less suitable for historic higher CR engines.

No that's wrong. The lead was used as a lubricant to protect the valves.

[charged]

It does act as a lubricant for the valves but also raised the octane rating


quoted from Wiki
In the U.S., where lead was blended with gasoline (primarily to boost octane levels) since the early 1920s, standards to phase out leaded gasoline were first implemented in 1973. In 1995, leaded fuel accounted for only 0.6 % of total gasoline sales and less than 2,000 tons of lead per year. From January 1, 1996, the Clean Air Act banned the sale of leaded fuel for use in on-road vehicles. Possession and use of leaded gasoline in a regular on-road vehicle now carries a maximum $10,000 fine in the United States. However, fuel containing lead may continue to be sold for off-road uses, including aircraft, racing cars, farm equipment, and marine engines until 2008 [citation needed]. The ban on leaded gasoline led to thousands of tons of lead not being released in the air by automobiles. Similar bans in other countries have resulted in lowering levels of lead in people's bloodstreams.[9] [10].



A lot of people with older high CR engines without electronics run AVGAS which still has lead in it, a competition liscense is needed for purchase though

[hightower99]

That is true for modern engines because they can automatically adjust for different octane. But I wouldn't run a '60s engine with 12:1 on 95 octane. No way! I don't think you know what you are talking about. Modern engine controls do very little to increase the actual knock limit of the engine. In fact the majority of the systems are designed to increase efficiency and emissions by running the engine as close to the knock limit as possible. Therefore they do not explain why 60's engines need higher octane gas.




It is NOT because of the combustion chamber; it's because of the high compression ratio. The same engine with a lower CR will run properly on lower octane. I've read many car articles in which a '60s car owner would lower the compression ratio so it could run on modern fuel. And that's all it needed. If part of the problem was the combustion chamber, it would still run poor on modern fuel and that's not the case if you lower the CR. What kind of warped logic is that? Combustion chamber design has a big part in determining the actual knock limit for any engine, if you lower the CR you are effectivly raising the limit. So no even though it is due to combustion chamber design if you lower the CR you will be able to run well on lower octane gas. The point is that you probably have to lower the CR to significantly less than 9:1 just to run on 89 octane regular.

[Matra et Alpine]

No that's wrong. The lead was used as a lubricant to protect the valves.
You guys always end up making me feel old :(

Another wee bit of history ............

vintage and veteran machines originally ran on 'unleaded'

Esso introduced - Tetra-Ethyl Lead (TEL). to improve the octane rating of Esso fuel from its introduction in 1927. TEL was not commonplace in most petrols until at least 1935.

[Fleet 500]

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Modern engine controls do very little to increase the actual knock limit of the engine. In fact the majority of the systems are designed to increase efficiency and emissions by running the engine as close to the knock limit as possible.

Modern engines can automatically compensate for lower octane fuel; '60s engines couldn't. It's a simple as that!


Therefore they do not explain why 60's engines need higher octane gas.

Because of their high compression. Aren't you ever going to understand that?


What kind of warped logic is that? Combustion chamber design has a big part in determining the actual knock limit for any engine, if you lower the CR you are effectivly raising the limit. So no even though it is due to combustion chamber design if you lower the CR you will be able to run well on lower octane gas. The point is that you probably have to lower the CR to significantly less than 9:1 just to run on 89 octane regular

Combustion chamber design does have a part in it, but so does the CR. And the '60s engines with high CR required high-octane fuel. But claiming that any high-compression '60s engine which needs high-octane fuel because they have "poor" combustion chambers is just ridiculous! For instance, the '60 Mopar Hemi had very efficient combustion chambers- much more so than the wedge. The Hemis were able to breathe very well which is one reason they were so successful in drag racing and in dragsters. But they did require high-octane. This does not mean they had "poor" combustion chambers because they were not. For making lots of horsepower, they were one of the best engines ever built.

[hightower99]

Modern engines can automatically compensate for lower octane fuel; '60s engines couldn't. It's a simple as that! Wrong! Modern engines have high knock limits due to improved combustion chamber design and the electronics keep it from blowing up. The electronics do not allow modern engines to run on lower octane fuel.


Because of their high compression. Aren't you ever going to understand that? I have told you already that does not answer the question. In fact it is part of the question! Yes they have high CRs and yes that requires a certain higher octane fuel but the CRs they run do not justify the higher octane they need.


Combustion chamber design does have a part in it Good to see that you realise that. stop saying otherwise.


but so does the CR. And the '60s engines with high CR required high-octane fuel. Fine Yes but they shouldn't need such high octane fuel.


But claiming that any high-compression '60s engine which needs high-octane fuel because they have "poor" combustion chambers is just ridiculous!That is not what I have been saying at all! I said they need higher octane fuel then there CR requires to run properly and that part of the reason why this is the case is because of poor combustion chamber design.


For instance, the '60 Mopar Hemi had very efficient combustion chambers- much more so than the wedge. The Hemis were able to breathe very well which is one reason they were so successful in drag racing and in dragsters. But they did require high-octane. This does not mean they had "poor" combustion chambers because they were not. For making lots of horsepower, they were one of the best engines ever built.

Wrong the original Hemi engines only really improved on one function of the combustion chamber. They did not have "very efficicent combustion chambers". The Wedge shape when designed properly is more efficient overall as is the multivalve penthouse shape. I think you need to read the many articles about the redesifgn of the new Hemi engines that have come out. specifically what they had to do with the combustion chamber to get it to work well enough for today's standards.

Again the reason many drag engines are Hemis has nothing to do with the actual combustion chamber design, but with the fact that they are simple engines that are easy to overhaul.

[Fleet 500]

Wrong! Modern engines have high knock limits due to improved combustion chamber design and the electronics keep it from blowing up. The electronics do not allow modern engines to run on lower octane fuel.

From what I've read, the modern engines can adjust the timing for lower octane fuel.


I have told you already that does not answer the question. In fact it is part of the question! Yes they have high CRs and yes that requires a certain higher octane fuel but the CRs they run do not justify the higher octane they need.

Of course it justifies the use of higher octane. There are ways around it, like setting the timing back (with a loss of power) and using colder plugs. But from the factory, there were meant to run on premium (real premium: 98-100 octane; not today's "premium: 91-92 octane).


Good to see that you realise that. stop saying otherwise.

And you stop saying that all '60s American hi-performance engines have "poor" combustion chambers.


Fine Yes but they shouldn't need such high octane fuel.

Says who?


That is not what I have been saying at all! I said they need higher octane fuel then there CR requires to run properly and that part of the reason why this is the case is because of poor combustion chamber design.

They didn't need higher octane fuel than their CR required because back when they were built, the premium octane was 98-100. They do need higher octane with today's fuel because today's "premium" is '60s "regular." Don't blame it on the engines!


Wrong the original Hemi engines only really improved on one function of the combustion chamber. They did not have "very efficicent combustion chambers". The Wedge shape when designed properly is more efficient overall as is the multivalve penthouse shape. I think you need to read the many articles about the redesifgn of the new Hemi engines that have come out. specifically what they had to do with the combustion chamber to get it to work well enough for today's standards.

Again the reason many drag engines are Hemis has nothing to do with the actual combustion chamber design, but with the fact that they are simple engines that are easy to overhaul.

When the 392-cu-in Hemi appeared in 1957, it quickly became the first choice in most applications where absolute horsepower was needed. (Not because they are easy to overhaul!)
The 392 Hemi had a minimum curve in the ports and minimum shrouding around the valve edges. It could breathe better than a wedge engine and due to the hemispherical design, could burn fuel more complete and efficiently.

The later (426-Hemi) engines could make 700-750 horsepower on pump gas, without supercharging.

I should also point out that the early Hemis were the only true Mopar Hemis:
(An article by Roger Huntington)
"And there's another factor to look at. Many don't realize that the late 426 design is not a true "hemi." That is, the combustion chamber and valve positioning had to be tilted about 10 degrees toward the center of the engine to reduce the overall width enough so that the complete engine assembly could be dropped down into the front compartment on the assembly line. This means that the exhaust ports has a little sharper curve in it than necessary, the intake valve diameter is restricted somewhat and there's a little more shrouding around the lower edge.

The early (1951-'58) Hemi doesn't have this compromise. It's a true hemi, with symmetrical chamber design, minimum curve in the ports, centerline location of the spark and minimum shrouding around the valve edges. It's said to breathe measurably better, other factors being equal [than the 426]."

[hightower99]

From what I've read, the modern engines can adjust the timing for lower octane fuel. They can pull back timing when they sense that knock is occuring, however that does not mean that madern engines are running around today with constantly retarded timing. The systems are designed to advance timing as much as possible without damaging the engines.


Of course it justifies the use of higher octane. There are ways around it, like setting the timing back (with a loss of power) and using colder plugs. But from the factory, there were meant to run on premium (real premium: 98-100 octane; not today's "premium: 91-92 octane). Again you misunderstand what I said. The point is that they should run well (without pulling timing or installing overly cold plugs) on 91-92 octane. There is no reason why they shouldn't (No their CR is not high enough to warrant higher octane!!!)


And you stop saying that all '60s American hi-performance engines have "poor" combustion chambers. Why? They certainly didn't have great combustion chambers... Also I am not saying all... I am referring to the engines that fail to run properly on today's fuel.


Says who? Says the definition of octane values... it simply isn't neccessary to feed an engine running a CR of <12:1 a higher octane than 95.


They didn't need higher octane fuel than their CR required because back when they were built, the premium octane was 98-100. They do need higher octane with today's fuel because today's "premium" is '60s "regular." Don't blame it on the engines! They shouldn't have to be fed with 98-100 octane gas... only engines running CRs over 14:1 need that.

[Matra et Alpine]

They can pull back timing when they sense that knock is occuring, however that does not mean that madern engines are running around today with constantly retarded timing. The systems are designed to advance timing as much as possible without damaging the engines.
Either confused or contradicting yourself and needing to think it through better.

Modern ECUs ARE runnign with "constantly retarded timing" --- because they advance the timing to match the throttle position and load on the engine to maximise the burn. They do this by using a knock sensor. SO it runs lean and time the spark as close to the limit and when it knocks they back off.

No luxury trying that 20 years ago, never mind 40 !!

Again you misunderstand what I said. The point is that they should run well (without pulling timing or installing overly cold plugs) on 91-92 octane. There is no reason why they shouldn't (No their CR is not high enough to warrant higher octane!!!)
"Pulling timing" -- do you mean setting the timing up PROPERLY ?
ie NOT running it too close to the limit as it has no feedback control ??
or what ????

Why? They certainly didn't have great combustion chambers... Also I am not saying all... I am referring to the engines that fail to run properly on today's fuel.
"fail to run" -- by YOUR definition ?
Other than exotic small capacity and VERY exotic larger capacity I've never come across an engine that couldnt' be set to run on todays fuel. TO get best PERFORMANCE though they were designed to use higher octane. I struggle to see why you are so confused over the relationship :(

Says the definition of octane values... it simply isn't neccessary to feed an engine running a CR of <12:1 a higher octane than 95.
By your definition again.
I can list quite a few.
WHere are you getting these "facts" from ?
Theory or practical application of theory ???

They shouldn't have to be fed with 98-100 octane gas... only engines running CRs over 14:1 need that.
You're making an old mistake of just saying "engines".
TOO much generalisation which actually negates your argument.
SHame, try to be less emotional, more factual and encompasing the wide range and ensuring that focus is presetned in your points.

[Fleet 500]

Again you misunderstand what I said. The point is that they should run well (without pulling timing or installing overly cold plugs) on 91-92 octane. There is no reason why they shouldn't (No their CR is not high enough to warrant higher octane!!!)

As Matra said, they CAN run on lower octane than they were designed for (which was 98-100), but they do best running on the recommended octane.


Why? They certainly didn't have great combustion chambers... Also I am not saying all... I am referring to the engines that fail to run properly on today's fuel.

Again, they can run on today's fuel, but they run better on the fuel they were designed for. And you didn't answer my question: since the lower compression engines of the '60s run okay on today's fuel, do they have better combustion chambers than the high-compression engines?


Says the definition of octane values... it simply isn't neccessary to feed an engine running a CR of <12:1 a higher octane than 95.

They shouldn't have to be fed with 98-100 octane gas... only engines running CRs over 14:1 need that.

Where are you getting your information from? I've noticed that you haven't once posted a source as I have been doing.

[hightower99]

Modern ECUs ARE runnign with "constantly retarded timing" --- because they advance the timing to match the throttle position and load on the engine to maximise the burn. They do this by using a knock sensor. SO it runs lean and time the spark as close to the limit and when it knocks they back off. That just doesn't make sense... You say they are constantly running retarded timing (retarded being defined as later then the base point) yet you agree that the systems are constantly trying to advance the timing until the engine starts knocking then they back off abit and try to advance timing again. Doesn't that mean that modern engines tend to run with advanced timing most of the time?


"Pulling timing" -- do you mean setting the timing up PROPERLY ?
ie NOT running it too close to the limit as it has no feedback control ??
or what ???? No of course not. I mean without overly retarding the timing. Technically you could retard timing on any given engine enough to run almost any octane fuel without knocking but that isn't the point. The point is to run well without knocking.


"fail to run" -- by YOUR definition ?
Other than exotic small capacity and VERY exotic larger capacity I've never come across an engine that couldnt' be set to run on todays fuel. TO get best PERFORMANCE though they were designed to use higher octane. I struggle to see why you are so confused over the relationship :( by today's fuel do you mean today's regular? Premium? superpremium? UltraSuperAviationPremium?


By your definition again.
I can list quite a few.
WHere are you getting these "facts" from ?
Theory or practical application of theory ??? Ok hopefully we all know what Octane numbers mean and why they are important... Just a quick brush-up:

Octane rating of a fuel is a rating of its resistence to autoignition. Basically Iso-octane (specifically 2,2,4-trimethylpentane) is given the value of 100 and n-heptane is given the value of 0. Now a fuel's octane rating means it exibits the same autoignition resistence as a mixture of iso-octane and n-heptane. For example 95 octane fuel shows the same resistence to autoignition as a mixture of 95% (by volume) iso-octane and 5% (by volume) n-heptane. Values over 100 are possible because iso-octane is not the most resistant to autoignition. Also rated fuels do not neccessarily contain any iso-octane or n-heptane.

Now the autoignition point is directly effected by the temperature inside the cylinder which is roughly derived from the formula T2 = T1*Cr^((k-1)/k) Where T1 is the initial temperature (roughly intake temperature) Cr is compresion ratio which can be either static or dynamic depending on how accurate you want to be and "k" is the ratio of specific heats of the working fluid (theoretically 1.4 for air but a more realistic value is 1.2 or 1.3). Once you know the temperature you can find the minimum octane required. If an engine needs a higher octane then this number then it is most likely because hot spots and or lean spots are being created in the combustion chamber.


since the lower compression engines of the '60s run okay on today's fuel, do they have better combustion chambers than the high-compression engines? Actually I did answer that question. Yes there combustion chamber design is close to the same.

[Matra et Alpine]

ht, sadly you are using perect-world math to "prove" a 60s combustion chamber is "bad" :)
Recommend you research real world examples more and get a grasp fo the WHOLE picture, not just the little bits of theory.

[hightower99]

ht, sadly you are using perect-world math to "prove" a 60s combustion chamber is "bad" :)
Recommend you research real world examples more and get a grasp fo the WHOLE picture, not just the little bits of theory. Actually it isn't really perfect wolrd, but it isn't really real world either... I like to call it Rough Estimate world ;)

Also I am not proving that it is bad I am trying to point out that it is highly likely that some part of the design is contributing to the fact that these engines need to run on higher octane gas then is technically neccessary for the other known design variables.

My basic point is that if any given engine needs to run on higher octane gas then the design variables require then there is most probably something to improve.

[-What-]

hightower...you should spend more time studying, and less time teaching. You rarely know exactly what you're talking about.

[hightower99]

hightower...you should spend more time studying, and less time teaching. You rarely know exactly what you're talking about.

And you would be an expert at both studying and teaching of such a caliber that you can make such a comment without it being completely meaningless?!?

I think not... :p :rolleyes: :D

[-What-]

And you would be an expert at both studying and teaching of such a caliber that you can make such a comment without it being completely meaningless?!?

I think not... :p :rolleyes: :D

At the end of the day, you probably wish you could be me.

[henk4]

At the end of the day, you probably wish you could be me.

can we receive your wise observations regarding the topic at hand? IMHO Your contribution so far has not justified personal judging of other participants in this discussion....

[-What-]

can we receive your wise observations regarding the topic at hand? IMHO Your contribution so far has not justified personal judging of other participants in this discussion....


Please. Like it matters what I say. I could post the blue-print to a cancer cure on these forums and you all will "flame" it just because of who I am. Unfortunate for your minds, I'll reserve my input for myself.


The real question of the day is: Who are you?
Best answer: You're not me.

[hightower99]

The real question of the day is: Who are you?
Best answer: You're not me.

And there is no knowledge that warms me so...!:D

[henk4]

Please. Like it matters what I say. I could post the blue-print to a cancer cure on these forums and you all will "flame" it just because of who I am. Unfortunate for your minds, I'll reserve my input for myself.


The real question of the day is: Who are you?
Best answer: You're not me.

I would never think that you are able to exceed the stupidity levels of your previous posts bust you always manage to achieve that....

[Equinox]

Ouch... the flaming that goes on here. What would all your mothers say if they seen what goes on here!:p

Back to topic.... ummmm. I seem to have forgotten what the topic was!

quote by -What-

Best answer: You're not me.
I think I can live with that... as painfull as it is!:D

[wannabeatorino]

did the book go into the earlier years??? we have a 1954 331 hemi according to the factory specs it was rated at 180 hp what do you think?

[Fleet 500]

did the book go into the earlier years??? we have a 1954 331 hemi according to the factory specs it was rated at 180 hp what do you think?
Yes and no.
I've read that the first rating for the 331 Hemi was 180 hp, but it was purposely mildly tuned and rated at that figure so it would be easy to up the rating to keep ahead of the Cadillac V-8. (In 1951, the Cadillac V-8, also 331-cu-in, had a 160 hp rating; the Chrysler 331-Hemi, 180 hp.)

So, in later years, all the engineers had to do was raise the compression and/or change the cam to get more hp.

[harddrivin1le]

Anyone who thinks the 60s "musclecar" engines made a lot of power by today's standards is on drugs.

Here is a dyno test of a ZL-1 427 Chevy. "Back in the day," that was THE horsepower king. It required 103 octane fuel and Chevy built just 69 of them. The engine option alone cost more than the rest of the car(!)

CRG Research Report - COPO 427 (http://www.camaros.org/copo.shtml)

Gee, it made a whole 376 SAE NET HP. BFD. A 2001 Z06 Corvette made 385 SAE NET HP from just 346 cubic inches (plus with cat converters, AC and lots of other options).

Here's a topic on the old "Gross HP" numbers and what a crock they were. It was written by the editor in chief of CAR AND DRIVER, who has a degree in mechanical engineering from MIT and worked as a engine designer for Ford:

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/455oldsand340MOPARCSERE.JPG

Here's a freshly built 1970 Buick Stage 1. It's as close to stock as possible, but had an overbore (unshrouds the valves for more power in addition to adding displacement). The best it could do was 381 HP and that's with NO MUFFLER, NO AIR CLEANER, MINIMAL ENGINE ACCESSORIES and with figures that were "corrected" to the more generous SAE Gross atmospheric standards:

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/STAGE1DYNO.JPG

Here's a vintage 1966 GTO chassis dyno test. "335 HP" Gross and all it could manage was 180 HP at the rear wheels. Any modern 6 cylinder Nissan Altima would put that to shame.

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/66GTO180RWHP.JPG

Here's a vintage, low mileage 426 Street Hemi - "the legend!" 315 Rear Wheel HP on a chassis dyno. Yawn. My 1999 LS1 Camaro made more than that when it nothing other than a cat-back exhaust bolted on it.

Hemi Vs. Viper! (http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/roadtests/37426/index.html)

Here's how they ran when they were STOCK and NEW, but fitted with NINE INCH WIDE DRAG SLICKS (thereby eliminating the "skinny tire" excuse). Not surprisingly, that's just about what one would expect from a ~ 3,800 pound car that's putting 315 HP to the wheels (which means ~ 365 HP at the crank):

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/HEMI323vs456.JPG

Oh, and here's one for the Ford fans. It contains the results of EIGHT vintage Mustang chassis dyno tests. The 428 Cobra Jet farted it's way to a whole 240 HP a the wheels. My bone stock, 3.5 liter V6 Acura TL Type S will put down more!

8 Mustang Dynojet Showdown - 1967 Shelby GT500 - Mustang & Fords Magazine (http://www.mustangandfords.com/techarticles/5216_8_mustang_musclecars_dynojet/shelby_gt500.html)

I will tell you under no uncertain terms that I am a legitimate expert on this topic and have been published in several national magazines. The old cylinder heads and combustion chambers were JUNK by modern standards. The cams back then were generally lousy as well and most of them weren't really "hot" grinds to begin with. The ACTUAL compression ratios from that era were GROSSLY over-stated. Few topped 10:1 and the absolute greatest ACTUAL mechanical compression ratio was 10.6:1 (ZL1 and L-88 427 Chevy, both of which required 103 octane racing fuel and came with a tag on the center console stating that).

BY THE WAY: Even the octane ratings from that era were BS. They used ONLY the Research Octane Number. Today's Octane ratings use the RON + MON/2 method (MON is Motor Octane Number). RON is always higher. What was "102 octane" in 1969 would be rated at 97 octane or so today. Those old engines NEEDED higher octane fuel, since the heads used horrible valve angles, the chambers had lots of hot spots and swirl, tumble, etc. were just beginning to be understood.

Today's software design packages have resulted in advancements that couldn't be dreamed of in the 1960s.

[jediali]

welcome harddrivin1le, thanks for that interesting read.

[nota]

Anyone who thinks the 60s "musclecar" engines made a lot of power by today's standards is on drugs.

Oh, and here's one for the Ford fans. It contains the results of EIGHT vintage Mustang chassis dyno tests. The 428 Cobra Jet farted it's way to a whole 240 HP a the wheels. My bone stock, 3.5 liter V6 Acura TL Type S will put down more!

Thank you for your very informative & interesting post

I don't pretend to be any kind of expert. But my memory is still reasonably sharp as regards Ford Clevelands and the reported figures they produced 'back in the day' as opposed to historical revisionism, eg:

Ford Cleveland 351-4 bbl
"This one was marketed as a 'peppy, responsive' passenger car engine for the mass market. But actually it was a thinly desguised high-performance V-8 for the youth market. The advertised rating of 300 hp was very conservative. With 11-to1 compression, huge ports and valves, long camming and 650 cfm carburetion, the 351-4 bbl Cleveland would dyno 340 hp at 5600 rpm very easily. Note also that the optional Boss 351 version, with better camming and manifolding was good for another 20 hp at 6000 rpm. Healthy engines for 351 cubes."

Fwiw in 1971 a healthy 351C 4V Cleveland (aka 4-bbl) used to push a tad over 190 rwhp out the back end of an XY GT Falcon. How that translates into fwhp I don't know, but a race-prepared XY GT (owned by Jack Brabham no less, see pic) made 295 fwhp according to its specialist builder, and obviously a premier example. This is is a not inconsiderable 45hp less than the "340hp very easily" claimed above for your typical 351 4V Clevos - despite XY GT 351 engines being of identical specs (hi comp, closed chamber, big port) USA motors and yes at that time fully imported

Reputedly a carefully race-prepared Falcon GT-HO Phase Three (Clevo w/ Holley 780, upspec cam and OE extractors etc) made around 350 fwhp in Series Production trim - which is only 10hp more than this 340hp claim, for stock 351C 4Vs, in production trim with the Autolite 4300 carby! :confused:

I also recall 1971 quotage from a senior Ford-AU Executive in a drive-test of his personal XY GT-HO company car which did a genuine 160 mph on the Ford-Oz speed bowl through being modified by the factory race-team into 'Phase Three Plus' specs, that "she pulled 232 (rw)hp on the company dyno"

Another intriguing quote, this one from Allan Moffat's engine builder. Moffat was Ford AU's factory driver and #1 Cleveland racer through most of the 1970s, following his previous employ as contracted test driver & racer to the famous Kar Kraft USA. There would be few others who can claim to have been GIVEN a brand new Kar Kraft-built 1969 TransAm Mustang!
(Anyway it concerns Moffat's 1973 Bathurst winning Falcon which was flown over to the USA for rebuilding into his '74 Bathurst car by Kar Kraft, who farmed out the engine build to Kings Engine Services of Ferndale Michigan. The CAMS reference is to the Confederation Of Australian Motorsport, our governing body)

At about this time [1974] we also had an interesting development with King's Engine Services. The yanks had bragged on and on about the 351 Cleveland seeing 500hp with the stock intake manifold and an 850cfm square bore double pumper Holley carb. In Australia we could never squeeze out more than 400hp, and that was with twin 48mm DCOE Weber carbies.

Allan commissioned these guys to build an engine which we would compare with our home grown engine on the same dyno on the same day. Well, they screwed together their best killer engine, which did not meet CAMS [production] regulations due to bore size, head porting and manifold choice, and sure enough it made 500hp. They then fitted ours, which was CAMS legal, and it made 504hp!

[henk4]

Thanks for this very nice post..It partly explains why the Mercedes 6.3 was so popular despite having only 250 DIN PS;)

[harddrivin1le]

As can be seen in the various links I posted above, the old American SAE Gross HP ratings were nothing more than advertising hype dreamed up by the marketing department in the hopes of selling more cars. That advertising, combined with the results of MODIFIED engines/cars from that era has created myth and legend that has no actual basis in fact.

The suggestion that engines from that period were "under-rated for insurance purposes" is also baseless. In truth, virtually all of them were OVER-rated - mostly by a lot.

Today's "pure stock" amateur drag racing events only serve to further confuse the matter, since "stock" in those cases refers to the NHRA's version of "stock" (which permits overbores, 3 angle valve jobs, milled/decked heads and block, cheater cams, forged internals, upgraded valvetrain components and a host of other mods (including modern, custom-made exhaust systems, shift kits, locked differentials, huge gears, "loose" suspensions, etc.)

Making matters even worse is the fact that the magazines of the day were handed specially prepared test cars that weren't REALLY stock. They were often partially blue-printed, optimally tuned and, in some cases, fitted with completely different engines (e.g. CAR AND DRIVER 1964 "389" GTO, which was actually fitted with a modified 421 per the admission of Pontiacs PR man - 35 years after the fact.) Ferrari GTO (http://www.web-cars.com/gto/c-d_pf-gto.php)

It wasn't uncommon for some magazines to install slicks, remove accessory drive belts and air cleaners, further "tune" the cars and even employ the services of professional drag racers (e.g. Ronny Sox) in order to get the best results. Everybody likes good numbers, so good numbers sold magazines. Such trickery produced the results that are generally quoted today when people attempt to cite the performance of the "muscle cars." The various "fastest musclecar" links floating around on the net are packed with them.

The '69 427 ZL1 Chevy was THE hottest production engine of that era (if you can call 69 engines "production.") They made 376 SAE NET HP - the way today's engines are measured. I have a second ZL1 dyno test (performed with a different engine) that yielded virtually identical results.

A select few engines came close to the ZL1 in terms of actual, "as installed" output, but none exceeded it. Among those engines were the '68 - '71 426 street hemis (the '66 - '67 engines were pigs), the '70 Buick Stage 1 and the "Super Duty" 421 Pontiacs (which, in truth, were too radical for the street).

The more common "muscle cars" typically made a LOT less horsepower. 200 RWHP on a chassis dyno was a big deal back then.

Most of these engines will make a lot more power if properly modified. However, the same can be said for newer engines. 4 cylinder Subarus run in the twelves with bone stock internals and very minor external mods (increased boost, exhaust and intakes), for example.

[kingofthering]

I'd like to take this time to mention that the old HP ratings were basically done using high octane fuel with all the power-sucking crap taken off. Not to mention that certain "additional parts" could be added, IIRC.

[harddrivin1le]

I'd like to take this time to mention that the old HP ratings were basically done using high octane fuel with all the power-sucking crap taken off. Not to mention that certain "additional parts" could be added, IIRC.

The things you mentioned (and many more) are covered here. Pay particular attention to Mr. Csere's editorial on the subject:

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/755299-post119.html

Generally speaking, the advertised horsepower (and hence, torque) figures of that era had no basis in fact and were essentially chosen at will by the marketing/advertising departments. Not ONE "muscle car" engine was "under-rated" and virtually all of them were significantly OVER-rated - in some cases by as much as 150 HP (relative to how the same engine would be rated under today's SAE NET method).

[kingofthering]

Yeah, that's where I originally read it. Either that or Motor Trend.

[Fleet 500]

Generally speaking, the advertised horsepower (and hence, torque) figures of that era had no basis in fact and were essentially chosen at will by the marketing/advertising departments. Not ONE "muscle car" engine was "under-rated" and virtually all of them were significantly OVER-rated -
I can name ONE... the Mopar 426-Hemi. It's 425 hp (gross) rating was well below what it actually put out.
All of the '60s muscle car/drag racing fans know it.

The 428 Ford Cobra Jet engine was rated at 335 hp, exactly the same rating as the 390- V-8. Tell me that wasn't underrated!

[Fleet 500]

Anyone who thinks the 60s "musclecar" engines made a lot of power by today's standards is on drugs.

If they didn't make a lot of power by today's standards, then how did the Mopar Hemis go 140-160 mph (depending on what car it was in and gearing)?
You left out the page from that book you posted Hemi info that said this: "A well-tuned Street Hemi wtih 3.23 final drive could approach a top speed of 150 mph. This required about 6,000 rpm with stock tires. There was ample horsepower available to do it- if a tire 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 horsepower alone. Fantastic engine."
(Page 93, American Supercar, by Roger Huntington)


I will tell you under no uncertain terms that I am a legitimate expert on this topic and have been published in several national magazines. The old cylinder heads and combustion chambers were JUNK by modern standards. The cams back then were generally lousy as well and most of them weren't really "hot" grinds to begin with. The ACTUAL compression ratios from that era were GROSSLY over-stated. Few topped 10:1 and the absolute greatest ACTUAL mechanical compression ratio was 10.6:1 (ZL1 and L-88 427 Chevy, both of which required 103 octane racing fuel and came with a tag on the center console stating that).

The highest factory compression ratio I've seen is 13.5:1 for the early '60s Mopar Max Wedge. I don't know what the mechanical compression ratio is, but I can check with a few engine rebuilders.

[Fleet 500]

Making matters even worse is the fact that the magazines of the day were handed specially prepared test cars that weren't REALLY stock. They were often partially blue-printed, optimally tuned and, in some cases, fitted with completely different engines (e.g. CAR AND DRIVER 1964 "389" GTO, which was actually fitted with a modified 421 per the admission of Pontiacs PR man - 35 years after the fact.) Ferrari GTO (http://www.web-cars.com/gto/c-d_pf-gto.php)

True regarding Car & Driver, but other magazines like Car Life, Road Test and Motor Trend tested unmodified cars. And the relatively rare times they were modified, they let the reader know in the text.
For instance, Car Life tested a '69 383 Road Runner which was modified. The author of the article not only mentioned the modifications (aftermarket induction, headers and slicks) but the price ($450).

[harddrivin1le]

If they didn't make a lot of power by today's standards, then how did the Mopar Hemis go 140-160 mph (depending on what car it was in and gearing)?
You left out the page from that book you posted Hemi info that said this: "A well-tuned Street Hemi wtih 3.23 final drive could approach a top speed of 150 mph. This required about 6,000 rpm with stock tires. There was ample horsepower available to do it- if a tire 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 horsepower alone. Fantastic engine."
(Page 93, American Supercar, by Roger Huntington)



The highest factory compression ratio I've seen is 13.5:1 for the early '60s Mopar Max Wedge. I don't know what the mechanical compression ratio is, but I can check with a few engine rebuilders.
That was the ADVERTISED Compression Ratio for the "R" version of the wedge. The "R" stood for race, required racing fuel and wasn't sold to the general public for street use. I don't know if that particualr figure was for the 413, the 426 or both.

A few 427 Ford engines, the 426 Chrysler Race Hemis, the Chevy ZL1s and L88s were similarly limited in application and availability. They weren't street engines. They are the equivalent of a C6R Corvette racing engine. How many of those are on the streets?

426 Street Hemis produce roughly 365 SAE NET HP - with a sharp tune. That's for the '68 - '71 engines; the earlier versions made significantly less due mainly to their milder cam grind.

I have Huntington's book. Patrick Hale's estimated SAE NET figures are more accurate, since Hale's formulas were computer-derived and Hale's math and computer backgrounds are more substantial. Hales' trap speed formula (used in the Moroso Power Calculator) remains an excellent formula to ESTIMATE peak engine flywheel HP.

I have dozens of vintage 426 street hemi road tests; not one produced a top speed of 150 MPH.

I suppose it's POSSIBLE, but only within the realm of peak HP being limited to ~ 365 SAE NET.

Here is a chassis dyno test of a low mileage, vintage 426 street hemi car (fitted with the later cam, which WAS hotter - depsite what the owner claims):

Hemi Vs. Viper! (http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/roadtests/37426/index.html)

315 RWHP. That lines up very well with other data I've seen.



It also lines up pretty well with Chrysler's SAE NET HP rating for the 1971 426 street hemi (the only year they published net figures). The numbers? 350 SAE NET HP.

SOURCE: 1971 Plymouth "Rapid Transit System" dealer brochure:

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/1971Plymouth%20Engines.jpg

That's reality, man. 350 SAE NET HP for a 426 Street Hemi and 330 for the "mighty" 440 6 pack.

[harddrivin1le]

Check out this interesting article. It explains how "Super Stock" magazine got a "stock" 440 6 pack to run high twelves...The author was there for the original test (with Ronnie Sox) and came clean about it all ~ 25 year later in this article.

You'll see the absolute best result posted all over the internet on the various "fastest musclecar" lists. None of them bother to mention that the test car was a factory prepped "ringer" that was driven by a professional drag racer.

Lies like that are the basis for the "musclecar" myth.

'69-1/2 REGISTRY - SUPER BEE PROMO AD (http://www.homestead.com/sixpacksixbbl/a12roadtestspage11.html)

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/RINGERORADRUNNER5-HIGHLIGHTED.JPG

[-What-]

Anyone who thinks the 60s "musclecar" engines made a lot of power by today's standards is on drugs.

Oh no no no, I've already served them that cup of reality. Ya see, I speak the truth 'round this bitch but they don't wanna here non of that. So from now on, if you wanna fit in...see all those facts and common sense statements you brought to the table? Ball that shit up and burn it. Blank your mind of that because that's not what flies around here.

Because here, if you ain't rockin' at least 1000 posts you don't have the credentials to support your statements.

Because here, 400hp in 1960= 640hp in 2007. Yeah, all these acceleration and top speed records being SMASHED today and they believe 60's power was king. 2007 transmissions are thhhhheeeeeeeeee sh*t! Right?

Because here, "it is" = "its" and "it's" does not equal "it is".

Because here, "false" = "true as hell", and "truth" = "STFU".

Because here, THEY ARE NOT ME.


I solved this puzzle 7/13/2007.

[harddrivin1le]

Oh no no no, I've already served them that cup of reality. Ya see, I speak the truth 'round this bitch but they don't wanna here non of that. So from now on, if you wanna fit in...see all those facts and common sense statements you brought to the table? Ball that shit up and burn it. Blank your mind of that because that's not what flies around here. All they want to read here is foolish un-truths posted by 1000+ posts people. They wanna believe.

Because here, 400hp in 1960= 640hp in 2007. Yeah, all these acceleration and top speed records being SMASHED today and they believe 60's power was king. 2007 transmissions are thhhhheeeeeeeeee sh*t! Right?

Because here, "it is" = "its" and "it's" does not equal "it is".

Because here, "false" = "true as hell", and "truth" = "STFU".

Because here, THEY ARE NOT ME.


I solved this puzzle 7/13/2007.

I solved it 25 years ago...

But I think ACTUAL ARTICLES say a lot more than undocumented claims.

Don't you? Check back a few posts and see the ones I've posted... ;-)

[-What-]

I solved it 25 years ago...

But I think ACTUAL ARTICLES say a lot more than undocumented claims.

Don't you? Check back a few posts and see the ones I've posted... ;-)

Don't....do that.

Don't get smartass with me. You can twist, bend, and contort yourself in an attempt to out-manuever whatever I've got to say, but don't....do that.


I'm not afraid of steppin' out of the neutral zone. I got "it" in me. You don't...but then again...who are you?





YOU'RE NOT ME

[harddrivin1le]

Don't....do that.

Don't get smartass with me. You can twist, bend, and contort yourself in an attempt to out-manuever whatever I've got to say, but don't....do that.


I'm not afraid of steppin' out of the neutral zone. I got "it" in me. You don't...but then again...who are you?


YOU'RE NOT ME

I'm not going to respond to anymore of your posts. You clearly have some "issues" that extend way beyond the context of this forum.

I posted several good links and scans that are relevant to the subject topic and that I thought would be of interest to the people who are involved with it. Much of that information is difficult to some by and is therefore of real interest to some people.

[harddrivin1le]

True regarding Car & Driver, but other magazines like Car Life, Road Test and Motor Trend tested unmodified cars. And the relatively rare times they were modified, they let the reader know in the text.
For instance, Car Life tested a '69 383 Road Runner which was modified. The author of the article not only mentioned the modifications (aftermarket induction, headers and slicks) but the price ($450).

Many of the cars that were CLAIMED to be "stock" were factory-built "ringers" that were prepared specifically for the magazines in order to get the best results. The cars often times contained various internal mods (e.g. partially blueprinted engines, warmer cams and/or optimized carb. and ignition "tuning") that weren't apparent to the naked eye.

The magazines themselves often times weren't aware of this, since the truth was never revealed to them.

Example (using your CAR AND DRIVER suggestion):

Classic Fast Cars-Classic Cars, Fast Cars, Muscle Cars, Street Rods, Classic Car Restoration, - GTO Performance Test- The Truth (http://www.classicfastcars.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=265)

Consumer advocacy was essentially non-existent back then. A lie like that today would culminate in a huge class action lawsuit against Pontiac because the customer's cars couldn't come close to matching those results. The manufacturers got away with it back then because they knew they could.

I agree with you that MOTOR TREND and CAR LIFE tended to get results that were more in-line with the customer's cars (and true reality), but that does not mean they weren't monkeyed with by the factories in some way. (Rarely did the magazines obtain their cars from a dealer's lot. The test cars were almost always part of a dedicated "press fleet.")

[kingofthering]

Oh no no no, I've already served them that cup of reality. Ya see, I speak the truth 'round this bitch but they don't wanna here non of that. So from now on, if you wanna fit in...see all those facts and common sense statements you brought to the table? Ball that shit up and burn it. Blank your mind of that because that's not what flies around here.

Because here, if you ain't rockin' at least 1000 posts you don't have the credentials to support your statements.



No... you're just plain delusional 80% of the time. That's why you're a laughingstock around here.

[Fleet 500]

Roger Huntington was a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers and had been an automotive journalist since the 1950s.
He would actually sometimes test the hp of engines himself.

Like with this '62 Pontiac Catalina 421.
First, some quick specs:
Engine/hp------------------- 421/405
Torque---------------------- 425
Compression ratio------------ 11.1:1
Curb weight------------------ 4,070 lbs
Wheelbase/length------------ 120"/211.6"
Transmission----------------- 4-speed manual
Rear axle ratio---------------- 4.30:1
0-30 mph-------------------- 2.7 secs
0-60 mph-------------------- 5.4
1/4 mile---------------------- 13.9 secs @ 107 mph

Huntington was very impressed with the acceleration times and the power output:
"I have no doubt that the potential of this car- under optimum conditions of strip surface and weather the e.t.'s would be around 12.5 secs at 112-115 mph. What really shook me up more than the acceleration times was the horsepower and torque that it put out. The factory rates this combination at 405 hp at 5600 rpm. I took a series of accelerometer readings at various speeds in 3rd gear and calculated the hp. The peak was a fantastic 465 hp at a crankshaft speed of about 5300 rpm and the peak torque was 510 lbs-ft @ 3500 rpm. I didn't believe it, either. But there it is. The accelerometer doesn't lie as long as you feed correct speed and weight figure into the formula. I'm very confident of these figures within 10-15 hp."

[Fleet 500]

Many of the cars that were CLAIMED to be "stock" were factory-built "ringers" that were prepared specifically for the magazines in order to get the best results. The cars often times contained various internal mods (e.g. partially blueprinted engines, warmer cams and/or optimized carb. and ignition "tuning") that weren't apparent to the naked eye.

The magazines themselves often times weren't aware of this, since the truth was never revealed to them.

Example (using your CAR AND DRIVER suggestion):

Classic Fast Cars-Classic Cars, Fast Cars, Muscle Cars, Street Rods, Classic Car Restoration, - GTO Performance Test- The Truth (http://www.classicfastcars.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=265)

Consumer advocacy was essentially non-existent back then. A lie like that today would culminate in a huge class action lawsuit against Pontiac because the customer's cars couldn't come close to matching those results. The manufacturers got away with it back then because they knew they could.

I agree with you that MOTOR TREND and CAR LIFE tended to get results that were more in-line with the customer's cars (and true reality), but that does not mean they weren't monkeyed with by the factories in some way. (Rarely did the magazines obtain their cars from a dealer's lot. The test cars were almost always part of a dedicated "press fleet.")
Don't forget about the times that the test cars magazines had were in less-than-perfect condition.
For instance, Road Test had a 1970 Plymouth Duster 340 test car. They said that before they had it, it was being driven by some non-enthusiast auto journalists who drove it so slow that they had to take it out on the highway to burn all of the soot from the combustion chamber.

Also, several magazines mentioned getting test cars which needed a tune and/or in which one cylinder was a little low on compression.

They weren't all specially prepared!

[Fleet 500]

Going back to the Mopar Hemi, I have a magazine somewhere in which they wanted to see the hp tested the old "gross" way. So they tested it that way (no muffler or exhaust system, no accessories on the engine, etc) and got 474 hp.

The '68-'69 Hemis were the strongest. They had a higher-lift cam than the '66-'67 and the '68-'69 still had solid valve lifter whereas the '70-'71 went to hydraulic. So a "350" or "365" net hp would depend on the year.

[harddrivin1le]

Roger Huntington was a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers and had been an automotive journalist since the 1950s.
He would actually sometimes test the hp of engines himself.

Like with this '62 Pontiac Catalina 421.
First, some quick specs:
Engine/hp------------------- 421/405
Torque---------------------- 425
Compression ratio------------ 11.1:1
Curb weight------------------ 4,070 lbs
Wheelbase/length------------ 120"/211.6"
Transmission----------------- 4-speed manual
Rear axle ratio---------------- 4.30:1
0-30 mph-------------------- 2.7 secs
0-60 mph-------------------- 5.4
1/4 mile---------------------- 13.9 secs @ 107 mph

Huntington was very impressed with the acceleration times and the power output:
"I have no doubt that the potential of this car- under optimum conditions of strip surface and weather the e.t.'s would be around 12.5 secs at 112-115 mph. What really shook me up more than the acceleration times was the horsepower and torque that it put out. The factory rates this combination at 405 hp at 5600 rpm. I took a series of accelerometer readings at various speeds in 3rd gear and calculated the hp. The peak was a fantastic 465 hp at a crankshaft speed of about 5300 rpm. I didn't believe it, either. But there it is. The accelerometer doesn't lie as long as you feed correct speeds into it. I'm very confident of these figures within 10-15 hp."

I have the article, man.

He tested a PROTOTYPE car that was likely the COMPETITION version (12.5:1) of the SD421 that wouldn't run on pump gas. Those results were also obtained on a very cold day (40 degrees F, which yields very dense air).

The only SD421 cars that could get into the 12s were the competition versions fitted with aluminum fenders, "swiss cheese" frames, open long tube headers and blueprinted (to NHRA specs) engines (plus slicks and 4:30 axle ratios).

Here's the results for the STREET version of the SD421, using your own source (CAR LIFE):

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/SD421.JPG

[harddrivin1le]

Going back to the Mopar Hemi, I have a magazine somewhere in which they wanted to see the hp tested the old "gross" way. So they tested it that way (no muffler or exhaust system, no accessories on the engine, etc) and got 474 hp.

The '68-'69 Hemis were the strongest. They had a higher-lift cam than the '66-'67 and the '68-'69 still had solid valve lifter whereas the '70-'71 went to hydraulic. So a "350" or "365" net hp would depend on the year.

The 474 HP figure was obtained with an early development engine with unknown internals.

They made NOTHING CLOSE to "474 HP" as delivered to the customer. If they did, then cars like this one would have been much, much faster (note the 9" wide slicks). And that's a 1969 solid lifter car...

Let's call it 105 HP with a test weight of 4,100. Patrick Hale's formula is more accurate that Huntington's, since Hale was better educated (master in Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science) and had the advantage of modern computers.

PEAK FLYWHEEL HP = (105 MPH/234)^3 * 4,100 pounds = 370 SAE NET HP

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/HEMI323vs456.JPG

[Fleet 500]

I have that Car Life test, too. But I was quoting from the Motor Trend test.
The main reason it accelerated so well was because of the super-low 4.30 gears.

[Fleet 500]

The 474 HP figure was obtained with an early development engine with unknown internals.

No, it wasn't. Do you have the article? It was from an '80s or early '90s car magazine and it was a Hemi from a regular factory Mopar.

[harddrivin1le]

EVERY American luxury sedan in this test was quicker and faster than that 426 Hemi (fitted with 9" wide slicks) was - despite the fact that these luxury cars are fully loaded and are hampered with AC, cat converters, unleaded pump gas an modern emissions standards.

And that Chrysler SRT8 is even HEAVIER than a '69 Hemi Charger! And it's still FASTER! Why? Because it is MORE POWERFUL (425 SAE NET HP).

2005 Cadillac CTS-V vs. Chrysler 300C SRT8 vs. Pontiac GTO Specs, Price, Fuel Economy, & Performance - Motor Trend (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0502_muscle_car_comparison/specs_price.html)

[harddrivin1le]

No, it wasn't. Do you have the article? It was from an '80s or early '90s car magazine and it was a Hemi from a regular factory Mopar.

I don't care what the article said. It is not based in fact.

Take a look at these MODERN performance cars and compare them to that 1969 Hemi Charger running 4.56 gears and 9" wide slicks.

2005 Cadillac CTS-V vs. Chrysler 300C SRT8 vs. Pontiac GTO Specs, Price, Fuel Economy, & Performance - Motor Trend (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0502_muscle_car_comparison/specs_price.html)

ALL of them are quicker and faster than that Hemi. The Dodge SRT 8 is especially notable, since it's also HEAVIER than the '69 Hemi car.

So how much Gross HP must they be making? 500? 600? Does it even matter? RESULTS matter. Speculation does not.

Here's what 500 REAL horsepower looks like. In this case it's in a 4,500 pound. fully loaded, luxury station wagon:

2007 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG Wagon - Specs - Car and Driver - November 2006 (http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/11969/2007-mercedes-benz-e63-amg-wagon-specs-page2.html)

Displacement: 379 cu in,
Power (SAE net): 507 bhp @ 6800 rpm
Curb weight: 4499 lb

Zero to 60 mph: 4.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.5 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 23.5 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 4.3 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.5 sec @ 115 mph

[clutch-monkey]

I'm not going to respond to anymore of your posts. You clearly have some "issues" that extend way beyond the context of this forum.
i like this guy already.
i hope you stick around and have an interest in other topics on this forum:)
thanks for the interesting information.

[Fleet 500]

I don't care what the article said. It is not based in fact.

That's the problem... you don't seem to want to accept any info that contradicts what you've been posting.


Take a look at these MODERN performance cars and compare them to that 1969 Hemi Charger running 4.56 gears and 9" wide slicks.

2005 Cadillac CTS-V vs. Chrysler 300C SRT8 vs. Pontiac GTO Specs, Price, Fuel Economy, & Performance - Motor Trend (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0502_muscle_car_comparison/specs_price.html)

ALL of them are quicker and faster than that Hemi. The Dodge SRT 8 is especially notable, since it's also HEAVIER than the '69 Hemi car.

So how much Gross HP must they be making? 500? 600?

RESULTS matter. Speculation does not.

Here's what 500 REAL horsepower looks like. In this case it's in a 4,500 pound. fully loaded, luxury station wagon:

2007 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG Wagon - Specs - Car and Driver - November 2006 (http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/11969/2007-mercedes-benz-e63-amg-wagon-specs-page2.html)

2007 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG Wagon

Displacement: 379 cu in, 6208c
Power (SAE net): 507 bhp @ 6800 rpm
Curb weight: 4499 lb

Zero to 60 mph: 4.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.5 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 23.5 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 4.3 sec
[B]Standing ¼-mile: 12.5 sec @ 115 mph[/B


Gee... I wonder how much horsepower the Yenko 427 Camaro (11.45 sec @ 120 mph 1/4 mile) was making? And it wasn't overpriced like that $92,000 Mercedes.

I also wonder how much real hp cars like the 454 Baldwin-Motion Camaro (11.90 sec 1/4 mile) or the Max Wedge Mopar and 427 Ford Thunderbolt (low-12s/ high 11s)?

As many muscle magazines said, just adding headers and better tires on a Hemi car would put it in the 12s. Even the 1960s slicks did not have all that great traction- they were too hard.

[harddrivin1le]

i like this guy already.
i hope you stick around and have an interest in other topics on this forum:)
thanks for the interesting information.

Take a look at this one. It's primarily a luxury car (4,500 pounds worth) and isn't even an "M" car (BMW's performance division). It's got a 293 cubic inch V8 (rated at 360 SAE NET HP) and runs a 13.9 @ 103 MPH quarter mile - despite weighing 4,500 pounds:

BMW 750i - - Car and Driver - September 2005 (http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/9832/bmw-750i-page2.html)

People who are living in the past don't understand the HUGE progress that has taken place.

And that car is utterly seamless, smooth, quiet and pampering.

Someone will probably attempt to compare it to a stripped down, 40 year old, purpose built drag car running open headers that could barely idle in attempt to "prove" that old cars are as fast as new ones.:eek:

A thirteen second quarter mile isn't even really fast anymore. Neither is 150 MPH. I've got a 6 cylinder, 3,674 pound Acura sitting in my garage that will top 150 MPH...It makes my parent's "300 HP" 1969 Impala police package car seem dog ass slow. in fact, my wife's 1995 FOUR CYLINDER Accord was faster than that Chevy (and I'm referring to how the Chevy went when it was NEW.)

[harddrivin1le]

Follow-Up Test: 2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=108449/pageId=67450)


That 4,800 pound JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE ran a 13.5 @ 102.24 MPH - BONE STOCK. And AWD and those fat tires actually HURT trap speed, due to all of that added friction (driveline and rolling, respectively).

420 SAE NET HP. I guess that must be what - 650 Gross HP? Or maybe it's 750 Gross HP. It all depends on how much one is willing to lie.

[johnnynumfiv]

How much power would a 455 be making in say, 1971? Stage 1 or any other 455 will do.

[harddrivin1le]

I haven't even mentioned what today's DEDICATED PERFORMANCE CARS can do:

2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 - - Car and Driver - February 2005 (http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/9017/2006-chevrolet-corvette-z06-page3.html)

11.7 @ 127 MPH for that BONE STOCK Z06 Corvette (and it gets 26 MPG highway).

(Some owners have beat those numbers....)

That's 505 SAE NET HP.

I guess that must be 800 or so Gross HP...

[harddrivin1le]

That's the problem... you don't seem to want to accept any info that contradicts what you've been posting.



Gee... I wonder how much horsepower the Yenko 427 Camaro (11.45 sec @ 120 mph 1/4 mile) was making? And it wasn't overpriced like that $92,000 Mercedes.

I also wonder how much real hp cars like the 454 Baldwin-Motion Camaro (11.90 sec 1/4 mile) or the Max Wedge Mopar and 427 Ford Thunderbolt (low-12s/ high 11s)?

As many muscle magazines said, just adding headers and better tires on a Hemi car would put it in the 12s. Even the 1960s slicks did not have all that great traction- they were too hard.

Stock Yenko Camaro's ran nothing CLOSE to those times. You are DREAMING.

And PLEASE don't bother referencing results from today's "pure stock" drags, where "stock" means NHRA stock and therefore means overbores, cheater cams, 3 angle valve jobs, milled heads, decked blocks, forged internals, etc. etc.

Here is an engine dyno test of a BONE STOCK ZL1 Camaro. That made even more power than the 427 L72 that was installed in the Yenko/COPO cars.

CRG Research Report - COPO 427 (http://www.camaros.org/copo.shtml)

376 SAE NET HP

WOW!




Oh, here's a SECOND ZL1 on a dyno, just in case the first engine "wasn't built right." Note that it has no engine accessories of any kind, no mufflers, no air cleaner, etc. It made 426 GROSS HP.

These figures are right in line with those that were obtained by the ZL1 above.

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/ZL1DYNOTEST.JPG

[Coventrysucks]

I'm not going to respond to anymore of your posts.

A wise choice.


Many of the cars that were CLAIMED to be "stock" were factory-built "ringers" that were prepared specifically for the magazines in order to get the best results.

...

Consumer advocacy was essentially non-existent back then. A lie like that today would culminate in a huge class action lawsuit against Pontiac because the customer's cars couldn't come close to matching those results. The manufacturers got away with it back then because they knew they could.

It is a practice that still continues.

TVR, particularly in the 1990s, produced some remarkably competitive test results - a little tinkering to ensure the car is "optimal" can do wonders.

Even today, there are reports of discrepancies between cars given to magazines at launches, and cars tested later, usually sourced from owners.

The Ford Focus RS press cars allegedly had a much more aggressive diff setting, the Porsche 996 GT2 is another example where owner cars appear to have a much more benign set up than the famously "scary" press cars.

It is harder to have such radical alterations as a different engine these days, but small changes in set-up can still be worked to a manufacturer's advantage.


And that Chrysler SRT8 is even HEAVIER than a '69 Hemi Charger! And it's still FASTER! Why? Because it is MORE POWERFUL (425 SAE NET HP).

Don't forget that the Chrysler has 35 years of development on-board.

The new Ferrari F430 Scuderia, for instance, despite a significant disadvantage of power and torque, has lapped Fiorano at the same pace as the Enzo, largely down to improvements in grip from the tyres enabling later braking into, and earlier acceleration out of corners.

Given the Chrysler's modern tyres, driver aids to ensure perfect traction, and other improvements to engine management and transmission, the fact that it is faster is not hugely surprising.

Still, the willingness to provide customers with "high performance" cars was there.

Imagine what could have been if any of those manufacturers had experimented with fitting any of those engines into a lightweight sports car...

[harddrivin1le]

This little 346 CID LS1 managed 503 HP (but it 100 pounds lighter than a ZL1) - with a CARBURETOR, headers and a relatively mild hydraulic cam.

ALL INTERNALS WERE BONE STOCK AND IT DID IT ON 92 OCTANE UNLEADED.

New Dog, Old Trick (http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0409em_gmpp/)

[harddrivin1le]

..Don't forget that the Chrysler has 35 years of development on-board...Given the Chrysler's modern tyres, driver aids to ensure perfect traction, and other improvements to engine management and transmission, the fact that it is faster is not hugely surprising.

35 years of development is the point of all of my posts.

Progress has occurred. For some reason, some people refuse to accept that and continue to confuse myth and legend as "fact." Look at the guy who just claimed that stock Yenko Camaros (360 HP on a real good day) trapped @ 120 MPH. WTF!

The '69 Hemi test results I posted involved 9" wide drag slicks, though. The "skinny tire" excuse doesn't apply in that case.
And trap speed is relatively unaffected by tires (and gears) as that test proved. ET is more impacted by those things. That's why Hale's Trap Speed formula is such a good indicator of actual power.

Furthermore, the modern car has to cope with lower octane fuel, more stringent emissions (including car converters) and modern fuel economy standards.

Plus, it's only a 6.1 liter engine. The 426 Hemi was a 7.0.

How much power do you think that 6.1 liter engine would make if 1969 emission standards were still in effect, if 98 octane gas (PON) were still readily available and if fuel economy didn't matter?

That thing would undoubtedly me making more than 500 SAE NET HP.



Emissions are still holding back engine power - especially in terms of cam timing (duration and overlap in particular).

Look at this:

New Dog, Old Trick (http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0409em_gmpp/)

And there's no EFI excuse there...Just a carb. The cam woke that engine right up...346 cubes, bone stock internals and 503 gross HP. The engine only weighs ~ 485 pounds (full dressed and including the flywheel).

That's not even really a modern engine anymore. The LS1 made its debut in the 1997 Corvette; that is ELEVEN years ago!

[Coventrysucks]

The '69 Hemi results I posted involved 9" wide drag slicks, though. The "skinny tire" excuse doesn't apply in that case.

The Chrysler 300 SRT8 has rear tyres 10.03937" wide though, and with modern compound technology will probably offer much more grip than 1969 vintage "slicks", despite being full road tyres.


How much power do you think that 6.1 liter engine would make if 1969 emission standards were still in effect, if 98 octane gas (PON) were still readily available and if fuel economy didn't matter?

How much power do you think that 7.0-litre engine would make with $millions of supercomputer-powered R&D behind it, and sophisticated engine management software to ensure every single molecule of fuel that finds its way into the cylinder is burned as efficiently as possible?

Power (SAE net): 500 bhp @ 6200 rpm?

[harddrivin1le]

How much power do you think that 7.0-litre engine would make with $millions of supercomputer-powered R&D behind it, and sophisticated engine management software to ensure every single molecule of fuel that finds its way into the cylinder is burned as efficiently as possible?

About what it made with a carburetor.

This LS1 produced very similar peak power numbers with a carb and with EFI, even though it was designed to work with EFI:

New Dog, Old Trick (http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0409em_gmpp/)


EFI doesn't make appreciably more power than a good carb set-up with older engines, either (like this Chevy 454):

Holley carburetor vs Holley fuel injection (http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0305em_holley/index.html)


In fact, EFI can make LESS peak power, due to simple thermodynamic laws:

Pro Systems - Under The Scoop (http://www.pro-system.com/scoop92102.html)


EFI improves emissions, fuel economy, drive-ability, start-up, instantaneous throttle response and requires less maintenance. Those are its principal advantages.

426 hemis (in "as delivered," bone stock condition) made ~ 315 RWHP and ~ 350 - 370 peak engine HP (SAE NET). No tires will ever change that reality (And your SPECULATION that 9" wide drag slicks from 1969 aren't as sticky as the grooved, stiff-sidewall, street tires fitted to that SRT-8 is just that - SPECULATION. Furthermore, wider tires create more ROLLING RESISTANCE and the new car's suspension is STIFFER and therefore yields less weight transfer onto the rear wheels. Both of those facts work AGAINST the newer car. Your argument is therefore baseless, flawed and even silly.)

Hemi Vs. Viper! (http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/roadtests/37426/index.html)

315 Rear Wheel HP in a 2 ton car just isn't all that fast by modern performance car standards. I'm sorry, but I'm not responsible for the laws of physics (Acceleration = POWER/(MASS * VELOCITY)) OR the huge advancements that have taken place in engine design since the sixties.

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/1971Plymouth%20Engines.jpg

[Fleet 500]

Stock Yenko Camaro's ran nothing CLOSE to those times. You are DREAMING.

Here are the specs:
The first one is a nickey 427 Camaro, not a Yenko. I got my road tests mixed up.

The second one is a 454 Motion-Baldwin Camaro.

[Fleet 500]

Take a look at this one. It's primarily a luxury car (4,500 pounds worth) and isn't even an "M" car (BMW's performance division). It's got a 293 cubic inch V8 (rated at 360 SAE NET HP) and runs a 13.9 @ 103 MPH quarter mile - despite weighing 4,500 pounds:

BMW 750i - - Car and Driver - September 2005 (http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/9832/bmw-750i-page2.html)

People who are living in the past don't understand the HUGE progress that has taken place.

And that car is utterly seamless, smooth, quiet and pampering.

Someone will probably attempt to compare it to a stripped down, 40 year old, purpose built drag car running open headers that could barely idle in attempt to "prove" that old cars are as fast as new ones.:eek:

A thirteen second quarter mile isn't even really fast anymore. Neither is 150 MPH. I've got a 6 cylinder, 3,674 pound Acura sitting in my garage that will top 150 MPH...It makes my parent's "300 HP" 1969 Impala police package car seem dog ass slow. in fact, my wife's 1995 FOUR CYLINDER Accord was faster than that Chevy (and I'm referring to how the Chevy went when it was NEW.)
Look at the list price for that BMW, though... $71,195. '60s muscle cars were affordable; most people could afford one. That BMW isn't affordable for a lot of people. Let me add about $30,000 of modifications to a '60s muscle car! Also, the BMWs of late have had reliability problems.

If you were not satisfied with the performance of your parents '69 Impala (but remember, it was a 6-passenger, full-sized family-type car with a mid-sized, relatively mildly-tuned V-8), look into a '67 427 Impala. I've got a test of one which (with 4.56 gears) ran a 13.40 1/4 mile (on '60s tires). :)

[Fleet 500]

I have dozens of vintage 426 street hemi road tests; not one produced a top speed of 150 MPH.

I also have dozens of vintage 426 Street Hemi Road tests.
Car & Driver (Nov., 1967) got a '68 Hemi Charger R/T up to 139 mph @ 5800 rpm and estimated the top speed as 156 mph @ 6500 rpm.

Car & Driver listed the top speed of a '70 Dodge Challenger 426-Hemi at 146 mph.

Mechanix Illustrated listed the top speed of a '66 Dodge Coronet Convertible with 426-Hemi at 149.73 mph and estimated a 3-5 mph faster top speed with a hardtop.

Playboy (yes, Playboy) magazine, in their new car specs, listed the top speed of a '68 Hemi Charger at 155 mph.

Car Life (Feb., 1968) listed the top speed of a '68 Hemi Plymouth GTX at 144 mph @ 5900 rpm. 150 mph was very likely since the Hemis could rev to 6500 rpm.

I also have several other magazines which lists the top speed of the '66 Mopar Hemis at 145-155 mph.

[henk4]

O
Because here, if you ain't rockin' at least 1000 posts you don't have the credentials to support your statements.

this is indeed true for certain people....

[hightower99]

First I would like to personally thank harddrivin1le for your contributions.

I am happy to see that the majority of people following this thread have now seen the light about how good (i.e not very by todays standards) '60s american V8s actually where and that they do indeed require overly high octane fuel and that their combustion chamber design was pretty bad.

However:


In fact, EFI can make LESS peak power, due to simple thermodynamic laws

This is simply not true. Properly setup EFI (we are talking multi point port injection here) will always beat a carb setup for whatever you want to do. You want power then program the system for power, you want milage then you can program the system for milage.

The funny thing is that when the article talked about advantages of carbs they attributed a measured temperature drop to the Joule-Thomson effect (which they misspelled with a "p" in thomson?) instead of vaporization of the fuel which the temperature drop is most likely to be caused by, and which an EFI system also creates and can take better advantage of.

And while we are at it I would like to say that direct injection tops both systems.

[harddrivin1le]

First I would like to personally thank harddrivin1le for your contributions.

I am happy to see that the majority of people following this thread have now seen the light about how good (i.e not very by todays standards) '60s american V8s actually where and that they do indeed require overly high octane fuel and that their combustion chamber design was pretty bad.

However:



This is simply not true. Properly setup EFI (we are talking multi point port injection here) will always beat a carb setup for whatever you want to do. You want power then program the system for power, you want milage then you can program the system for milage.

The funny thing is that when the article talked about advantages of carbs they attributed a measured temperature drop to the Joule-Thomson effect (which they misspelled with a "p" in thomson?) instead of vaporization of the fuel which the temperature drop is most likely to be caused by, and which an EFI system also creates and can take better advantage of.

And while we are at it I would like to say that direct injection tops both systems.

Of course it's true. And no, "Thomson" does NOT contain a "P."

Joule-Thomson effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule-Thomson_effect)

Carbs benefit from from the Joule-Thomson effect, since both the fuel AND the air (as an emulsified mixture) are expanding though nozzles. With EFI, just the fuel is. The air in an EFI system is simply being directed through the thottle body and into the cylinders. Very little expansion occurs during that process, since no orifices/nozzles are involved.

READ THE LINKS! Two of them are actual TESTS performed by a nationally published performance magazine:

New Dog, Old Trick (http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0409em_gmpp/)

Holley carburetor vs Holley fuel injection (http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0305em_holley/index.html)

Pro Systems - Under The Scoop (http://www.pro-system.com/scoop92102.html)

Yes, direct fuel injection is better than EFI or a carb. That wasn't the original "challengers" point, though.

[harddrivin1le]

I also have dozens of vintage 426 Street Hemi Road tests.
Car & Driver (Nov., 1967) got a '68 Hemi Charger R/T up to 139 mph @ 5800 rpm and estimated the top speed as 156 mph @ 6500 rpm.

Car & Driver listed the top speed of a '70 Dodge Challenger 426-Hemi at 146 mph.

Mechanix Illustrated listed the top speed of a '66 Dodge Coronet Convertible with 426-Hemi at 149.73 mph and estimated a 3-5 mph faster top speed with a hardtop.

Playboy (yes, Playboy) magazine, in their new car specs, listed the top speed of a '68 Hemi Charger at 155 mph.

Car Life (Feb., 1968) listed the top speed of a '68 Hemi Plymouth GTX at 144 mph @ 5900 rpm. 150 mph was very likely since the Hemis could rev to 6500 rpm.

I also have several other magazines which lists the top speed of the '66 Mopar Hemis at 145-155 mph.

"Playboy" recently (just a few months back) ran an article on old and new "musclecars" and spewed out the same nonsense you are (e.g. 500 HP bone stock Camaros that ran tens.) AUTHORITATIVE RESOURCES SAY OTHERWISE. So let's stick with AUTHORITATIVE RESOURCES and WELL DOCUMENTED TEST RESULTS.

I accept "Car Life's" test results as both authoritative and documented.

Do you think every car can redline in top gear? Most can't, due to opposing forces (aero drag and rolling resistance). So you can't "project" a top speed based on redline or "estimates." DOCUMENTED TEST RESULTS ARE ALL THAT MATTER.

Do you think a DOCUMENTED 145 MPH is fast by today's standards?

Every 4 cylinder car in this recent test managed to top 130 MPH and one topped 150 MPH!

2007 Subaru Impreza WRX TR, 2007 Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V, 2007 Mini Cooper S, 2007 Volkswagen GTI, 2007 Mazdaspeed 3 GT - Comparison Tests - Car and Driver (http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/12635/2007-volkswagen-gti-vs-2007-subaru-impreza-wrx-tr-vs-2007-mini-cooper-s-vs-2007-nissan-sentra-se-r-spec-v-vs-2007-mazdaspeed-3-grand-touring.html)

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/download/0705_powertoys_powertrain_ss.pdf

The new Z06 Corvette does 198 MPH and the new Viper does 202 MPH! (Both top speeds are DRAG LIMITED, meaning neither car can redline in top gear). They also run mid 11 second, 125 MPH+ quarter miles. They would blow an old street hemi INTO THE WEEDS!

2008 Dodge Viper SRT10, 2007 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 - Comparison Tests - Car and Driver (http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/13894/08-dodge-viper-srt10-v-07-chevrolet-corvette-z06.html)

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/download/Viper_Vette_powertrain.pdf

Now I'm going to call your bluff.

Here are ""Car Life's" 1969 and 1970 road test summaries. How many 150 MPH cars do you see? Answer: NONE

See that Hemi Charger 500? That was their most aero Mopar in terms of drag, since the body was lightly reconfigured to reduce aero drag for stock car racing. With a 3.23 axle ratio, it's DOCUMENTED top speed was 136 MPH.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/1969CARLIFE.jpg?t=1192642505

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/1970CARLIFE.jpg?t=1192643898

[harddrivin1le]

Here are the specs:
The first one is a nickey 427 Camaro, not a Yenko. I got my road tests mixed up.

The second one is a 454 Motion-Baldwin Camaro.

THOSE ARE AFTERMARKET/TUNER CARS! They aren't stock!

Let's compare them to MODERN aftermarket/tuner cars:
Supercar Challenge — Open Class - Comparison Tests - Car and Driver November 2004 (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?article_id=8721&section_id=15&page_number=1)

1st Place
2004 Hennessey Venom Twin Turbo SRT-10
1/4-mile: 11.0 sec @ 143 mph

2nd Place
2004 Lingenfelter 427 Twin Turbo Corvette
1/4-mile: 11.6 sec @ 136 mph

(Trap speed is the best single indicator of horsepower, since ET is largely traction limited.)



Do you understand the difference between PRODUCTION LINE STOCK and MODIFIED AFTERMARKET?

Do you understand the difference between "ESTIMATES"/RUMORS/MYTHS/UNDOCUMENTED REFERENCES and DOCUMENTED, EMPIRICAL TEST RESULTS (see below charts)?

Do you understand the concept of inflation and that something that costs $5,000 in 1969 would cost ~ $28,000 today? Would you be willing to pay $28,000 today for a car with leaf springs, no overdrive, no modern safety equipment, an AM radio, vinyl seats, no AC, few (if any) power accessories, drum brakes, steel wheels, a lousy structure, ~ 12 MPG fuel economy and acceleration that would, at best, be on par with today's better V6 powered sedans? I wouldn't.

Do you understand how dog-ass SLOW every STOCK, PRODUCTION car in the following charts was compared with this modern, 4,500 pound, V8 powered STATION WAGON?: 2007 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG Wagon - Specs - Car and Driver - November 2006 (http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/11969/2007-mercedes-benz-e63-amg-wagon-specs-page2.html)



http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/1969CARLIFE.jpg?t=1192642505

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/1970CARLIFE.jpg?t=1192643898

[harddrivin1le]

How much power would a 455 be making in say, 1971? Stage 1 or any other 455 will do.

THE hottest GM 455 was the 1970 Buick Stage 1. This recently and professionally rebuilt example managed 381 HP.

Thing is, those results are "corrected" to the old Gross atmospheric standards (60°F, 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.92 in-Hg) and were obtained with no mufflers (or cat converters), no fan, no power steering pump (or AC compressor) and no air cleaner. And those results were obtained with optimized ignition and carb tuning (rejetting, "G" hangers", etc.). (I've also posted the baseline results, which were achieved with stock ignition and carb settings. 360 Gross HP was the best figure in that condition.)

The older atmospheric standard alone adds 3%, relative to the new SAE net standard (77°F, 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.234 in-Hg).

Additionally, this engine was over-bored by .040"- meaning that actual displacement was 465 cubic inches. Furthermore, over-boring un-shrouds the valves, which increases power by increasing head flow.

Obviously a production line stock 1970 Stage 1 made significantly less power than 381 HP, since it wasn't over-bored and since all engine accessories and a complete exhaust system were in place. 350 SAE NET HP is the best real world estimate, which means that Buick's rating (360 Gross HP) was extremely conservative (by Gross standards) and FAR closer to the truth than virtually all of its competitor's. 350 SAE NET HP IS EXCEPTIONAL BY 1970 standards!

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/STAGE1DYNO.JPG

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/stage1-dyno-base.jpg?t=1192647080

[Fleet 500]

"Playboy" recently (just a few months back) ran an article on old and new "musclecars" and spewed out the same nonsense you are (e.g. 500 HP bone stock Camaros that ran tens.) AUTHORITATIVE RESOURCES SAY OTHERWISE. So let's stick with AUTHORITATIVE RESOURCES and WELL DOCUMENTED TEST RESULTS.

Actually, Playboy was just drawing on specs from other car mags. How do I know? Because many of the 0-60 mph times and top speeds matched other road test numbers.


Do you think every car can redline in top gear? Most can't, due to opposing forces (aero drag and rolling resistance). So you can't "project" a top speed based on redline or "estimates." DOCUMENTED TEST RESULTS ARE ALL THAT MATTER.

A Hemi should be able to, due to its high horsepower and excellent breathing.


Do you think a DOCUMENTED 145 MPH is fast by today's standards?

That wasn't the question. The question was "can a Hemi get to 150 mph?" The answer is it's most likely.


COLOR="Red"]Every 4 cylinder car in this recent test managed to top 130 MPH and one topped 150 MPH!
[/COLOR]
2007 Subaru Impreza WRX TR, 2007 Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V, 2007 Mini Cooper S, 2007 Volkswagen GTI, 2007 Mazdaspeed 3 GT - Comparison Tests - Car and Driver (http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/12635/2007-volkswagen-gti-vs-2007-subaru-impreza-wrx-tr-vs-2007-mini-cooper-s-vs-2007-nissan-sentra-se-r-spec-v-vs-2007-mazdaspeed-3-grand-touring.html)

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/download/0705_powertoys_powertrain_ss.pdf

That doesn't prove anything. I can put a souped-up engine in a wheelbarrow and also make it fast. You can have those funny-looking "things," I'll stick with real '60s cars.


The new Z06 Corvette does 198 MPH and the new Viper does 202 MPH! (Both top speeds are DRAG LIMITED, meaning neither car can redline in top gear). They also run mid 11 second, 125 MPH+ quarter miles. They would blow an old street hemi INTO THE WEEDS!

And a '68 Hemi-Dart or Barracuda (both production-line cars) could blow those things in the weeds with its 10.40 second/130 mph 1/4 miles.
As for the other Hemis (the ones in Road Runners, Chargers, etc) remember that the Hemi was detuned for street use whereas the Z06 'Vette and Viper uses a highly-tuned engine.



Now I'm going to call your bluff.

Here are ""Car Life's" 1969 and 1970 road test summaries. How many 150 MPH cars do you see? Answer: NONE

See that Hemi Charger 500? That was their most aero Mopar in terms of drag, since the body was lightly reconfigured to reduce aero drag for stock car racing. With a 3.23 axle ratio, it's DOCUMENTED top speed was 136 MPH.

I have that test (Car Life, April, 1969). It's 136 @ 5700 rpm. It has a lot more revs left. I'll remind you that Car Life (Feb., 1968) got a '68 Hemi GTX Convertible (with 3.23 gears) to 144 mph @ 5900 rpm.

BTW, the most aero Mopar in terms of drag was the '69 Dodge Charger Daytona and the '70 Plymouth Road Runner Superbird.

[harddrivin1le]

..A Hemi should be able to, due to its high horsepower and excellent breathing...That wasn't the question. The question was "can a Hemi get to 150 mph?" The answer is it's most likely...

And a '68 Hemi-Dart or Barracuda (both production-line cars) could blow those things in the weeds with its 10.40 second/130 mph 1/4 miles.

As for the other Hemis (the ones in Road Runners, Chargers, etc) remember that the Hemi was detuned for street use whereas the Z06 'Vette and Viper uses a highly-tuned engine.


I have that test (Car Life, April, 1969). It's 136 @ 5700 rpm. It has a lot more revs left. I'll remind you that Car Life (Feb., 1968) got a '68 Hemi GTX Convertible (with 3.23 gears) to 144 mph @ 5900 rpm.

1) "Should" and "most likely" is not empirical evidence.

2) Post the COMPLETE "Car Life" road test that resulted in the claimed 144 MPH top speed. I want to see if the car was TRULY Stock and if it ever actually achieved that speed. If it did, so what? My 2007, 3.6 liter, 3,700 pound Acura will top 150 MPH and that's not even a fast car by modern standards.

3) Hemi Darts and the original Hemi Cudas came with the DRAG RACING SPEC HEMI (a real 12.5:1 CR, wild cam, headers and different cylinder heads), NO TITLE (couldn't be registered) and were stripped to the bone cars. They were NOT "production line cars" and in fact were specially built by HURST in very low numbers. They required racing fuel in order to run. They were purpose built drag cars that were sold only to well-connected, professional drag racers (like Dick Landy).

4) A car that "has more revs left in it" won't necessarily can go any faster, since most cars are DRAG LIMITED (a combination of aero drag and rolling resistance).[/B]

5) For the benefit of those who don't know (including "Fleet 500"), this is what a competitive Hemi Dart looked like in competition form "back in the day." The RACE SPEC Hemis (quite different than the street hemis) were generally fully disassembled, professionally fully blueprinted and fitted with an even wilder cam (as allowed in Super Stock), open long tube racing headers, various other after-market parts and huge slicks. A 4.88 axle ratio (with no overdrive) was typical. The cars didn't even have window cranks or side glass - they used straps and plexiglass instead. The seats were taken from their delivery van. No sound-deadener, radio or heater were installed in the cars. They were STRIPPED TO THE BONE and then MODIFIED further before even seeing the drag strip. They were NOT street cars.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/HEMIDRAGDART.jpg?t=1192652355

[Fleet 500]

Hemi Darts and the original Hemi Cudas came with the DRAG RACING SPEC HEMI (a real 12.5:1 CR, wild cam, headers and different cylinder heads), NO TITLE (couldn't be registered) and were stripped to the bone cars. And they were NOT "production line cars." They were specially built by HURST. They would not run on pump gasoline. They were purpose built drag cars that were sold only to well-connected, professional drag racers (like Dick Landy).

Sounds like you need to check your FACTS.

Furthermore, a car that "has more revs left in it" won't necessarily can go any faster, since most cars are DRAG LIMITED (a combination of aero drag and rolling resistance).
I know all about the Hemi Darts and Barracudas. Afterall, I've been reading about them for 30 years now. I know they had a 12.5 compression ratio and the other things. That's because it used the race Hemi, not the street-tuned Hemi.
They were production cars in that anyone could have walked into a Chrysler-Plymouth or Dodge dealer and order one. About 80 of each were built. You would walk into the same place you would order a slant-six Valiant or a Plymouth station wagon and order one of those Super Stock Mopars.

As for not running on pump gas, I'll check at a Mopar site; one of the members owns a (street legal) '68 Hemi Barracuda.
On paper, they couldn't be registered or street driven but there are people who do own street-legal Hemi Darts and Barracudas. I saw two at one of the Mopar shows drive into the display area.
And they weren't really stripped to the bone. They had functional headlights and windshield wipers.

As for the Street Hemi's top speed, I've already posted specs on those which could do 145-155 mph. Not to mention the many in the hands of owners who personally took them to 140+ mph.

[nota]

"Playboy" recently (just a few months back) ran an article on old and new "musclecars" and spewed out the same nonsense you are (e.g. 500 HP bone stock Camaros that ran tens.) AUTHORITATIVE RESOURCES SAY OTHERWISE. So let's stick with AUTHORITATIVE RESOURCES and WELL DOCUMENTED TEST RESULTS

Actually, Playboy was just drawing on specs from other car mags. How do I know? Because many of the 0-60 mph times and top speeds matched other road test numbers.

A Hemi should be able to, due to its high horsepower and excellent breathing.

That wasn't the question. The question was "can a Hemi get to 150 mph?" The answer is it's most likely.

And a '68 Hemi-Dart or Barracuda (both production-line cars) could blow those things in the weeds with its 10.40 second/130 mph 1/4 miles.
As for the other Hemis (the ones in Road Runners, Chargers, etc) remember that the Hemi was detuned for street use whereas the Z06 'Vette and Viper uses a highly-tuned engine.

I have that test (Car Life, April, 1969). It's 136 @ 5700 rpm. It has a lot more revs left. I'll remind you that Car Life (Feb., 1968) got a '68 Hemi GTX Convertible (with 3.23 gears) to 144 mph @ 5900 rpm.

BTW, the most aero Mopar in terms of drag was the '69 Dodge Charger Daytona and the '70 Plymouth Road Runner Superbird.
harddrivin1le,

Thanks once again Sir for taking up your time to cut through the cheese and share your knowledge, experience and quality postings :cool:

My only regret is you weren't around earlier! :rolleyes:

Although the Mopar 440 is my personal favorite, I would have to go with the 426-Hemi. As Bobby Isaacs once said, "The Hemi turns on where the others shut off."
Also, it's the engine the powered the '69 Charger Daytona to a top speed of over 180 mph straight from the factory.

[harddrivin1le]

I know all about the Hmei Darts and Barracudas. Afterall, I've been reading about them for 30 years now. I know they had a 12.5 compression ratio and the other things. That's because it used the race Hemi, not the street-tuned Hemi.
They were production cars in that anyone could have walked into a Chrysler-Plymouth or Dodge dealer and order one. About 80 of each were built. You would walk into the same place you would order a slant-six Valiant or a Plymouth station wagon and order one of those Super Stock Mopars.

As for not running on pump gas, I'll check at a Mopar site; one of the members owns a (street legal) '68 Hemi Barracuda.
On paper, they couldn't be registered or street driven but there are people who do own street-legal Hemi Darts and Barracudas. I saw two at one of the Mopar shows drive into the display area.
And they weren't really stripped to the bone. They had functional headlights and windshield wipers.

As for the Street Hemi's top speed, I've already posted specs on those which could do 145-155 mph. Not to mention the many in the hands of owners who personally took them to 140+ mph.

Produce the ACTUAL ROAD TEST where a bone stock, production built 426 hemi street car went "155 MPH."

You're on crack if you believe that.

[harddrivin1le]

I know all about the Hmei Darts and Barracudas. Afterall, I've been reading about them for 30 years now. I know they had a 12.5 compression ratio and the other things. That's because it used the race Hemi, not the street-tuned Hemi.
They were production cars in that anyone could have walked into a Chrysler-Plymouth or Dodge dealer and order one. About 80 of each were built. You would walk into the same place you would order a slant-six Valiant or a Plymouth station wagon and order one of those Super Stock Mopars.

As for not running on pump gas, I'll check at a Mopar site; one of the members owns a (street legal) '68 Hemi Barracuda.
On paper, they couldn't be registered or street driven but there are people who do own street-legal Hemi Darts and Barracudas. I saw two at one of the Mopar shows drive into the display area.
And they weren't really stripped to the bone. They had functional headlights and windshield wipers.

As for the Street Hemi's top speed, I've already posted specs on those which could do 145-155 mph. Not to mention the many in the hands of owners who personally took them to 140+ mph.

Produce the ACTUAL ROAD TEST where a bone stock, regular production, 426 hemi powered street car went "155 MPH."
You're on crack if you believe that.

The Charger 500 Hemi with 3.23s below could only manage 136 MPH. The fastest car in those lists is the "435 HP" (Gross) L72 427 Corvette with a 3.08 axle; it was all done at 141 MPH. The second fastest car on that list is the "390 HP" (Gross) L36 427 Corvette; it managed 134 MPH. Corvettes were a lot lighter AND a lot more aero than any Street Hemi powered car and the L72 427 made just as much power.

Several of today's SIX CYLINDER sedans (including my 2007 Acura TL Type S) will top 150 MPH. This '04 Acura TL went 152 MPH (DRAG LIMITED) and that was with the older 3.2 liter (196 cubic inches) V6 engine. Acura TL A-Spec - - Car and Driver - May 2004 (http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/8003/acura-tl-a-spec-page2.html)

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/1969CARLIFE.jpg?t=1192642505

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/1970CARLIFE.jpg?t=1192643898

[Fleet 500]

Produce the ACTUAL ROAD TEST where a bone stock, regular production, 426 hemi powered street car went "155 MPH."
You're on crack if you believe that.

The Charger 500 Hemi with 3.23s below could only manage 136 MPH. The fastest car in those lists is the "435 HP" (Gross) L72 427 Corvette with a 3.08 axle; it was all done at 141 MPH. The second fastest car on that list is the "390 HP" (Gross) L36 427 Corvette; it managed 134 MPH. Corvettes were a lot lighter AND a lot more aero than any Street Hemi powered car and the L72 427 made just as much power.


Okay, I'll look through some road tests and post them.
But you are ignoring the 144 mph top speed of a '68 Hemi GTX which Car Life tested.
Also included should be the Hemi-powered Charger Daytonas and Superbirds which could do 160+ mph.

And do you really think a '69 Charger 500 Hemi with 3.23 gears could only do 136? Who's on crack now? :D

[harddrivin1le]

Okay, I'll look through some road tests and post them.
But you are ignoring the 144 mph top speed of a '68 Hemi GTX which Car Life tested.
Also included should be the Hemi-powered Charger Daytonas and Superbirds which could do 160+ mph.

And do you really think a '69 Charger 500 Hemi with 3.23 gears could only do 136? Who's on crack now? :D

YEP.

136 is about it. It might be worth a couple of more MPH if one were willing to die for it, since the suspension, brakes, tires, etc. simply weren't up to the task.

I'll accept the 144 MPH speed when you post the FULL ARTICLE proving it. My guess is that it was MODIFIED.

But even 144 MPH isn't very fast by modern standards...

This FOUR CYLINDER, BONE STOCK Dodge Caliber does 155 MPH (drag limited):

Full Test: 2008 Dodge Caliber SRT4 - Road Tests - Car and Driver November 2007 (http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/14133/full-test-2008-dodge-caliber-srt4.html)

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/download/dodcal_srt4_08_ss.pdf

And look at this BONE STOCK, 4,200 pound Chrysler 300 SRT 8 (6.1 liter Hemi). It did 173 MPH! And it ran the quarter in 13.2 @ 109 MPH!

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/SRT8300C.jpg?t=1192654849

[harddrivin1le]

Also included should be the Hemi-powered Charger Daytonas and Superbirds which could do 160+ mph.

PRODUCE THE ACTUAL ROAD TEST WHERE THAT STUNNING EVENT WAS DOCUMENTED.

160+ mph....for a 40 year old, ~ 360 HP SAE NET HP, 4,000 pound crate:rolleyes:

The hottest 427 Corvettes (e.g. L72) from that era fitted with 3.08 axle ratios could barely top 140 MPH and they were smaller, lighter and just as powerful than those hemi sedans.



Here's my proof that a BONE STOCK, 4,212 pound Chrysler 300C SRT8 can do 173 MPH (with a 6.1 liter V8 Hemi running 92 octane unleaded and while complying with modern emissions, safety and fuel economy standards.)

Produce ANY vintage "muscle car" test that produced results like those when the car was KNOWN TO BE 100% BONE STOCK. I will spot you ANY tires.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/SRT8300C.jpg?t=1192655272

[harddrivin1le]

This BASE MODEL (not a Z06), 378 cubic inch Corvette does ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY MPH - BONE STOCK!

And it runs the quarter in 12.4 seconds at 116 MPH - fully loaded with luxury options and capable of getting 26 MPG.

Stop living in the past. The old stuff is fine for what it was. 40 years of progress have made it OBSOLETE. This is almost like arguing that an 8 track tape sounds better than a CD player. It's just plain STUPID!

Full Test: 2008 Chevrolet Corvette - Road Tests - Car and Driver September 2007 (http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/13580/full-test-2008-chevrolet-corvette.html)

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/download/0709_checor_z51_08_ss.pdf

[Fleet 500]

YEP.

136 is about it. It might be worth a couple of more MPH if one were willing to die for it, since the suspension, brakes, tires, etc. simply weren't up to the task.

Come on... look at the chart you posted again... a '69 Olds/Hurst 455 with 3.42 gears could do 132 mph and a '68 El Camino 396 with 3.36 gears could also do 132... a much more powerful Hemi could only go 4 mph faster? I hope you're just joking!
Even a big 'ol 1970 Cadillac Eldorado could do 125-130 mph; same thing with an Olds Toronado.


I'll accept the 144 MPH speed when you post the FULL ARTICLE proving it. My guess is that it was MODIFIED.

Okay, I have the test and will post it. It was NOT modifed. It was a standard Car Life (Feb., 1968) test of a '68 Plymouth GTX Convertible with an as tested price of $4,874.



This FOUR CYLINDER, BONE STOCK Dodge Caliber does 155 MPH (drag limited):

And look at this BONE STOCK, 4,200 pound Chrysler 300 SRT 8 (6.1 liter Hemi). It did 173 MPH! And it ran the quarter in 13.2 @ 109 MPH!

Come on... those cars have 35+ years of techonolgy to work with. I'd rather have a '60s Mopar. Mildly modify it (which would cost a lot less than buying a new car) to have run in the 12s. :)

[harddrivin1le]

Come on... look at the chart you posted again... a '69 Olds/Hurst 455 with 3.42 gears could do 132 mph and a '68 El Camino 396 with 3.36 gears could also do 132... a much more powerful Hemi could only go 4 mph faster? I hope you're just joking!
Even a big 'ol 1970 Cadillac Eldorado could do 125-130 mph; same thing with an Olds Toronado.



Okay, I have the test and will post it. It was NOT modifed. It was a standard Car Life (Feb., 1968) test of a '68 Plymouth GTX Convertible with an as tested price of $4,874.


Speed is a THIRD ORDER determinant of required HORSEPOWER (e.g. doubling speed required roughly 8 TIMES the horsepower).

The difference in required Horsepower between 125 MPH and 144 MPH is therefore VERY LARGE - particularly so in big, heavy cars with mediocre at best aerodynamic traits.

Hemis were very heavy cars; most were pushing TWO TONS. (Weight increases rolling resistance - again exponentially).

$4,874 in 1968 dollars is the equivalent of ~ $29,000 today. That's attributable to a little thing called INFLATION.

I wouldn't pay $29,000 today for a 2 ton, ~ 350 HP crate that had drum brakes, leaf springs, 6" wide steel wheels, an AM radio, a horribly flexible structure, little-to-nothing in the way of luxury and safety equipment, lacked an overdrive transmission, averaged ~ 9 MPG, was loud and had a hard time idling in traffic without fowling the plugs. Would YOU?

The fact of the matter is that I am a mechanical engineer who DESIGNS ENGINES FOR A LIVING. I am not going to tell you for whom. But I will tell you that you clearly have NO UNDERSTANDING of this subject matter and are clinging onto obsolete technology with fanatical fervor.

[harddrivin1le]

My parents "300 HP" 350, F41 equipped 1969 Impala could manage an indicated 115 MPH - flat out - with a 2.73 axle ratio (12 bolt, posi). That was the L48 350 (standard Corvette engine). My wife's 1990 4 cylinder Honda Civic was STILL CLIMBING at 115 MPH. My 2007 Acura TL Type S (3,674 pounds, 3.5 liter/212 cubic inch V6) passes by the 115 (and the 125 MPH and the 135) MPH mark without even trying.


This "385 HP" (Gross) 427 Chevy SS was fitted with a 3.07 axle ratio. It was all done (drag limited) at 125 MPH.

125 MPH back then was REALLY MOVING for a street car. Today, it's common-place for many 4 cylinder, mass produced cars - especially those that aren't electronically governed.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/67ss427-1.jpg?t=1192657794
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/67ss427-2.jpg?t=1192657828

[jediali]

I am a mechanical engineer who DESIGNS ENGINES FOR A LIVING.

great job...see what you think of my stuff :)

oh..and don't be cocky, good mechanical engineers are never cocky.

[Fleet 500]

This BASE MODEL (not a Z06), 378 cubic inch Corvette does ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY MPH - BONE STOCK!

And it runs the quarter in 12.4 seconds at 116 MPH - fully loaded with luxury options and capable of getting 26 MPG.

Stop living in the past. The old stuff is fine for what it was. 40 years of progress have made it OBSOLETE. This is almost like arguing that an 8 track tape sounds better than a CD player. It's just plain STUPID!

Full Test: 2008 Chevrolet Corvette - Road Tests - Car and Driver September 2007 (http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/13580/full-test-2008-chevrolet-corvette.html)

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/download/0709_checor_z51_08_ss.pdf
The 12-second 1/4 mile bracket was broken way back in the early '60s with the Max Wedge Mopars and the Ford Thunderbolt.

"Stop living in the past?" Somehow, I don't think those (including myself) who own vintage '60s cars are going to turn them in for something newer.
It seems they are very desirable, too, because good examples of '60s/early '70s muscle cars are selling for $30,000, $40,000, and $50,000+.

[Fleet 500]

harddrivin1le,

Thanks once again Sir for taking up your time to cut through the cheese and share your knowledge, experience and quality postings :cool:

My only regret is you weren't around earlier! :rolleyes:
Actually, Bobby said, "Anyone can go and hit 180 mph straight out of the showroom."

Did I make an error? Did he not say that?

[Fleet 500]

I'll accept the 144 MPH speed when you post the FULL ARTICLE proving it. My guess is that it was MODIFIED.

Here is the article, in full. The 144 mph top speed is in the 4th scan.

And I hope you (for a change) accept what I posted here because it took me about a half-hour to scan all of those pages. I hope it wasn't for nothing.

[Fleet 500]

Here is the last page of the article.

And a scan of a 1966 Dodge Hemi Coronet Convertible with 3.23 gears (Mechanix Illustrated, Dec., 1965).
Top speed is 149.73 mph and is estimated to be up to 5 mph with a hardtop body style.
The reason the author (Tom McCahill) got that high top speed is because he used a track with a longer straight section compared to the tracks other car mags. used. Car Life and Motor Trend would often say that the top speed of their test car would be a little higher if they had a longer straightaway to wind it out more.

[harddrivin1le]

The 12-second 1/4 mile bracket was broken way back in the early '60s with the Max Wedge Mopars and the Ford Thunderbolt.


THOSE WERE STRIPPED DOWN, PURPOSE-BUILT FACTORY PREPARED DRAG CARS THAT WERE NOT STREETABLE AND NOT SOLD TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. The ones that ran in the twelves were MODIFIED beyond that (open long tube headers, big slicks, blueprinted engines, etc.).

(The "S" (Street) versions of the "Max Wedge" had a hard time getting out of the mid 14s.) THOSE are the cars that were sold to the public for street use. The Thunderbolt was never sold to the public for street use.)

Do you understand the difference between a PURPOSE BUILT, FACTORY DRAG CAR and a STREET CAR?

HOT ROD magazine does:

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/HOTRRODMUSCLE1.jpg?t=1192661480
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/HOTRODMUSCLE2.jpg?t=1192661422

[Fleet 500]

THOSE WERE STRIPPED DOWN, FACTORY PREPARED DRAG CARS THAT WERE NOT STREETABLE.

(The "S" versions of the "Max Wedge" had a hard time getting out of the mid 14s.) THOSE are the cars that were sold to the public for street use.

The Thunderbolt was never sold to the public for street use.

Do you understand the difference between a PURPOSE BUILT, FACTORY DRAG CAR and a STREET CAR?
They were production cars and were streetable. Not very streetable, many some brave souls (drag racing fanatics) did buy them.

Do you understand that in the '60s, there were 12-second cars available? You had to look for them, but they did exist.

[harddrivin1le]

They were production cars and were streetable. Not very streetable, many some brave souls (drag racing fanatics) did buy them.

Do you understand that in the '60s, there were 12-second cars available? You had to look for them, but they did exist.

They were NOT "production cars."

They were PURPOSE BUILT, ULTRA LOW PRODUCTION FACTORY RACE CARS that were further MODIFIED by the racers who bought them.

HOT ROD MAGAZINE agrees. They also agree that there were NO 12 second (and very few 13 second) REGULAR PRODUCTION "muscle cars" during that era:

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/HOTRRODMUSCLE1.jpg?t=1192661480
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/HOTRODMUSCLE2.jpg?t=1192661422

[Fleet 500]

Speaking of spec charts...

[nota]

The Charger 500 Hemi with 3.23s below could only manage 136 MPH. The fastest car in those lists is the "435 HP" (Gross) L72 427 Corvette with a 3.08 axle; it was all done at 141 MPH. The second fastest car on that list is the "390 HP" (Gross) L36 427 Corvette; it managed 134 MPH. Corvettes were a lot lighter AND a lot more aero than any Street Hemi powered car and the L72 427 made just as much power.


Merely for your interest: :)

1971 Ford Falcon GT-HO Phase Three (XY model-series, 351C 2-bolt block) Homologation special, 300 built for Showroom-Stock racing

#1 Track pic
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z125/nota_photo/1971FalconGT-HOPhaseThree.jpg

#2 pic 'Wheels' mag road-test 1971
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z125/nota_photo/Wheels-Phase3.jpg

#3 pic 'Wheels' road-test. 6150 rpm rev-limiter (tacho optimistic) = 141.5 mph as below, and reportedly 155 mph if limiter disconnected
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z125/nota_photo/Proof-ifanywasneededofthePhaseThree.jpg

[Fleet 500]

They were NOT "production cars.

They were PURPOSE BUILT, ULTRA LOW PRODUCTION FACTORY RACE CARS that were further MODIFIED by the racers who bought them.

There were only 7 1971 Plymouth Hemi-cuda Convertibles built. It was an ultra low production car, but it was a production car, just like the Max Wedge Mopars and Ford Thunderbolts.
Ford called the T-Bolt the first and only complete drag racer built for, and sold to, the general public.
41 4-speeds and 59 autos were built, far more than the 7 '71 Hemi-cuda Convertibles.

[harddrivin1le]

Are you retarded?

Now you're posting test results of AUSTRALIAN RACING CARS in a forum that's discussing(stock) American muscle cars?

It says "TOPS SPEED 141.5 MPH." "Reportedly" is meaningless.

My 212 CID V6, 3,700 pound Acura is faster than car. Several of today's BONE STOCK, 4 cylinder, PRODUCTION CARS are faster than that!



Merely for your interest: :)

1971 Ford Falcon GT-HO Phase Three (XY model-series, 351C 2-bolt block) Homologation special, 300 built for Showroom-Stock racing

#1 Track pic
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z125/nota_photo/1971FalconGT-HOPhaseThree.jpg

#2 pic 'Wheels' mag road-test 1971
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z125/nota_photo/Wheels-Phase3.jpg

#3 pic 'Wheels' road-test. 6150 rpm rev-limiter (tacho optimistic) = 141.5 mph as below, and reportedly 155 mph if limiter disconnected
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z125/nota_photo/Proof-ifanywasneededofthePhaseThree.jpg

[nota]

Actually, Bobby said, "Anyone can go and hit 180 mph straight out of the showroom."

Did I make an error? Did he not say that?
Actually YOU wrote that, not him
Your direct quote not his
No attribution
No "_"

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/373334-post9.html

No further claims from you regarding those supposed regular-production 340 hp ex-factory 351 4-bbl Clevelands .. eh? :rolleyes:

[harddrivin1le]

There were only 7 1971 Plymouth Hemi-cuda Convertibles built. It was an ultra low production car, but it was a production car, just like the Max Wedge Mopars and Ford Thunderbolts.
Ford called the T-Bolt the first and only complete drag racer built for, and sold to, the general public.
41 4-speeds and 59 autos were built, far more than the 7 '71 Hemi-cuda Convertibles.

The 1971 Hemi Cuda convertibles were STREET CARS. The fact that few bought them isn't relevant.

Seriously, are you retarded?

[clutch-monkey]

Are you retarded?

Now you're posting test results of AUSTRALIAN RACING CARS in a forum that's discussing(stock) American muscle cars?
er, this forum is not exclusively discussing american cars, or even stock ones at that

It says "TOPS SPEED 141.5 MPH." "Reportedly" is meaningless.
the HO versions reached 160mph apparently, according to the media upraor at the time

My 212 CID V6, 3,700 pound Acura is faster than car.
sure :rolleyes:

[harddrivin1le]

There were only 7 1971 Plymouth Hemi-cuda Convertibles built. It was an ultra low production car, but it was a production car, just like the Max Wedge Mopars and Ford Thunderbolts.
Ford called the T-Bolt the first and only complete drag racer built for, and sold to, the general public.
41 4-speeds and 59 autos were built, far more than the 7 '71 Hemi-cuda Convertibles.

The 1971 Hemi Cuda convertibles were STREET CARS.

Seriously, are you retarded?

Any rational person recognizes HOT ROD magazine as an authority on this subject and will therefore recognize the realities put forth in this article:

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/HOTRRODMUSCLE1.jpg?t=1192661480
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/HOTRODMUSCLE2.jpg?t=1192661422

[harddrivin1le]

Howstuffworks "1964 Ford Thunderbolt: A Profile of a Muscle Car" (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/define-1964-ford-thunderbolt.htm)

"Though technically legal for street use, the Thunderbolt was too raucous for the public roads. Just over 100 were built,
and every one spent nearly every minute at the drag strip.

As Hot Rod warned, the T-bolt was "not suitable for driving to and from the strip, let alone on the street in everyday use."

And the "representative performance" figures cited therein represent the cars that were MODIFIED for Super Stock Class competition (blueprinted engines, open long tube headers, big slicks, etc.)


Craig Sutton's 1964 Ford Thunderbolt Website (http://www.angelfire.com/hi/427fairlane/)

"In 1964, exactly 100 Fairlane 2 door sedans were partially built by the Ford Motor Company and shipped to Dearborn Steel Tubing for completion. These cars were finished as drag race-only machines for Super Stock, Super Stock Automatic, and A/FX class competition."



Ford Motor Company - Featured Story - Fans Celebrate 40 Years of Thunderbolt (http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=18023)

"Developed by Ford's Special Vehicle Department, the Thunderbolt was eventually built at the Dearborn Steel Tubing Company (DST). Initially, the first eleven vehicles were production cars assembled at the Rouge and sent to DST for disassembly and conversion. After the initial run, however, the process shifted gears and the remaining 89 Fairlanes were shipped to DST as incomplete vehicles for modification and final assembly.

The Thunderbolt was a Fairlane 500 two-door sedan without sound deadener, sealer and insulation and minus the unnecessary frills of radio, heater, rear-window cranking mechanism, carpeting and one front windshield wiper. The side windows were made of Plexiglas. Hoods, fenders, doors and the front bumper were fiberglass. Special traction bar eliminated body roll.

[nota]

Are you retarded?

Now you're posting test results of AUSTRALIAN RACING CARS in a forum that's discussing(stock) American muscle cars?

It says "TOPS SPEED 141.5 MPH." "Reportedly" is meaningless.

My 212 CID V6, 3,700 pound Acura is faster than car. Several of today's BONE STOCK, 4 cylinder, PRODUCTION CARS are faster than that!
Well pardon me cock and no I'm not retarded. Nor am I rude ..

Since you've been generous enough to share many period road-tests of old hi-po muscle cars I merely posted similar info in-kind and in similar spirit for your interest. I thought it might compliment your portfolio

Congratulations on your Acura top speed. Unfortunately it wasn't around in 1971 ..

[harddrivin1le]

Well pardon me cock and no I'm not retarded. Nor am I rude ..

Since you've been generous enough to share many period road-tests of old hi-po muscle cars I merely posted similar info in-kind and in similar spirit for your interest. I thought it might compliment your portfolio

Congratulations on your Acura top speed. Unfortunately it wasn't around in 1971 ..


Actually, I thought "Fleet 500" posted that, so I apologize for my initial comments to your post. My bad.

FORTUNATELY, that Australian Ford isn't around today. It may have been "interesting" 35 years ago, but has long been OBSOLETE.

[clutch-monkey]

FORTUNATELY, that Australian Ford isn't around today. It may have been "interesting" 35 years ago, but has long been OBSOLETE.
that's not the reason people would like own one, though. it's acceleration is still good for today's saloon standards anyway:confused:
sure, a mauser is obsolete as a battle rifle - doesn't mean you can't take someone's head off at 800 paces with it though.
for example, imo it would be more interesting to own a falcon GT of that era than BMW 3 series or some other refined car - horses for courses.

[harddrivin1le]

sure :rolleyes:

Compare the acceleration and top speed of that crap box Ford to my Acura TL Type S (and the other two V6 sedans in that test).

ROADandTRACK.com -- Comparison Tests - Good Sports: Acura TL Type-S, Infiniti G35 Sport and Lexus IS 350 (2/2007) (http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=4459)

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/02073car.pdf

[harddrivin1le]

Here is the article, in full. The 144 mph top speed is in the 4th scan.

And I hope you (for a change) accept what I posted here because it took me about a half-hour to scan all of those pages. I hope it wasn't for nothing.

144 MPH isn't fast by modern standards...

[Matra et Alpine]

hd, we're really appreciating your inputs, BUT can you please use the attachment method to include your images. Thanks ... it makes it easier for everyone to read the thread.

[harddrivin1le]

Speaking of spec charts...

"Charts" like that are meaningless without the actual road tests because they don't mention HOW those results were achieved and falsely imply that they are representative of stock, production cars. SOME may be (like the '70 Buick Stage 1).

Other's most definitely are not.

For example:

I can prove that the '69 Hemi Road Runner in your list wasn't stock and was, in fact, a SPECIALLY PREPARED, professionally (Ronnie Sox) driven test car that was falsely presented to the readership as being stock. (That was COMMON back then, which is why I generally ignore the absolute best results and focus on THE AVERAGE. Big numbers sold magazine and cars and the consumer advocacy groups and tort lawyers hadn't yet gained enough clout to discourage it.)

'69-1/2 REGISTRY - SUPER BEE PROMO AD (http://www.homestead.com/sixpacksixbbl/a12roadtestspage11.html)

I can also prove that the ZL1 in your list wasn't stock.

Beyond Awesome 2002 Z06 - Hib Halverson (http://www.c5registry.com/2k2z06/index.htm)


"In the summer of 1968, the press sampled two special, ’69 ZL1s. The first was a partially-gutted, 3000lb, white convertible fitted with the optional hardtop and set up by Chief Engineer, the late Zora Duntov, himself with road racing suspension, open headers and race tires–hardly production trim. It ran the quarter in 12.1 at 115mph. The second was a red coupe built for drag racing by development engineer Gib Hufstader (who today, though semi-retired, still consults to GM Racing) with a 4.88:1 rear end, open headers, a race-prepared Turbo-Hydramatic 400 automatic and 9-in. slicks–again, hardly production equipment. That car usually ran low 11s and dipped into the 10.9s at 132mph when launched with a neutral start."

That's just two that I know of. Odds are they aren't the only two.

As for the LS6 Chevelle on your list that trapped @ 107 MPH? I take that with a very small grain of salt. Here are ALL of the results for the 1970 AHRA WORLD RECORD HOLDING (in class) Chevelle SS 454 LS7. Many of the times are in the FOURTEENS and that series permitted some very minor mods:

1970 Chevelle 454 LS6 (http://www.chevelle454ls6.com/1970_chevelle_454_ls6.htm)

1970 Drag Racing Season (http://www.chevelle454ls6.com/1970_drag_racing_season.htm)

Here's how the bone stock, unmodified ZL1s went:
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/ZL1CD3.jpg?t=1192664685

[clutch-monkey]

Compare the acceleration and top speed of that crap box Ford to my Acura TL Type S (and the other two V6 sedans in that test).

ROADandTRACK.com -- Comparison Tests - Good Sports: Acura TL Type-S, Infiniti G35 Sport and Lexus IS 350 (2/2007) (http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=4459)

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/02073car.pdf
not bad for a honda econosaloon!

5.7 and 14.3 sec

The Type-S's 286 horsepower is nothing to sniff at, but most of it is reachable only at very high rev bands. Peak power is achieved north of 6,000rpm, which is tough to reach, especially in our five-speed automatic test car (the alternative six-speed manual might have been a bit more to our liking). In everyday freeway driving, the Type-S feels less peppy than its sporty specs and trim imply. Mashing the accelerator results in a conspicuous delay, followed by some adequate forward thrust, but nothing to match the sweet sound coming from the engine,
certainly reassuring that 30+ years of development has achieved something, although i would like the type S to perhaps become AWD in the future

The GT-HO 351 motor produced 380HP (285KW), and was fitted with a 6,150RPM rev limiter. With the rev limiter disabled, it would pull 7,000+ RPM, even in 4th gear.

0 - 60 MPH..... 6.4 seconds

0 - 100 MPH..... 14.6 seconds

Standing 1/4 mile..... 14.4 seconds

Top speed......145 MPH, while bouncing off the factory-set 6,150 RPM rev limiter. With rev limiter disconnected, around 155 MPH.

[nota]

Actually, I thought "Fleet 500" posted that, so I apologize for my initial comments to your post. My bad.

FORTUNATELY, that Australian Ford isn't around today. It may have been "interesting" 35 years ago, but has long been OBSOLETE.
Apology accepted :)

Now you're posting test results of AUSTRALIAN RACING CARS in a forum that's discussing(stock) American muscle cars?
For the record the 1971 GTHO was a catalogued stock-standard production model with 300 built

[harddrivin1le]

not bad for a honda econosaloon!


certainly reassuring that 30+ years of development has achieved something, although i would like the type S to perhaps become AWD in the future

The Acura is only a 212 CID V6 in a 3,600 pound car.

That's not a fast car by modern standards nor do I claim that it is.

But it's a nice, quiet, luxurious car and it's "fast enough" for me at this stage in my life.

Even the figures you're quoting for the 351 "HO" version of that Ausie car are only "good" - by modern V6 standards.

A new Corvette with a similarly sized V8 would simply dust it...

Full Test: 2008 Chevrolet Corvette - Road Tests - Car and Driver September 2007 (http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/13580/full-test-2008-chevrolet-corvette.html)
(Click on "Download Spec Sheet" once you open the link)
It runs 0 - 100 MPH in 9.2 seconds; it's approaching 130 MPH by the time your 351 "HO" is hitting 100 MPH. Top speed is 190 MPH.

And that's just the base car.

The Z06 (505 HP LS7) is MUCH faster!

[nota]

Even the figures you're quoting for the 351 "HO" version of that Ausie car are only "good" - by modern V6 standards.

A new Corvette with a similarly sized V8 would simply dust it...

Sure but the point is those boxy small-block powered GTHO 4-door sedans delivered a genuine 141mph .. which is equal or better than THE fastest US car in your supplied data, a more compact and presumably more aerodynamic L72 big-block Corvette sportscar of supposedly '435hp' .. which only reinforces your original statements as to wildly exaggerated USA horsepower ratings & reputations, doesn't it?

[Fleet 500]

The 1971 Hemi Cuda convertibles were STREET CARS. The fact that few bought them isn't relevant.

Seriously, are you retarded?
Just because I posted evidence that a stock Hemi Mopar could indeed go 144 mph doesn't mean you can call me (and everyone else) "retarded."

[harddrivin1le]

Just because I posted evidence that a stock Hemi Mopar could indeed go 144 mph doesn't mean you can call me (and everyone else) "retarded."

Retarded refers to your resorting to results that were obtained with PURPOSE BUILT FACTORY RACE CARS and/or "production" cars in highly dubious states-of-tune (e.g. your "chart") and comparing them with production, STREET cars.

I showed you why at least two of the "results" in that chart you posted are grossly misleading. And I've shown you that Ford Thunderbolts, Race Hemi Darts, etc. were NOT streetable cars, but were instead purpose-built DRAG RACERS.

The '69 Roadrunner result in your "chart" was achieved in a purpose-built, factory "ringer" driven by Ronnie Sox, while the ZL1 was a gutted and modified, purpose-built drag car. They are therefore not representative of the BONE STOCK PRODUCTION CARS that customers drove home from the dealership.

'69-1/2 REGISTRY - SUPER BEE PROMO AD (http://www.homestead.com/sixpacksixbbl/a12roadtestspage11.html)

Beyond Awesome 2002 Z06 - Hib Halverson (http://www.c5registry.com/2k2z06/index.htm)
"In the summer of 1968, the press sampled two special, ’69 ZL1s. The first was a partially-gutted, 3000lb, white convertible fitted with the optional hardtop and set up by Chief Engineer, the late Zora Duntov, himself with road racing suspension, open headers and race tires–hardly production trim. It ran the quarter in 12.1 at 115mph. The second was a red coupe built for drag racing by development engineer Gib Hufstader (who today, though semi-retired, still consults to GM Racing) with a 4.88:1 rear end, open headers, a race-prepared Turbo-Hydramatic 400 automatic and 9-in. slicks–again, hardly production equipment. That car usually ran low 11s and dipped into the 10.9s at 132mph when launched with a neutral start."

Sensible people consider MANY data points, go with the average and throw out the small minority that fall well outside of that average. Those points are known as "anomalies" and can be attributable to many things (e.g. faulty testing methodology, a "ringer" test car, poorly calibrated equipment, etc.)

And sensible people don't compare FACTORY BUILT DRAG CARS with regular production street cars.

144 MPH in a '68 (or later) Hemi coupe fitted with 3.23s is believable (though barely).

150 MPH in what was clearly a pre-production/prototype car (probably tested sometime in mid-1965) is not represenative of what ACTUAL production street hemi cars from that period would do.

Either way, my 212 CID V6, 3,674 pound Acura TL is faster and that's not even a fast car by today's standards.

[harddrivin1le]

Sure but the point is those boxy small-block powered GTHO 4-door sedans delivered a genuine 141mph .. which is equal or better than THE fastest US car in your supplied data, a more compact and presumably more aerodynamic L72 big-block Corvette sportscar of supposedly '435hp' .. which only reinforces your original statements as to wildly exaggerated USA horsepower ratings & reputations, doesn't it?

Pre-1972 US horsepower (and torque) ratings are essentially meaningless.

The GTHO in the test you posted weighed 3,360 pounds (in street form). That's very light by 1971 U.S. standards.
Ford Falcon GT-HO Phase III - Supercars.net (http://www.supercars.net/cars/2357.html)

Weight has a lot to do with top speed because it greatly impacts rolling resistance. And again, COMPETITION prepared cars can't be fairly compared to stock, production street cars.

"Road test" results from that period were highly dubious - at least in America. I have no reason to believe that such lies and mispreresentations were limited to this country.

Example. "Fleet 500" posted a "chart" that made reference to a 426 Hemi Road Runner that ran a 12.91 @ 111 MPH quarter mile. I knew that was BS when I first saw that result 10 or so years ago on the internet, but it took me some time to discover the truth behind the lie.

This is a VERY interesting read for those who are interested in learning the truth about vintage "muscle car" magazine test results. The author was THERE (editor for "Super Stock" magazine) when all the lying was going on and was an active participant in it!:

Here's the original road test, which most people took (and still take) as gospel:
'69-1/2 REGISTRY - SUPER BEE PROMO AD (http://www.homestead.com/sixpacksixbbl/a12roadtestspage10.html)

Here's the TRUTH BEHIND THE LIE, which took nearly 30 years to come out:

'69-1/2 REGISTRY - SUPER BEE PROMO AD (http://www.homestead.com/sixpacksixbbl/a12roadtestspage11.html)

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/RINGERORADRUNNER5-HIGHLIGHTED.JPG

[Fleet 500]

144 MPH isn't fast by modern standards...
That wasn't the subject. The subject was "could some of the Hemi-Mopars go 140-155 mph?" The answer: Yes.

[The_Canuck]

Well thats a rather dull point...

[Fleet 500]

Howstuffworks "1964 Ford Thunderbolt: A Profile of a Muscle Car" (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/define-1964-ford-thunderbolt.htm)

"Though technically legal for street use, the Thunderbolt was too raucous for the public roads. Just over 100 were built,
and every one spent nearly every minute at the drag strip.

As Hot Rod warned, the T-bolt was "not suitable for driving to and from the strip, let alone on the street in everyday use."

And the "representative performance" figures cited therein represent the cars that were MODIFIED for Super Stock Class competition (blueprinted engines, open long tube headers, big slicks, etc.)


Craig Sutton's 1964 Ford Thunderbolt Website (http://www.angelfire.com/hi/427fairlane/)

"In 1964, exactly 100 Fairlane 2 door sedans were partially built by the Ford Motor Company and shipped to Dearborn Steel Tubing for completion. These cars were finished as drag race-only machines for Super Stock, Super Stock Automatic, and A/FX class competition."



Ford Motor Company - Featured Story - Fans Celebrate 40 Years of Thunderbolt (http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=18023)

"Developed by Ford's Special Vehicle Department, the Thunderbolt was eventually built at the Dearborn Steel Tubing Company (DST). Initially, the first eleven vehicles were production cars assembled at the Rouge and sent to DST for disassembly and conversion. After the initial run, however, the process shifted gears and the remaining 89 Fairlanes were shipped to DST as incomplete vehicles for modification and final assembly.

The Thunderbolt was a Fairlane 500 two-door sedan without sound deadener, sealer and insulation and minus the unnecessary frills of radio, heater, rear-window cranking mechanism, carpeting and one front windshield wiper. The side windows were made of Plexiglas. Hoods, fenders, doors and the front bumper were fiberglass. Special traction bar eliminated body roll.
I think you are going overboard on the "lack of" streetability of those T-Bolts.
Here is a street-driven one...

[Fleet 500]

Retarded refers to your resorting to results that were obtained with PURPOSE BUILT FACTORY RACE CARS and/or "production" cars in highly dubious states-of-tune (e.g. your "chart") and comparing them with production, STREET cars.

They were available to the public, they did not have exotic prices and they could be street driven.


The '69 Roadrunner result in your "chart" was achieved in a purpose-built, factory "ringer" driven by Ronnie Sox, while the ZL1 was a gutted and modified, purpose-built drag car. They are therefore not representative of the BONE STOCK PRODUCTION CARS that customers drove home from the dealership.

'69-1/2 REGISTRY - SUPER BEE PROMO AD (http://www.homestead.com/sixpacksixbbl/a12roadtestspage11.html)

I have another test of a '69 4-speed 440-6 bbl Road Runner which rans high-12s (12.98); other tests show times ranging from 13.00 to 13.40.


Beyond Awesome 2002 Z06 - Hib Halverson (http://www.c5registry.com/2k2z06/index.htm)
"In the summer of 1968, the press sampled two special, ’69 ZL1s. The first was a partially-gutted, 3000lb, white convertible fitted with the optional hardtop and set up by Chief Engineer, the late Zora Duntov, himself with road racing suspension, open headers and race tires–hardly production trim. It ran the quarter in 12.1 at 115mph. The second was a red coupe built for drag racing by development engineer Gib Hufstader (who today, though semi-retired, still consults to GM Racing) with a 4.88:1 rear end, open headers, a race-prepared Turbo-Hydramatic 400 automatic and 9-in. slicks–again, hardly production equipment. That car usually ran low 11s and dipped into the 10.9s at 132mph when launched with a neutral start."

That is the ZL1. There was also the nickey and Yenko and Baldwin-Motion Camaros, all of which ran 11s and were (again) available to the public. And if you can post specs of an $80,000 Viper (an exotic), then I can post specs of $5,000 factory race cars! Also, the Car & Driver test you posted of that ZL1 427... it had 4.10 gears; 4.88s were a factory option.


144 MPH in a '68 (or later) Hemi coupe fitted with 3.23s is believable (though barely).

It definitely is believable... thanks for finally agreeing.


150 MPH in what was clearly a pre-production/prototype car (probably tested sometime in mid-1965) is not represenative of what ACTUAL production street hemi cars from that period would do.

I have an article somewhere about a '66 Plymouth Satellite with 426-Hemi which set the B/Production record at 156 mph.


Either way, my 212 CID V6, 3,674 pound Acura TL is faster and that's not even a fast car by today's standards

You can have your Acura, with its nice plastic interior.

[Fleet 500]

The new Z06 Corvette does 198 MPH and the new Viper does 202 MPH! (Both top speeds are DRAG LIMITED, meaning neither car can redline in top gear).

Those are manufacturer estimates.
The October, 2007 issue of Motor Trend had an article about this.
They listed claimed top speed and achieved top speed for these cars...

Porsche 911 GT3 RS
Claimed top speed: 193 mph
Achieved top speed: 173.05 mph

Chevrolet Corvette Z06
Claimed: 197 mph
Achieved: 177.38 mph

Dodge Viper SRT-10
Claimed: 202 mph
Achieved: 180.84 mph

Lamborghini Murcielago LP640
Claimed: 211 mph
Achieved: 191.41 mph

[harddrivin1le]

I have another test of a '69 4-speed 440-6 bbl Road Runner which rans high-12s (12.98); other tests show times ranging from 13.00 to 13.40.

I have an article somewhere about a '66 Plymouth Satellite with 426-Hemi which set the B/Production record at 156 mph.

You can have your Acura, with its nice plastic interior.



B "Production" cars could run several MODIFICATIONS, which was also the case with NHRA "stock" drag cars. Learn THE RULES AND THE SPECIFICS prior to posting silly claims.

It was COMMON for manufacturers to slip MODIFIED (sometimes secretly) cars into the press test fleets back then. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? See this "stock" 1964 GTO? It ran a 13.1 @ 115 MPH. It took nearly 35 years for THE TRUTH to come out. It was actually fitted with a MODIFIED Super Duty 421. Car and Driver was misled into believing that it was an actual production car fitted with a bone stock 389. Fools quoted that ONE test for 35 years and ignored ALL of the others when discussing how "fast" 1964 GTOs were.

LINK to Phony GTO Test: Classic Fast Cars-Classic Cars, Fast Cars, Muscle Cars, Street Rods, Classic Car Restoration, - GTO Performance Test- The Truth (http://www.classicfastcars.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=265)


You have another test of THE SAME 440-6 barrel Road Runner (THE RINGER). The times for the ACTUAL PRODUCTION CARS were much slower, as explained in the article below and as shown in the road tests appearing in the following link:

LINK To Multiple 440 6 Pack Vintage Tests:'69-1/2 SIXPACK/SIXBBL REGISTRY (http://www.homestead.com/sixpacksixbbl) ....And for all we know those other test cars may not have been TRULY stock, either.

Try reading the article below. The author WAS THERE and DROVE the 440/6 pack car in question. It was a heavily MODIFIED "Ringer!" He specifically notes that the PRODUCTION 440 6 packs were a lot slower.

LINK to full article explaining how "STOCK" 440 6 packs ran "twelves:"
'69-1/2 REGISTRY - SUPER BEE PROMO AD (http://www.homestead.com/sixpacksixbbl/a12roadtestspage11.html)

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/RINGERORADRUNNER5-HIGHLIGHTED.JPG

[harddrivin1le]

...There was also the nickey and Yenko and Baldwin-Motion Camaros, all of which ran 11s...

This one didn't:
http://www.1967z28.com/graphics/Nickey3.jpg

Neither did this one:
http://www.1967z28.com/graphics/dana4.jpg
http://www.1967z28.com/graphics/dana5.jpg

Or this one:
1969 Yenko Camaro 2 Fast 2 Furious Sport Compact Car (http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0307scc_1969_yenko_camaro/index.html)

Therefore, they "all" didn't "run 11s."

Neither did this ZL1 Camaro (which was LIGHTER, since the engine used an aluminum block and heads):
http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/ZL1CD3.JPG

HARD FACT: ALL of those 427 Camaros (NONE of which was a regular production car) were SLOWER than this bone stock, regular production, 1999 LS1 (346 cid V8, 91 octane unleaded) Firebird equipped with AC, Power Steering, ABS, CD Stereo, Air Bags and Catalytic Converters:
Comparison Test: The 13 Quickest Cars You Can Buy - Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1269976.html?page=11)



And this MODIFIED L72 427 Yenko barely made it into the high twelves, even though it was wearing FAT DRAG SLICKS:

These Factory Stock COPO Cars Go Down The Track At Raceway Park - Super Chevy Magazine (http://www.superchevy.com/events/sucp_0610_copo_chevy_drag_race/racing_results.html)

[henk4]

Those are manufacturer estimates.
The October, 2007 issue of Motor Trend had an article about this.
They listed claimed top speed and achieved top speed for these cars...

Porsche 911 GT3 RS
Claimed top speed: 193 mph
Achieved top speed: 173.05 mph

Chevrolet Corvette Z06
Claimed: 197 mph
Achieved: 177.38 mph

Dodge Viper SRT-10
Claimed: 202 mph
Achieved: 180.84 mph

Lamborghini Murcielago LP640
Claimed: 211 mph
Achieved: 191.41 mph

Harddrive, for your info this is an example of Fleet's tactics to change the subject when he is being outwitted.....don't pay attention...:)

[harddrivin1le]

Harddrive, for your info this is an example of Fleet's tactics to change the subject when he is being outwitted.....don't pay attention...:)

I just want him to address the three 427 Camaros (not one of which was a stock, REGULAR PRODUCTION CAR) that he claims "all ran 11s," yet in reality couldn't get out of the thirteens:http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/755801-post218.html


I'm sure he'll eventually post a partial article of one that did. That one will be heavily modified (cam, headers, intake, traction bars, slicks, etc.), stripped to the bone (AM radio ad maybe a heater) and the full article will undoubtedly state that it was UNSTREETABLE.

But he'll focus on that single example, insist that is was streetable and disregard the solid data points I referenced above.
He'll also continue to disregard statements and articles from legitimate authorities regarding the true (factory modified) condition of many 60s/early 70s magazine test cars. (I've posted several examples).

FACT: No regular production "muscle car" (other than the experimental "factory" drag cars - most of which were actually farmed out to companies like Hurst and non of which were streetable) could break out of the thirteens and MOST were a lot slower.





As far as TUNER cars are concerned (e.g. Yenko, Baldwim and Nickey 427 Camaros), here's a MODERN example:

Twin-turbo Hennessey Motor Sports Venom 800 Acceloration & Traction - Road Test - Motor Trend (http://www.motortrend.com/features/performance/112_0106_2001_hennessey_dodge_viper/acceleration_traction.html)

"...A few 10.28- and 10.11-sec timeslips brought big grins to the nervously watching Hennessey, but when a 9.99-sec blast occurred, Hennessey let out a cheer so loud the guys in L.A. heard it. Rainsoaked roads provided little confidence on our drive to the track, but we were determined to break the record books with a first-ever 200-mph standing-mile run in a street-legal, fully accessorized, with-a-warranty production car. Although the rain did subside long enough to let the tarmac somewhat dry, our lone effort (a wildly fishtailing, short-shifting run) yielded only a 193.54-mph pass. With the rainclouds lurking, we decided to err on the side of "good 'nuff" rather than tempt fate on the marginal track surface. Another dry day would surely come, and we're more than confident the Venom 800 will break the 200-mph barrier. Heck, if conditions are right, an all-out top-speed run may be in order. How fast, you ask? We'd put money on a solid 230-mph-all with a warranty and air conditioning, mind you."

[Fleet 500]

Harddrive, for your info this is an example of Fleet's tactics to change the subject when he is being outwitted.....don't pay attention...:)
Not changing the subject at all.
Harddrive criticized nota for posting top speeds listed in magazines yet posted "top speeds" using manufactuer estimates.

[harddrivin1le]

...There was also the nickey and Yenko and Baldwin-Motion Camaros, all of which ran 11s...

This one didn't:
http://www.1967z28.com/graphics/Nickey3.jpg

Neither did this one:
http://www.1967z28.com/graphics/dana4.jpg
http://www.1967z28.com/graphics/dana5.jpg

Or this one:
1969 Yenko Camaro 2 Fast 2 Furious Sport Compact Car (http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0307scc_1969_yenko_camaro/index.html)

Therefore, they "all" didn't "run 11s."

Neither did this (376 SAE NET HP) ZL1 Camaro - which was LIGHTER than the others because the engine used an aluminum block and heads):
http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/ZL1CD3.JPG

HARD FACT: ALL of those 427 Camaros (NONE of which was a regular production car) were SLOWER than this bone stock, regular production, 1999 LS1 (346 cid V8, 91 octane unleaded) Firebird equipped with AC, Power Steering, ABS, CD Stereo, Air Bags and Catalytic Converters:
Comparison Test: The 13 Quickest Cars You Can Buy - Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1269976.html?page=11)


And this MODIFIED L72 427 Yenko barely made it into the high twelves, even though it was wearing FAT DRAG SLICKS:

These Factory Stock COPO Cars Go Down The Track At Raceway Park - Super Chevy Magazine (http://www.superchevy.com/events/sucp_0610_copo_chevy_drag_race/racing_results.html)

[harddrivin1le]

Not changing the subject at all...


I'm sure you were planning on reposting the (dubious) test below in order to prove that "stock production cars" ran eleven-second quarter miles 40 years ago.

I will therefore point out the following quotes from that text:

"Because of the nature of the beast, we didn't spend much time with it...too much to handle on the street...too much engine and exhaust noise, too much steering [effort]...the Carters [carbs] have a nasty habit of loading up and cooking out around corners...One of the biggest problems involved...[you didn't bother to post the rest of the article, so we're left wondering]."

That car was fitted with AFTERMARKET LONG TUBE HEADERS (probably opened up for the drag portion of the test), dual 4 barrels with an after-market intake, traction bars, 4.88 gears (ridiculous on the street with a 1:1 top gear ratio) and, in all likelihood, a very hot, custom ground cam. I doubt the list ended there, since Nicky (the custom tuner) wanted the best possible magazine results in order to sell more cars.

IT WASN'T STOCK.

IT WASN'T A REGULAR PRODUCTION CAR. (Even the "regular" 427 Camaros weren't REGULAR PRODUCTION cars. They were COPO cars that virtually no-one was aware of - except for the few dedicated drag racers who bought them.)

IT WASN'T STREETABLE. (See quote above.)

THE ONLY COMFORT/CONVENIENCE OPTION WAS AN AM RADIO (with 1 speaker).

IT HAD DINKY LITTLE 9.5" MANUAL DRUM BRAKES - the same as the stock, 6 cylinder Camaros.

IT HAD A LEAF SPRING SUSPENSION.

IT DIDN'T EVEN HAVE POWER STEERING!

IT HANDLED HORRIBLY BY MODERN STANDARDS.

AND IT STILL COSTS ALMOST $30,000 IN TODAY'S DOLLARS.

BY THE WAY: These (and many other) 4 CYLINDER HONDA CIVICS RUN TENS - for less than $30,000!
YouTube - 10sec Turbo Civic Hatch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TcdN4qkTT4&mode=related&search=11%20Second%20Turbo%20Civic%20Hatch%2011sec )
YouTube - My 10 sec. pass (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOBdq8k_AdU&mode=related&search=11%20Second%20Turbo%20Civic%20Hatch%2011sec )


http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachments/american-cars/256813d1192594197-actual-horsepower-60s-70s-muscle-cars-nickeycamaro.jpg

[Fleet 500]

I'm sure you'll repost the test below in order to prove that "stock production cars" ran eleven-second quarter miles 40 years ago.

I will therefore point out the following quotes from that text:

"Because of the nature of the beast, we didn't spend much time with it...too much to handle on the street...too much engine and exhaust noise, too much steering [effort]...the Carters [carbs] have a nasty habit of loading up and cooking out around corners...One of the biggest problems involved...[you didn't bother to post the rest of the article, so we're left wondering]."

That car was fitted with AFTERMARKET LONG TUBE HEADERS (probably opened up for the drag portion of the test), dual 4 barrels with an after-market intake, traction bars, 4.88 gears (ridiculous on the street with a 1:1 top gear ratio) and, in all likelihood, a very hot, custom ground cam. I doubt the list ended there, since Nicky (the custom tuner) wanted the best possible magazine results in order to sell more cars.

IT WASN'T STOCK.

IT WASN'T A REGULAR PRODUCTION CAR. (Even the "regular" 427 Camaros weren't REGULAR PRODUCTION cars. They were COPO cars that virtually no-one was aware of - except for the few dedicated drag racers who bought them.)

IT WASN'T STREETABLE. (See quote above.)

THE ONLY COMFORT/CONVENIENCE OPTION WAS AN AM RADIO (with 1 speaker).

IT HAD DINKY LITTLE 9.5" MANUAL DRUM BRAKES - the same as the stock, 6 cylinder Camaros.

IT HAD A LEAF SPRING SUSPENSION.

IT DIDN'T EVEN HAVE POWER STEERING!

IT HANDLED HORRIBLY BY MODERN STANDARDS.

AND IT STILL COSTS ALMOST $30,000 IN TODAY'S DOLLARS.

BY THE WAY: These (and many other) 4 CYLINDER HONDA CIVICS RUN TENS - for less than $30,000!
YouTube - 10sec Turbo Civic Hatch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TcdN4qkTT4&mode=related&search=11%20Second%20Turbo%20Civic%20Hatch%2011sec )
YouTube - My 10 sec. pass (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOBdq8k_AdU&mode=related&search=11%20Second%20Turbo%20Civic%20Hatch%2011sec )

That didn't keep some owners from driving it on the street. At the weekly car gathering I go to, I see 10-12 sec cars driving into the parking lot. They have modified engines, have a very lumpy idle and get poor gas mileage, but the owner drive them on the street anyway!

So, that Camaro didn't have power steering? It wasn't available either on the '69 440 Dart and Barracudas. It makes little differnce in a car that was meant for one thing (1/4 mile drags). And do you really think the drag racing enthusiasts cared what kind of radio or the amount of speakers their car had? Heck, most of the time they didn't even have the radio on because they wanted to hear the power their engines were making.
And if Camaro owners cared about handling, they would buy a small-block Z/28 instead of a big-block one.

Re: The Honda... so what? Why not start with a fast car in the first place? (And a real car.) I can put $30,000 of modifications on a 13-second '60s muscle car and make it run 9s!

I recall a article in Hot Rod or Popular Hot Rodding about a '70 Dodge Challenger with Hemi. With some modifications (but not nitrous oxide) it ran 9.70s through the mufflers and was street legal. As I've said before, you can have your silly-looking Hondas; I'll stick with the classic and highly desirable msucle cars! :)

[Fleet 500]

This one didn't:
http://www.1967z28.com/graphics/Nickey3.jpg

Neither did this one:
http://www.1967z28.com/graphics/dana4.jpg
http://www.1967z28.com/graphics/dana5.jpg

Or this one:
1969 Yenko Camaro 2 Fast 2 Furious Sport Compact Car (http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0307scc_1969_yenko_camaro/index.html)

Therefore, they "all" didn't "run 11s."

Neither did this (376 SAE NET HP) ZL1 Camaro - which was LIGHTER than the others because the engine used an aluminum block and heads):
http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/ZL1CD3.JPG

HARD FACT: ALL of those 427 Camaros (NONE of which was a regular production car) were SLOWER than this bone stock, regular production, 1999 LS1 (346 cid V8, 91 octane unleaded) Firebird equipped with AC, Power Steering, ABS, CD Stereo, Air Bags and Catalytic Converters:
Comparison Test: The 13 Quickest Cars You Can Buy - Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1269976.html?page=11)


And this MODIFIED L72 427 Yenko barely made it into the high twelves, even though it was wearing FAT DRAG SLICKS:

These Factory Stock COPO Cars Go Down The Track At Raceway Park - Super Chevy Magazine (http://www.superchevy.com/events/sucp_0610_copo_chevy_drag_race/racing_results.html)
The Car Life test Camaro had "only" 425 hp. The nickey/yenko/Motion-Baldwin Camaros had 450-500 hp.

Look, if you think that Chevrolet never offered for sale any 11-second Camaros, you are entitled to believe that. I should have said, "The fastest of the nickey/yenko/Motion-Baldwin Camaros ran 11s.

[harddrivin1le]

The Car Life test Camaro had "only" 425 hp. The nickey/yenko/Motion-Baldwin Camaros had 450-500 hp.

None of those SAE GROSS HP numbers had ANY BASIS IN FACT!

3,500 pound cars with "450 - 500 HP" don't run mid 13s to low 14s at UNDER 110 MPH.

BALDWIN:

1969 Yenko Camaro 2 Fast 2 Furious Sport Compact Car (http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0307scc_1969_yenko_camaro/index.html)

NICKEY:
http://www.1967z28.com/graphics/Nickey3.jpg

DANA:
http://www.1967z28.com/graphics/dana4.jpg
http://www.1967z28.com/graphics/dana5.jpg

HARD FACT: ALL of those 427 Camaros (NONE of which was a regular production car) were SLOWER than this bone stock, regular production, 1999 LS1 (346 cid V8, 91 octane unleaded) Firebird equipped with AC, Power Steering, ABS, CD Stereo, Air Bags and Catalytic Converters:
Comparison Test: The 13 Quickest Cars You Can Buy - Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1269976.html?page=11)


http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/455oldsand340MOPARCSERE.JPG

[Fleet 500]

Here is some info about the Mopar Max Wedge:

[harddrivin1le]

Here is some info about the Mopar Max Wedge:

Your mental retardation is once again showing.

The result you posted was for the stripped, RACE spec, PURPOSE BUILT FACTORY DRAG RACING CARS! THEY WOULD NOT RUN ON PUMP GAS (a real 12.5:1 CR), had no sound deadener, etc. And those results were achieved on OPEN, AFTERMARKET, LONG TUBE HEADERS AND DRAG SLICKS IN A FULLY PREPPED CAR RUNNING IN NHRA SUPERSTOCK!!!!!!

The STREET wedge cars (365 Gross HP) would run on pump gas and were STREET CARS. They ran mid FOURTEENS to LOW FIFTEENS - as they rolled off the showroom floor!

Howstuffworks "1965 Dodge Coronet 426 Street Wedge Specifications" (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1965-dodge-coronet-426-street-wedge1.htm)

Engine Type
V-8/RB-Wedge
Displacement (cid)
426
Horsepower @ rpm:
365 @ 4,800
Torque (pounds/feet) @ rpm
470 @ 3,200
Compression Ratio
10.3:1
Bore (inches)
4.25
Stroke (inches)
3.75
Valve Lifters
Hydraulic
Availability
1965 Coronet

Times*:
0-60 mph (sec)
7.9
0-100 mph (sec)
21.4
1/4-mile (sec)
15.4 @ 89 mph
Top speed (mph)
120
Axle ratio
3.55:1
Engine type
426 (365 hp)

*Source: Car Life (1965)

For more information on muscle cars, check out:

[Fleet 500]

None of those numbers had ANY BASIS IN FACT!

BALDWIN:

1969 Yenko Camaro 2 Fast 2 Furious Sport Compact Car (http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0307scc_1969_yenko_camaro/index.html)

NICKEY:
http://www.1967z28.com/graphics/Nickey3.jpg

DANA:
http://www.1967z28.com/graphics/dana4.jpg
http://www.1967z28.com/graphics/dana5.jpg

My point is that they were available in several stage of tune.

Here is the list of available engines from Motion-Baldwin from "Performance Car Guide '72":

Engine/model---------- Displacement-- HP----- Application
Phase III Z/30--------- 350-cu-in----- 400---- Street/strip
Phase III Z/30--------- 350----------- 425---- Street/strip
Phase III Z/30--------- 350----------- 475---- Competition
Phase III Z/30--------- 350----------- 400---- Marine

Phase III 427---------- 427----------- 450---- Street/strip and Marine
Phase III 427 Z/LX----- 427----------- 550---- Street/strip
Phase III 427 Z/LX----- 427----------- 600---- Competition
Phase III 427 Z/LX----- 427----------- 550---- Marine

Phase III 454---------- 454----------- 475---- Street/strip and Marine
Phase III 454 Z/LX----- 454----------- 575---- Street/strip
Phase III 454 Z/LX----- 454----------- 625---- Competition
Phase III 454 Z/LX----- 454----------- 575---- Marine
Phase III 480 Z/LX----- 480----------- 700---- Competition and Marine

[Fleet 500]

Your mental retardation is once again showing.

The result you posted was for the stripped, R spec, PURPOSE BUILT FACTORY DRAG RACING CARS! They WOULD NOT RUN ON PUMP GAS. And those results were achieved on OPEN, AFTERMARKET HEADERS AND DRAG SLICKS!

The S Spec (STREET) cars would run on pump gas and were STREET CARS. They ran mid FOURTEENS!
You are TOO funny!
I've read that the 426-Hemi could be modified to make 700-750 hp on PUMP GAS!!!
Also, the '65 Dodge Coronet was NOT a Max Wedge. The Max Wedge was made only three production years... 1962-1964. Try again.

[harddrivin1le]

You are TOO funny!
I've read that the 426-Hemi could be modified to make 700-750 hp on PUMP GAS!!!
Also, the '65 Dodge Coronet was NOT a Max Wedge. The Max Wedge was made only three production years... 1962-1964. Try again.

Post a dyno test of a "Max Wedge" producing "700 - 750 HP on pump gas."

The MAX WEDGE was a DRAG RACING ENGINE (but a lame one by modern standards).

The STREET version of that engine went like this:

Howstuffworks "1965 Dodge Coronet 426 Street Wedge Specifications" (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1965-dodge-coronet-426-street-wedge1.htm)

Engine Type
V-8/RB-Wedge
Displacement (cid)
426
Horsepower @ rpm:
365 @ 4,800
Torque (pounds/feet) @ rpm
470 @ 3,200
Compression Ratio
10.3:1
Bore (inches)
4.25
Stroke (inches)
3.75
Valve Lifters
Hydraulic
Availability
1965 Coronet

Times*:
0-60 mph (sec)
7.9
0-100 mph (sec)
21.4
[COLOR="Red"]1/4-mile (sec)
15.4 @ 89 mph

[harddrivin1le]

Musclecarclub.com - Muscle Car Engines (http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-engines.shtml#mopar-426wedge)

EXCERPT:

"The 426 Max Wedge was strictly designed for racing, and was offered in Plymouths as the Super Stock 426 and in Dodges as the 426 Ramcharger (the spelling was changed)....

With the introduction of the 426 race Hemi in 1964, racers had an even more powerful engine to use. The Hemi was designed to surpass the 426 Max Wedge, but the Hemi's production was limited, so the 426 Max Wedge remained a viable and affordable alternative. The 426 Max Wedge stayed in production through 1964.

There also was a street version of the 426 in 1964, but it lacked virtually all the Max Wedge components--with good reason. While you could walk into any Dodge or Plymouth dealer and order your Mopar with a 426 Max Wedge, the trouble started when you took delivery and tried to drive it home. The engine was almost undrivable on the street: the 426 MaxWedge was a racing engine, pure and simple. The 426 street wedge, while lacking the power of its snarling brother, also had none of the headaches."

[Fleet 500]

Post a dyno test of a "Max Wedge" producing "700 - 750 HP on pump gas."

The MAX WEDGE was a DRAG RACING ENGINE (but a lame one by modern standards).

I said a 426-HEMI engine could produce 700-750 (gross) hp on pump gas. And I wouldn't call the Max Wedge lame when it could put those lightweight early '60s through the 1/4 mile in the mid-12s or better.


The STREET version of that engine went like this:

Howstuffworks "1965 Dodge Coronet 426 Street Wedge Specifications" (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1965-dodge-coronet-426-street-wedge1.htm)

Engine Type
V-8/RB-Wedge
Displacement (cid)
426
Horsepower @ rpm:
365 @ 4,800
Torque (pounds/feet) @ rpm
470 @ 3,200
Compression Ratio
10.3:1
Bore (inches)
4.25
Stroke (inches)
3.75
Valve Lifters
Hydraulic
Availability
1965 Coronet

Times*:
0-60 mph (sec)
7.9
0-100 mph (sec)
21.4
[COLOR="Red"]1/4-mile (sec)
15.4 @ 89 mph

Why are you listing specs for a 426-Wedge? It's completely different from the Max Wedge which had 410-425 hp.

[The_Canuck]

I said a 426-HEMI engine could produce 700-750 (gross) hp on pump gas. And I wouldn't call the Max Wedge lame when it could put those lightweight early '60s through the 1/4 mile in the mid-12s or better.



Why are you listing specs for a 426-Wedge? It's completely different from the Max Wedge which had 410-425 hp.

WTF

He has already stated the Max Wedge was a drag racing engine.

and he has already proved that Gross hp is a crock.

There is no argument anymore.

[harddrivin1le]

ALL of the internals on this little LS1 (346 cid) are BONE STOCK - except for the cam. The heads, block, pistons, rods, heads and valves are PRODUCTION LINE STOCK and this is all motor.

That's faster than the FULLY PREPPED "MAX WEDGE" and the Camaro does it on unleaded pump gas, a 10.1:1 CR and with just 346 cubic inches!

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/CAMONLYLS1.jpg?t=1192747815

[harddrivin1le]

I said a 426-HEMI engine could produce 700-750 (gross) hp on pump gas. And I wouldn't call the Max Wedge lame when it could put those lightweight early '60s through the 1/4 mile in the mid-12s or better.



Why are you listing specs for a 426-Wedge? It's completely different from the Max Wedge which had 410-425 hp.

Musclecarclub.com - Muscle Car Engines (http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-engines.shtml#mopar-426wedge)

EXCERPT:

"The 426 Max Wedge was strictly designed for racing, and was offered in Plymouths as the Super Stock 426 and in Dodges as the 426 Ramcharger (the spelling was changed)...The 11.0:1 engine developed 415 hp at 5600 rpm with 470 pounds-feet of torque at 4400 rpm. The 13.5:1 engine developed 425 hp at 5600 rpm and 480 pounds-feet of torque at 4400 rpm..

With the introduction of the 426 race Hemi in 1964, racers had an even more powerful engine to use. The Hemi was designed to surpass the 426 Max Wedge, but the Hemi's production was limited, so the 426 Max Wedge remained a viable and affordable alternative. The 426 Max Wedge stayed in production through 1964.

There also was a street version of the 426 in 1964, but it lacked virtually all the Max Wedge components--with good reason. While you could walk into any Dodge or Plymouth dealer and order your Mopar with a 426 Max Wedge, the trouble started when you took delivery and tried to drive it home. The engine was almost undrivable on the street: the 426 MaxWedge was a racing engine, pure and simple. The 426 street wedge, while lacking the power of its snarling brother, also had none of the headaches."

[hightower99]

Carbs benefit from from the Joule-Thomson effect, since both the fuel AND the air (as an emulsified mixture) are expanding though nozzles. With EFI, just the fuel is. The air in an EFI system is simply being directed through the thottle body and into the cylinders. Very little expansion occurs during that process, since no orifices/nozzles are involved.
Yes but how is that an advantage? When the air expands is decreases in density and cools down so basically you gain nothing. Now that the air is cooler it will absorb more heat from the intake manifold, ports and from the cylinder (because of greater temperature difference) which will decrease the density of the charge even more. So what happened at the end? you fill the cylinder with slightly cooler (a fraction of the difference measured just after the carb) but much less dense air/fuel charge... In an EFI system the evaporation of the fuel in the air stream lowers the temperature of the air just as it enters the cylinder and increases the relative density of the air. In the end the air in the cylinder of an engine using EFI will be cooler and denser.


READ THE LINKS! I did and there is nothing there that makes much of a point either way...



Yes, direct fuel injection is better than EFI or a carb. That wasn't the original "challengers" point, though. Glad to hear that you agree on that point...

[Fleet 500]

Musclecarclub.com - Muscle Car Engines (http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-engines.shtml#mopar-426wedge)

EXCERPT:

"The 426 Max Wedge was strictly designed for racing, and was offered in Plymouths as the Super Stock 426 and in Dodges as the 426 Ramcharger (the spelling was changed)....

With the introduction of the 426 race Hemi in 1964, racers had an even more powerful engine to use. The Hemi was designed to surpass the 426 Max Wedge, but the Hemi's production was limited, so the 426 Max Wedge remained a viable and affordable alternative. The 426 Max Wedge stayed in production through 1964.

There also was a street version of the 426 in 1964, but it lacked virtually all the Max Wedge components--with good reason. While you could walk into any Dodge or Plymouth dealer and order your Mopar with a 426 Max Wedge, the trouble started when you took delivery and tried to drive it home. The engine was almost undrivable on the street: the 426 MaxWedge was a racing engine, pure and simple. The 426 street wedge, while lacking the power of its snarling brother, also had none of the headaches."
That is right... the 426 Max Wedge was almost undrivable on the street. But not completely and some enthusiasts did indeed drive them on the street.

Here are specs of a '63 Dart Ramcharger with the 426/425 engine. Also listed is the '64 Polara with the milder 426/365 engine. Obviously, the Dart Ramcharger is faster, so posting specs (like you did) of the lower hp engine doesn't prove anything. Note that the Dart weighed over 500 lbs less than the Polara.

[harddrivin1le]

Time Warp: The G-r-r-eat 421 Aluminum Diet (http://www.pontiacserver.com/c62sd1.html)

There's a test of the "street version" of the SD421 Pontiac, although that was also barely streetable. (Roger Huntington's test SD421 was undoubtedly the 13:1 RACING version).

This SD421 was the 11:1 version and was fitted with long tube headers, a 4.88 axle ratio, slicks and a loose suspension (for better weight transfer).

So MODIFIED, its best run was a 13.12 at 105.77 mph.

That's good - for a 40 year old, 3,800 pound, stripped to the bone car.

It is NOTHING compared to this modern station wagon (with a super smooth, super quiet engine and loaded with every conceivable luxury option:

2007 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG Wagon - Specs - Car and Driver - November 2006 (http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/11969/2007-mercedes-benz-e63-amg-wagon-specs-page2.html)

[The_Canuck]

That is right... the 426 Max Wedge was almost undrivable on the street. But not completely and some enthusiasts did indeed drive them on the street.
.

Some in the U.S drive Atoms on the street, are they street cars? Surely not.

[Fleet 500]

Musclecarclub.com - Muscle Car Engines (http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-engines.shtml#mopar-426wedge)

EXCERPT:

"The 426 Max Wedge was strictly designed for racing, and was offered in Plymouths as the Super Stock 426 and in Dodges as the 426 Ramcharger (the spelling was changed)...The 11.0:1 engine developed 415 hp at 5600 rpm with 470 pounds-feet of torque at 4400 rpm. The 13.5:1 engine developed 425 hp at 5600 rpm and 480 pounds-feet of torque at 4400 rpm..

With the introduction of the 426 race Hemi in 1964, racers had an even more powerful engine to use. The Hemi was designed to surpass the 426 Max Wedge, but the Hemi's production was limited, so the 426 Max Wedge remained a viable and affordable alternative. The 426 Max Wedge stayed in production through 1964.

There also was a street version of the 426 in 1964, but it lacked virtually all the Max Wedge components--with good reason. While you could walk into any Dodge or Plymouth dealer and order your Mopar with a 426 Max Wedge, the trouble started when you took delivery and tried to drive it home. The engine was almost undrivable on the street: the 426 MaxWedge was a racing engine, pure and simple. The 426 street wedge, while lacking the power of its snarling brother, also had none of the headaches."
I know all of that already (I've been a Mopar fan for about 30 years).
What is your point?
The 426 Max Wedge engine was a racing engine, but it was a special-order engine, too. Or, as I like to put it, a limited-production engine.
You would be surprised how many cars with "race" engines I see at the weekly car gathering.

[harddrivin1le]

Yes but how is that an advantage? When the air expands is decreases in density and cools down so basically you gain nothing. Now that the air is cooler it will absorb more heat from the intake manifold, ports and from the cylinder (because of greater temperature difference) which will decrease the density of the charge even more. So what happened at the end? you fill the cylinder with slightly cooler (a fraction of the difference measured just after the carb) but much less dense air/fuel charge... In an EFI system the evaporation of the fuel in the air stream lowers the temperature of the air just as it enters the cylinder and increases the relative density of the air. In the end the air in the cylinder of an engine using EFI will be cooler and denser.

I did and there is nothing there that makes much of a point either way...


Glad to hear that you agree on that point...

Two of those links specifically compared fuel injection and a carb set-up on the same engine.

New Dog, Old Trick (http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0409em_gmpp/)

Holley carburetor vs Holley fuel injection (http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0305em_holley/index.html)

Pro Systems - Under The Scoop (http://www.pro-system.com/scoop92102.html)


There wasn't really enough difference to talk about in terms of results.

Both the fuel AND the air are expanding through very small orifices in a carb. The TOTAL CHARGE is therefore cooler, albeit only slightly.

"Modern fuel injection" plays only a very tiny role in the maximum performance of a modern car. That is fact.

So where's all the power coming from in modern engines?

The single greatest contributor is THE CYLINDER HEADS - much of which was made possible by modern design software.

[Fleet 500]

WTF

He has already stated the Max Wedge was a drag racing engine.

and he has already proved that Gross hp is a crock.

There is no argument anymore.
You're right... it is a crock.
Because quite a few '60s engines had a lower-than-actual gross hp rating. As he posted, the Mopar 340 engine made over 300 gross hp (it was rated at "275") and it's net rating was only 7-8% less than its gross rating.

And both the 390- and 428-cu-in Ford engines were rated at "335" hp. Anyone who believes that the gross hp of the 428 was only 335 is in for a shock!

[harddrivin1le]

...Anyone who believes that the gross hp of the 428 was only 335 is in for a shock!

Actually, anyone who believes that it even made 335 Gross HP is in for a shock.

The 428 "Cobra Jet" was essentially a station wagon engine fitted with a somewhat warmer cam.
(The MODIFIED examples ran pretty good in NHRA Super Stock Classes, but only after they were fully disassembled, fully blueprinted, fitted a hotter cam and valvetrain, open long tube racing headers, huge gears, massive slicks and drag suspension parts.)

Here are TWO chassis dyno tests of TWO different 428 Cobra Jets. (Get ready to be "shocked.")

240 REAR WHEEL HORSEPOWER:
8 Mustang Dynojet Showdown - 1967 Shelby GT500 - Mustang & Fords Magazine (http://www.mustangandfords.com/techarticles/5216_8_mustang_musclecars_dynojet/shelby_gt500.html)

275 REAR WHEEL HP (a very well tuned example fitted with a K&N filter and a custom, full dual exhaust system; the owner held an AHRA drag racing title):
8 Mustang Dynojet Showdown - 1968 GT500KR - Mustang & Fords Magazine (http://www.mustangandfords.com/techarticles/5216_8_mustang_musclecars_dynojet/1968_gt500kr.html)


This bone stock, 346 cid, 10.1:1 CR LS1 Camaro put more power to the ground than ANY of those 428 Cobra Jets! And the Camaro had cat converters, a SINGLE exhaust system and an AC compressor (albeit a free wheeling one). (Later LS1s made even more power.)

301 REAR WHEEL HORSEPOWER:
Stock '98 LS1 Camaro Dyno (http://www.ericohlsen.com/camarodyno)

[johnnynumfiv]

You're right... it is a crock.
Because quite a few '60s engines had a lower-than-actual gross hp rating. As he posted, the Mopar 340 engine made over 300 gross hp (it was rated at "275") and it's net rating was only 7-8% less than its gross rating.

And both the 390- and 428-cu-in Ford engines were rated at "335" hp. Anyone who believes that the gross hp of the 428 was only 335 is in for a shock!

In the end, does it really matter if they do make that power or not? To me, they are fun to drive around in and to work on, who gives a rat's ass if they make gross or net or whatever power. But since you are such a "car guy", I guess it's important to you what a magazine says about a car you don't have.

[Fleet 500]

Actually, anyone who believes that it even made 335 Gross HP is in for a shock.

The 428 "Cobra Jet" was essentially a station wagon engine fitted with a somewhat warmer cam.
(The MODIFIED examples ran pretty good in NHRA Super Stock Classes, but only after they were fully disassembled, fully blueprinted, fitted a hotter cam and valvetrain, open long tube racing headers, huge gears, massive slicks and drag suspension parts.)

Here are TWO chassis dyno tests of TWO different 428 Cobra Jets. (Get ready to be "shocked.")

240 REAR WHEEL HORSEPOWER:
8 Mustang Dynojet Showdown - 1967 Shelby GT500 - Mustang & Fords Magazine (http://www.mustangandfords.com/techarticles/5216_8_mustang_musclecars_dynojet/shelby_gt500.html)

275 REAR WHEEL HP (a very well tuned example fitted with a K&N filter and a custom, full dual exhaust system; the owner held an AHRA drag racing title):
8 Mustang Dynojet Showdown - 1968 GT500KR - Mustang & Fords Magazine (http://www.mustangandfords.com/techarticles/5216_8_mustang_musclecars_dynojet/1968_gt500kr.html)


This bone stock, 346 cid, 10.1:1 CR LS1 Camaro put more power to the ground than ANY of those 428 Cobra Jets! And the Camaro had cat converters, a SINGLE exhaust system and an AC compressor (albeit a free wheeling one). (Later LS1s made even more power.)

301 REAR WHEEL HORSEPOWER:
Stock '98 LS1 Camaro Dyno (http://www.ericohlsen.com/camarodyno)
Just look at the 1/4 mile speeds if you don't think it made more than 335 gross hp. Trap speeds (depending on rear axle ratio) was 95-100 mph and even over 100 mph. That shows you the engine is making a lot of hp.

Why are you posting rear wheel horsepower? What does that have to do with the actual gross hp?

Also, the 428 in the Ford muscle cars had more than just a "warmer cam." It used the big-port cylinder heads from the 427 NASCAR medium-riser engine, a 735 cfm Holley carb and low-restriction exhaust manifolds. But it was still rated at 335 hp, the same as the 390 engine. Yeah, sure... 335 (gross) hp! :rolleyes:

[Fleet 500]

In the end, does it really matter if they do make that power or not? To me, they are fun to drive around in and to work on, who gives a rat's ass if they make gross or net or whatever power. But since you are such a "car guy", I guess it's important to you what a magazine says about a car you don't have.
Yeah, that is true.
If I ever decide to buy the muscle car I want ('69 Dodge Coronet R/T 440-Magnum) just knowing that it could hit 100 mph at the end of the 1/4 mile will satisfy me. It will also show that it is making plenty of horsepower to reach that speed.

[harddrivin1le]

Yeah, that is true.
If I ever decide to buy the muscle car I want ('69 Dodge Coronet R/T 440-Magnum) just knowing that it could hit 100 mph at the end of the 1/4 mile will satisfy me. It will also show that it is making plenty of horsepower to reach that speed.

That '69 RT (with driver) weighs roughly 4,100 pounds.

The approximate amount of peak engine HP to push a vehicle of that weight through the traps @ 100 MPH is 320 HP (PEAK - SAE NET).

That's not a whole lot of power (or a whole lot of performance) by modern standards; something as common as a $25,000 Mazdaspeed 3 wagon is quicker and faster.

Your RT will be eating RICE DUST!

[johnnynumfiv]

Yeah, that is true.
If I ever decide to buy the muscle car I want ('69 Dodge Coronet R/T 440-Magnum) just knowing that it could hit 100 mph at the end of the 1/4 mile will satisfy me. It will also show that it is making plenty of horsepower to reach that speed.

You'd be surprised at the amount of cars of today that will hit 100mph in the 1/4.

[Fleet 500]

You'd be surprised at the amount of cars of today that will hit 100mph in the 1/4.
But they don't appeal to me. They are just too strange looking! A '69 Dodge Coronet R/T looks like a real car (it's not blob- or egg-shaped).
A '69 Coronet R/T gets lots of stares when it's out driving around.