Comments on: Underrating horsepower, back from the 1960’s. http://www.ontariostreetcar.com/2009/10/28/underrating-horsepower-more-common-than-ever/ Automotive Industry News! Tue, 04 May 2010 06:42:12 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: hospedagem http://www.ontariostreetcar.com/2009/10/28/underrating-horsepower-more-common-than-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-3829 hospedagem Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:46:21 +0000 http://www.ontariostreetcar.com/?p=666#comment-3829 nice blog nice blog

]]> By: jesse http://www.ontariostreetcar.com/2009/10/28/underrating-horsepower-more-common-than-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-3525 jesse Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:14:41 +0000 http://www.ontariostreetcar.com/?p=666#comment-3525 As tested. Put a 426 hemi, 340 or 350 LT1 on an engine dyno with no accessories and a performance tune and see what they lay down. Correct a 426 Hemi will make 350-370...to the wheels. As tested.

Put a 426 hemi, 340 or 350 LT1 on an engine dyno with no accessories and a performance tune and see what they lay down.

Correct a 426 Hemi will make 350-370…to the wheels.

]]> By: CARSforFUN http://www.ontariostreetcar.com/2009/10/28/underrating-horsepower-more-common-than-ever/comment-page-1/#comment-3524 CARSforFUN Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:49:10 +0000 http://www.ontariostreetcar.com/?p=666#comment-3524 You are completely wrong about the 1960s engines. Today's engines are rated at NET horsepower, 1970 and earlier american engines were rated at GROSS horsepower, a meaningless OVERRATED number. The old 426 hemi from the 1960s actually had about 350 to 370 horsepower, less than today's smaller hemi. A corvette LT1 engine from 1970 actually had about 275 net horsepower. The 360 was that overrated gross figure, means nothing, since european cars of the day were rated DIN, about the same as net horsepower. Look at the 1971 ratings, the only year they published both gross and net. The 1970 net would be slightly higher than 1971, about 15 to 20 HP more, because 1971 compression ratios were much lower. There were no small block engines from the 1960s that had 300 NET horsepower, and only a few big blocks had 300 or more. The average big block V8 engine of the 1960s had about the same power as an average V6 has today, and the average small block like an average 4 cylinder today. So the old american engines were never underrated. But that does happen today, as you pointed out. It also happened with the late 1990s Z28, rated at 325 hp, when it was making 300 to the wheels, which means the actual was about 375. No 1960s engine made more than that stock. You are completely wrong about the 1960s engines. Today’s engines are rated at NET horsepower, 1970 and earlier american engines were rated at GROSS horsepower, a meaningless OVERRATED number. The old 426 hemi from the 1960s actually had about 350 to 370 horsepower, less than today’s smaller hemi. A corvette LT1 engine from 1970 actually had about 275 net horsepower. The 360 was that overrated gross figure, means nothing, since european cars of the day were rated DIN, about the same as net horsepower. Look at the 1971 ratings, the only year they published both gross and net. The 1970 net would be slightly higher than 1971, about 15 to 20 HP more, because 1971 compression ratios were much lower. There were no small block engines from the 1960s that had 300 NET horsepower, and only a few big blocks had 300 or more. The average big block V8 engine of the 1960s had about the same power as an average V6 has today, and the average small block like an average 4 cylinder today. So the old american engines were never underrated. But that does happen today, as you pointed out. It also happened with the late 1990s Z28, rated at 325 hp, when it was making 300 to the wheels, which means the actual was about 375. No 1960s engine made more than that stock.

]]>