Over inflated HP and TQ ratings?

[1974dodgecharger]

IM curious if the HP and TQ ratings from days past are from the rear wheel vs modern day cars where they rate it at the flywheel with the engine as a stand alone? Seems now cars with a 350 sized engine are producing more HP than days past of the 440 and beyond. All thanks to modern technologie or inflated?

[Ghoste]

Modern technology.  If anything it is the old ones that are over inflated.

[Troy]

Prior to 1972 engines were rated in "gross" horsepower - which was basically the engine running by itself with no power robbing accessories. After that the ratings changed to "net" which took into account all the things that would be installed once the engine was in the car. Obviously this hurt the numbers from a bragging rights standpoint it was more truthful. Although, the engines had also been "detuned" by then due to the EPA, gas quality, etc. so it looked like a lot bigger impact than it was. The modern engines are just flat out more powerful. A new Camry can outrun most musclecars in the 1/4 mile.

Troy

[Brass]

I read that auto manufacturers in the 60's and early 70's published very conservative HP numbers to keep premiums down - mostly because insurance companies were cracking down. 

[UH60L]

Modern technology.  If anything it is the old ones that are over inflated.

I could be wrong, but I saw a tv show a few years ago that claimed many engines from the '60s and early '70s, from all 3 manufacturers, were actually factory rated at far less than they were putting out (some several hudnred HP less than actual output....).  They supposedly built up several engiens using parts and building methods that were used back then and then ran tests on the engines to get HP numbers.

Wish I remembered the name of that show.  It was on the speed channel, which I don't have, and someone recorded it for me.

[greenpigs]

Some motors were listed lower than what they made, HEMI, LS6 454 and W30 455. Roger Hunigton-sic did a story years ago and had some math formula that showed who was bluffing & who was telling the truth. My memory is fuzzy on this but it was something to do with where the HP & torque numbers fell.

I think new cars are much closer to what the TRUE HP the engine produces.

[404NOTFOUND]

All I care about is that the old engines will blow away the new stuff with only the most basic and simple modifications and sound better while doing it. You still can't beat cubic inches.

[Indygenerallee]

Oldies are great but the new Hemi's are beasts with a tuner, camshaft and headers 5.7's are easy 420 FWHP with a .600 lift cam
plus getting 20+ mpg!

[404NOTFOUND]

Oldies are great but the new Hemi's are beasts with a tuner, camshaft and headers 5.7's are easy 420 FWHP with a .600 lift cam
plus getting 20+ mpg!

The new ones can go pretty good. I had a new hemi Challenger which I modified. It still can't compare with a 440. The computer helps in many ways but it always limits you as well. The computer giveth and the computer taketh away.

[1974dodgecharger]

All I care about is that the old engines will blow away the new stuff with only the most basic and simple modifications and sound better while doing it. You still can't beat cubic inches.

well like I said though a modern 350 seems more powerful than a old 440 though, but the 440 can be built to endless amounts of power which relates me to another questions:

Can the older engines be built for more power than the newer fuel injected modern engines?

[Mike DC]

 
Modern engines are also revved up like hell, and they are designed to run in those high ranges. 

Doubling the engine speed will increase the rate of gas burning just as much as you'd get from doubling the displacement.

[charger_fan_4ever]

I'm old school but in terms of pushrod power the Gm LS1 is retarded. Stock motor with just longtubes/exhaust/cam and a tune easily make 375-400HP at the tire and run 11's in the 1/4 mile for pretty cheap ~$1000.

[Ghoste]

Modern technology.  If anything it is the old ones that are over inflated.

I could be wrong, but I saw a tv show a few years ago that claimed many engines from the '60s and early '70s, from all 3 manufacturers, were actually factory rated at far less than they were putting out (some several hudnred HP less than actual output....).  They supposedly built up several engiens using parts and building methods that were used back then and then ran tests on the engines to get HP numbers.

Wish I remembered the name of that show.  It was on the speed channel, which I don't have, and someone recorded it for me.

A handful were underrated (426 Hemi, 428 Cobra Jet etc.) but I think you will find most were overrated. 

[XS29L9Bxxxxxx]

Prior to 1972 engines were rated in "gross" horsepower - which was basically the engine running by itself with no power robbing accessories. After that the ratings changed to "net" which took into account all the things that would be installed once the engine was in the car. Obviously this hurt the numbers from a bragging rights standpoint it was more truthful. Although, the engines had also been "detuned" by then due to the EPA, gas quality, etc. so it looked like a lot bigger impact than it was. The modern engines are just flat out more powerful. A new Camry can outrun most musclecars in the 1/4 mile.

Troy

Agreed ++ 

Speaking of Camry, with new SAE Certified Power ratings, their numbers actually "declined" over previous, uncertified numbers. The new SAE testing methods are voluntary and the Corvette Z06 7.0L engine (when new) was the first to be tested under these parameters.

While "old" engines sound great, with few exceptions, they did not have power like newer, (multi-valve) modern V6 and even 4 Cyl. engines of today.

[XS29L9Bxxxxxx]

I'm old school but in terms of pushrod power the Gm LS1 is retarded. Stock motor with just longtubes/exhaust/cam and a tune easily make 375-400HP at the tire and run 11's in the 1/4 mile for pretty cheap ~$1000.

It takes more than $1,000 to add "longtubes/exhaust/cam and tune", even if you discount the price for one's own labor 

[RECHRGD]

Just check out the stock 1/4 mile times versus the advertised HP of any given car, back in the day.  Most of the times are right in line with the HP ratings, even the HEMI's.

[Troy]

I read that auto manufacturers in the 60's and early 70's published very conservative HP numbers to keep premiums down - mostly because insurance companies were cracking down. 

What they did was publish hp and torque numbers that were real - just not at the peak. For example, if your engine put out 500 hp at 4,500 RPM you may publish that it put out 425 hp at 3,800 rpm. As far as I know, the Hemi and 340 Six Pack engines rarely matched whatever the factory claimed. A long time ago I read reports of new/low mile cars dyno tested and they were putting out as much power at the wheels as they were supposed to be putting out at the crank. One test had a 340 rebuilt to exact specs and it was way higher than claimed.

Now, when you get to production, things vary wildly. Quality control back then wasn't great AND they had a pretty generous tolerance margin. That allowed many engines to pass (and get installed in a car) that were on the very low end of the acceptable range. You certainly want to err on the side of caution (warranty replacements are expensive after all) which left pistons to far down in the hole and loose tolerances in places that have a big effect. Putting one of these up against an engine that was very close to the design specs would show an obvious difference. I've always wanted to build an engine the way the factory spec'd it just to see if there was a before/after improvement. I chicken out because it's so easy to build it better than the spec (I don't have to warranty the thing).

Troy

[kikgas01]

Great topic.

[XS29L]

Speed channel had that show American Musclecar and they did an episode on "true" hp for several engines. I have to say I'm a BIG fan of the 426 hemi but the numbers were WAY high for a street hemi , more inline for an A990 super stock hemi of the late 60s. Looked on you tube for it but no luck yet.   

[charger_fan_4ever]

I'm old school but in terms of pushrod power the Gm LS1 is retarded. Stock motor with just longtubes/exhaust/cam and a tune easily make 375-400HP at the tire and run 11's in the 1/4 mile for pretty cheap ~$1000.

It takes more than $1,000 to add "longtubes/exhaust/cam and tune", even if you discount the price for one's own labor  

I was meaning in parts and you do the work yourself.
headers $369
http://www.ebay.com/itm/BBK-98-02-GM-LS1-F-BODY-1-3-4-LONGTUBE-HEADERS-CHROME-1694-/160671680376?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item2568c74778&vxp=mtr

y pipe $139
http://www.ebay.com/itm/98-02-Camaro-Firebird-Pacesetter-LS1-3-Off-Road-Y-Pipe-/290681055039?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item43adf0e73f&vxp=mtr

Custom cam ~$350

Best LS1 tuner tunedbyfrost.com $150 for a mail order tune for bolt ons

That was a close guess at $1000 369+139+350+150= $1008

Plus if your starting with an 01-02 engine they already have the better aluminum heads and ls6 intake. Have those ported $1100
http://www.lingenfelter.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=LS1CNC-C&Category_Code=P016&Store_Code=LPE

Your at 500 rear wheel HP For under $3000. Only downfall is the stock rearend is a crap shoot.

Mind you a bolt on car with ~375hp at the wheels would be plenty fun. Had to look away many times as i'd like to dip into the charger fund to buy a LS1 car.  

[redmist]

Just check out the stock 1/4 mile times versus the advertised HP of any given car, back in the day.  Most of the times are right in line with the HP ratings, even the HEMI's.

the problem with this is that "back in the day" the 1/4 mile was run on Crap bias ply tires, and the guys in the videos from those days smoke the tires for the first 80 feet. It makes you wonder, has anyone with a stock base charger or the likes ran the 1/4 with just a tire change to modern rubber??

[XS29L9Bxxxxxx]

Having had an f-body w/ 375 rwhp, it was fun, indeed. But it also took more than a hodge podge of parts to make it work reliably.

But I get your point 

[XS29L]

Speed channel had that show American Musclecar and they did an episode on "true" hp for several engines. I have to say I'm a BIG fan of the 426 hemi but the numbers were WAY high for a street hemi , more inline for an A990 super stock hemi of the late 60s. Looked on you tube for it but no luck yet.   

The episode was called Fastest muscle engines aired in 2007. Still haven't found a video yet.

[myk]

Mind you a bolt on car with ~375hp at the wheels would be plenty fun. Had to look away many times as i'd like to dip into the charger fund to buy a LS1 car.  

I'm glad SOMEONE was able to resist the LSx engine temptation as I wasn't able to.  You have to hand it to the 4.1 Gen F body's, cars that could run 13's right out of the showroom and still using old-school pushrod technology.  Mine's bone stock but the sky's the limit with that thing...

[freddyd02]

Just check out the stock 1/4 mile times versus the advertised HP of any given car, back in the day.  Most of the times are right in line with the HP ratings, even the HEMI's.

the problem with this is that "back in the day" the 1/4 mile was run on Crap bias ply tires, and the guys in the videos from those days smoke the tires for the first 80 feet. It makes you wonder, has anyone with a stock base charger or the likes ran the 1/4 with just a tire change to modern rubber??

Ya a new camry would probably beat a 318 all the way up to a stock 440, but weight and as one member said really crappy tires play a huge role too. But don't get me wrong, we as humans advance at everything as the years pass.. The internal combustion engine was 60-70 years old back then, now its 112 or so and technology makes it better, same with everything else, weapons, jets and so on. There's going to be a point in time when these cars wont even be allowed on the road, there might not even be a road! who knows