What happened to the HP (67->95)
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,931
From: Upstate NY
Originally posted by Van5150
Before Emissions at the Muscle Car peak those auto Engrs. did anything and everything they could to get more power. They had barely streetable cams, huge cubic inches, huge 4-barrels, some had 2-4 barrels.
Well, yes and no.
Some of the "huge" cams of the 60s were very lazy compared to today's profiles. So the had to use lots of duration and lots of overlap just to get some lift and area under the curve.
Most of the street engines, (not the very rare race engines) were not all that powerful. I worked for a major player at the time. We had 400 hp capacity dynos which could be overloaded to about 450 hp or so, and rarely did even a Super Duty engine max out the dyno.
For the typical Gross Horsepower test (GM 20, I think it was), the engine was run without an air cleaner or production exhaust system. The dyno exhaust was connected to the manifolds and had a slight vacuum to keep exhaust fumes out of the dyno room. No fan, no engine driven accessories and best fuel and spark timinlg. That means that at every step (no accelerating @ 300 rpm/second), the timing was adjusted by remotely rotating the distributor for best torque reading, then fuel mixture was adjusted for best torque then timing then fuel again until best of the best was reached. Then on to the next step.
How the was fuel was adjusted on the dyno was interesting: the float bowls were drilled and a small air fitting was installed. By putting a little pressure on top of the fuel in the bowl, the engine richened up a llittle. By pulling a slight vacuum on the top of the fuel in the bowl, it leaned up. Fuel flow at each point was recorded for BSFC and so the carb guys could try to duplicate that fuel curve fairly closely.
Even drag racers couldn't get that exact timing and fuel.
Oh yeah, power and torque were corrected to 60*F carb air inlet temp, dry air and 29.92 in Hg (I think). Rarely does an engine see those conditions in the real world.
There were also "as installed" tests run with all accessories exhaust, intake plumbing etc. run which pretty much duplicates today's method of rating production engines. Those numbers were never published before "net" numbers started being used.
Oh yeah, there was lots of lying. If an engine needed to have a hp rating of 348 hp @ 5200, maybe it did that in gross hp and maybe it didn't. To be fair, most of the production engines I saw were pretty much what was claimed in the gross hp test. Some were even underrated when the powers that be said stuff like a pony car couldn't have more hp than a Vette. In one case, a pony car needed to be about 15 hp below the signature muscle car with the exact same engine, so a little tab was added to the carb linkage to prevent full opening of the secondaries. Just bending that (fairly flimsy) tab out of the was was a quick 15 hp.
I can honestly say that I never saw any (non race) engine go over 400 hp in the "as installed" test which equates to today's readings. Not even close. With the LS6 already at 405, the factories are doing a heck of a lot better with 346 cubes on 91 octane than 450 cubes engines did on 100+ 35 or so years ago. Shoot, the Escalade 6.0 is stronger than any non-race engine I ever saw on the factory dyno.
Could you imagine the power we would have from the factory today if they had no emission rules to follow, if we had much higher octane gasoline. The technology today ie. Fuel Injection, Programable fuel/spark maps, even the camshafts we have today were not possible to make in the old days.
Absolutely! Airflow technology has come a very long way. Good head and cam and exhaust packages we put on LS1s today are an example of what you said. With a good possibility of nearly 500 rear wheel hp available with the correct airflow and valvetrain work, we are talking about 600 flywheel "gross" hp with bolt ons. That's about 50++ more than a NASCAR Grand National engine (today's Nextel Cup) actually dynoed back then.
But even if the factory could make these higher performing cars today, we would still find something to improve upon, thats what we do.
Yep, but it takes more than just a "Bobcat Package" of thin head gasket, advance curve and jet changes like it did back then.
Before Emissions at the Muscle Car peak those auto Engrs. did anything and everything they could to get more power. They had barely streetable cams, huge cubic inches, huge 4-barrels, some had 2-4 barrels.
Well, yes and no.
Some of the "huge" cams of the 60s were very lazy compared to today's profiles. So the had to use lots of duration and lots of overlap just to get some lift and area under the curve.
Most of the street engines, (not the very rare race engines) were not all that powerful. I worked for a major player at the time. We had 400 hp capacity dynos which could be overloaded to about 450 hp or so, and rarely did even a Super Duty engine max out the dyno.
For the typical Gross Horsepower test (GM 20, I think it was), the engine was run without an air cleaner or production exhaust system. The dyno exhaust was connected to the manifolds and had a slight vacuum to keep exhaust fumes out of the dyno room. No fan, no engine driven accessories and best fuel and spark timinlg. That means that at every step (no accelerating @ 300 rpm/second), the timing was adjusted by remotely rotating the distributor for best torque reading, then fuel mixture was adjusted for best torque then timing then fuel again until best of the best was reached. Then on to the next step.
How the was fuel was adjusted on the dyno was interesting: the float bowls were drilled and a small air fitting was installed. By putting a little pressure on top of the fuel in the bowl, the engine richened up a llittle. By pulling a slight vacuum on the top of the fuel in the bowl, it leaned up. Fuel flow at each point was recorded for BSFC and so the carb guys could try to duplicate that fuel curve fairly closely.
Even drag racers couldn't get that exact timing and fuel.
Oh yeah, power and torque were corrected to 60*F carb air inlet temp, dry air and 29.92 in Hg (I think). Rarely does an engine see those conditions in the real world.
There were also "as installed" tests run with all accessories exhaust, intake plumbing etc. run which pretty much duplicates today's method of rating production engines. Those numbers were never published before "net" numbers started being used.
Oh yeah, there was lots of lying. If an engine needed to have a hp rating of 348 hp @ 5200, maybe it did that in gross hp and maybe it didn't. To be fair, most of the production engines I saw were pretty much what was claimed in the gross hp test. Some were even underrated when the powers that be said stuff like a pony car couldn't have more hp than a Vette. In one case, a pony car needed to be about 15 hp below the signature muscle car with the exact same engine, so a little tab was added to the carb linkage to prevent full opening of the secondaries. Just bending that (fairly flimsy) tab out of the was was a quick 15 hp.
I can honestly say that I never saw any (non race) engine go over 400 hp in the "as installed" test which equates to today's readings. Not even close. With the LS6 already at 405, the factories are doing a heck of a lot better with 346 cubes on 91 octane than 450 cubes engines did on 100+ 35 or so years ago. Shoot, the Escalade 6.0 is stronger than any non-race engine I ever saw on the factory dyno.
Could you imagine the power we would have from the factory today if they had no emission rules to follow, if we had much higher octane gasoline. The technology today ie. Fuel Injection, Programable fuel/spark maps, even the camshafts we have today were not possible to make in the old days.
Absolutely! Airflow technology has come a very long way. Good head and cam and exhaust packages we put on LS1s today are an example of what you said. With a good possibility of nearly 500 rear wheel hp available with the correct airflow and valvetrain work, we are talking about 600 flywheel "gross" hp with bolt ons. That's about 50++ more than a NASCAR Grand National engine (today's Nextel Cup) actually dynoed back then.
But even if the factory could make these higher performing cars today, we would still find something to improve upon, thats what we do.
Yep, but it takes more than just a "Bobcat Package" of thin head gasket, advance curve and jet changes like it did back then.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,591
From: PA
Originally posted by OldSStroker
In one case, a pony car needed to be about 15 hp below the signature muscle car with the exact same engine, so a little tab was added to the carb linkage to prevent full opening of the secondaries. Just bending that (fairly flimsy) tab out of the was was a quick 15 hp.
In one case, a pony car needed to be about 15 hp below the signature muscle car with the exact same engine, so a little tab was added to the carb linkage to prevent full opening of the secondaries. Just bending that (fairly flimsy) tab out of the was was a quick 15 hp.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 112
Thank you for all your input it has been very helpful in answering the older generation and the false theorys of the new generation. But I what kind of gross hp is the lt1 putting out? and if it is lower hp than the older cars have what does a person like me do about that? (95z) It just seams like there is little to do to significantly raise the HP outside of a supercharger and NO2.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 771
From: Houston Tx
the things that killed the hp yes the were rated different but back then a couple things basicly killed the muscle cars. first off leaded gas was no longer was thrown out hte window, made a little difference but not much then, the insurance companys got on to you the higher the hp rating from the factory the higher insurance, then they had a gas sortage which muscle cars were parked or sold for a more fuel friendly car. Also I think technology had a great deal to do with it way back they didnt think like they do now they though like a cave man. this is what they thought well we have a 4200 pound iron box with no aero dynamics beast that runs 14.0s in the quarter. so lets just add more power and bam they got better times. well now they think opposite it like lets take some weight off the car make it more aero dynamic and bam a car with half the hp but still goes just as fast if not way faster.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 735
From: Windy City
Im gunna give the win to the old muscle cars. As stated before the tires that these cars came off the show room floor, would not provide no where near the needed traction to allow those cars to hook up.
If you were to go to a dragstrip back in 71 on a test n tune day, and watch those cars run, most of them would be lucky to run mid 13's. But I will tell you this, those cars were smoking the tires almost halfway down the track. I was told this by many old hot rodders and by people who were into drag racing in the 60-70's. We are also talking about full frame, all metal , 4000lbs cars here. These things were tanks, and had insane amounts of tourqe, that could rip stumps out of the ground.
Now the moderm muscle cars of today, cut better 1/4 miles stock, because of the tire technology, and suspenshion technology. If you get a chance pick up a mopar muslce, or a chevy hi performance. Now and then, they will take a bone stock muscle car, and test it at the strip. Then they will add a set of slicks. and watch them e.t.'s drop like a box of rocks.
I love GM's moderm muscle cars of today, but IMO nothing is compares to old American Iron Muscle cars. Back in the 60-70's you had a choice between 3 different types of v8 power plants, 2 types of transmissions, and good choice of rear axel ratios from the factory. Your cars back then could come with 12 bolt , 9inch, and Dana rear ends. I dont know, but I just feel that the old muscle cars were 10X better.
But the old muscle cars, couldnt ride, corner, brake, launch, wiegh, like modern muscle cars do. Back then fuel was alot cheaper, so you could have larger C.I. motors, with poor fuel economy, with big carbs or multiple carbs. Now you have strict emission laws and rules that the factory has to meet. And no longer can these cars come with 11to1 compression ratios.
My whole moral of this stupid speech is, respect the old muscle cars. If it wasnt for them, we wouldnt have our modern fbodies. Respect them, because if you goto your local strips, chances are your 60-70 muscle cars are dominating the 1/4 mile. Respect the old muscle cars, because they were a hell lot easier to work on, and had alot more room in the engine bays!!!!!!!
Ok im done
Anyone wanna trade a 97 Formula for a old 60-70's Bowtie in here? lol Im open
If you were to go to a dragstrip back in 71 on a test n tune day, and watch those cars run, most of them would be lucky to run mid 13's. But I will tell you this, those cars were smoking the tires almost halfway down the track. I was told this by many old hot rodders and by people who were into drag racing in the 60-70's. We are also talking about full frame, all metal , 4000lbs cars here. These things were tanks, and had insane amounts of tourqe, that could rip stumps out of the ground.
Now the moderm muscle cars of today, cut better 1/4 miles stock, because of the tire technology, and suspenshion technology. If you get a chance pick up a mopar muslce, or a chevy hi performance. Now and then, they will take a bone stock muscle car, and test it at the strip. Then they will add a set of slicks. and watch them e.t.'s drop like a box of rocks.
I love GM's moderm muscle cars of today, but IMO nothing is compares to old American Iron Muscle cars. Back in the 60-70's you had a choice between 3 different types of v8 power plants, 2 types of transmissions, and good choice of rear axel ratios from the factory. Your cars back then could come with 12 bolt , 9inch, and Dana rear ends. I dont know, but I just feel that the old muscle cars were 10X better.
But the old muscle cars, couldnt ride, corner, brake, launch, wiegh, like modern muscle cars do. Back then fuel was alot cheaper, so you could have larger C.I. motors, with poor fuel economy, with big carbs or multiple carbs. Now you have strict emission laws and rules that the factory has to meet. And no longer can these cars come with 11to1 compression ratios.
My whole moral of this stupid speech is, respect the old muscle cars. If it wasnt for them, we wouldnt have our modern fbodies. Respect them, because if you goto your local strips, chances are your 60-70 muscle cars are dominating the 1/4 mile. Respect the old muscle cars, because they were a hell lot easier to work on, and had alot more room in the engine bays!!!!!!!
Ok im done
Anyone wanna trade a 97 Formula for a old 60-70's Bowtie in here? lol Im open
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 187
From: TX
Originally posted by pelebkf
Thank you for all your input it has been very helpful in answering the older generation and the false theorys of the new generation. But I what kind of gross hp is the lt1 putting out? and if it is lower hp than the older cars have what does a person like me do about that? (95z) It just seams like there is little to do to significantly raise the HP outside of a supercharger and NO2.
Thank you for all your input it has been very helpful in answering the older generation and the false theorys of the new generation. But I what kind of gross hp is the lt1 putting out? and if it is lower hp than the older cars have what does a person like me do about that? (95z) It just seams like there is little to do to significantly raise the HP outside of a supercharger and NO2.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 187
From: TX
And the stock cars back then that did run in the 12 on slicks were huge big block motors...You gotta compare it equally...If you want to compare a mopar 426 hemi to something compare it to a "big block" dodge viper.
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 622
From: Nashville, TN
Ok, we all realize now the gross hp measurements were more optimistic than the net figures of today. But even still, many engines then were underrated, so even if they were rated in gross form, the ratings weren't really that optimistic.
As for the old LT1's running slower than a modern LT1, that is entirely not true. In bone stock form off the showroom floor with stock bias plus tires, a 70 1/2 LT1 4spd ran 14.1's @ 101-102mph, exactly what a stock 6spd LT1 runs. However, with slicks and open headers, the exact car ran a 12.89 @108mph. Trapping that high on slicks is a sure indicator of the car's potential not to mention the small tweaks such as carb jetting we would consider free mods of today that you could do. Also, the old LT1's had an all forged bottom end, iron block and 4 bolt mains. Sure the new cars run some impressive times but the improvements in tires and suspensions do more than many realize not to mention a 70 1/2 LT1 weighed close to the same as the 03 Cobras which is close to 3800 lbs. My friend's 79 Z28 only has a warmed over 350 out of an 84 3/4 ton truck that puts out a little over 300hp at the crank through 3.42's and a posi and a Hughes TH400. That thing with good tires is still severely traction limited, noticeably worse than a 3.23 A4 Z.
Jason
As for the old LT1's running slower than a modern LT1, that is entirely not true. In bone stock form off the showroom floor with stock bias plus tires, a 70 1/2 LT1 4spd ran 14.1's @ 101-102mph, exactly what a stock 6spd LT1 runs. However, with slicks and open headers, the exact car ran a 12.89 @108mph. Trapping that high on slicks is a sure indicator of the car's potential not to mention the small tweaks such as carb jetting we would consider free mods of today that you could do. Also, the old LT1's had an all forged bottom end, iron block and 4 bolt mains. Sure the new cars run some impressive times but the improvements in tires and suspensions do more than many realize not to mention a 70 1/2 LT1 weighed close to the same as the 03 Cobras which is close to 3800 lbs. My friend's 79 Z28 only has a warmed over 350 out of an 84 3/4 ton truck that puts out a little over 300hp at the crank through 3.42's and a posi and a Hughes TH400. That thing with good tires is still severely traction limited, noticeably worse than a 3.23 A4 Z.
Jason
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 420
From: Warrenton, VA
Don't trash this guy for posting this question on old muscle cars. I'm 25 and since I was 12 I've heard from almost everyone, "Oh, I remember the old cars...oh they were better... they had 1200 hp stock...oh they could snap your head off accelerating...I remember my old ---blank-- it would jump over buildings and approach the speed of light at top speed...etc."
Hearing this from my dad and everybody else left me thinking that the old cars were better. Anybody growing up hearing this, (and this is almost all you hear, I have hardly ever heard someone say, "get real dad, anything we could build then, we can build now only better") is going to have ingrained in them that somehow older cars were better. It leaves one thinking, and the attitude seems to be an institution in America today, that we had some great car building knowledge back in the day that we have lost, like they knowledge of the greats in Atlantis that was lost never to be regained, and we can't build cars like that anymore.
Of course this idea is stupid but it is what has basically been taught to any young man today by every older man they heard from growing up.
Hearing this from my dad and everybody else left me thinking that the old cars were better. Anybody growing up hearing this, (and this is almost all you hear, I have hardly ever heard someone say, "get real dad, anything we could build then, we can build now only better") is going to have ingrained in them that somehow older cars were better. It leaves one thinking, and the attitude seems to be an institution in America today, that we had some great car building knowledge back in the day that we have lost, like they knowledge of the greats in Atlantis that was lost never to be regained, and we can't build cars like that anymore.
Of course this idea is stupid but it is what has basically been taught to any young man today by every older man they heard from growing up.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 112
Man It has been since Dec since I posted my last question. I never though this thread would be brought back to life. But I am amazed that I got HAMERED 4 months after my post. Sorry I am not as experienced about older compared to newer cars but I thought this was at least a fair question. Especially for all the rumors of the old generation. But again thanks for all the replys guys. It has been helpful.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 434
From: FARGO!!!
Another thing I think people are missing is that a lot of todays motors are underated as well. LT1 somewhat, but the LS1 more so. They are also underatted using net hp instead of gross. I wonder what the gross hp of an LS1 would be? Ibet it would be the same or better than any old school small blocks factory with twice the reliability and gas milage. My dad use to be big into oldschool muscle back in the days. I let him drive my LT1 and he said it was one of the fastest car he has driven (for a street car) He actuallt helped build a race track near here and worked there. It's still here too.