Car Chat General discussion about Lexus, other auto manufacturers and automotive news.

Modern vs. Vintage: Horsepower through the years

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-15-13, 11:51 PM
  #1  
Hoovey689
Moderator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
 
Hoovey689's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California
Posts: 42,283
Received 122 Likes on 82 Posts
Default Modern vs. Vintage: Horsepower through the years

Modern vs. Vintage: Horsepower through the years



Gallery:
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/retro...#photo-167280/

Today's horses must be Clydesdale-class, at least when compared to the horses we were saddling up back in the 1960s and early '70s. How else can you explain the real-world performance figures of yesteryear, when muscle cars were routinely pushing out well over 400 horsepower and quarter-mile timeslips in the 14s, with the 12-second runs we see today from a similar number of (rated) ponies? Well, actually, there are a number of reasons... and none of them has anything to do with a four-legged horse or the way we calculate how much power that animal may have (that's another sordid affair for another sorted time).

For one thing, there's the issue of the actual rating process. Before 1971, engines were factory rated using a process defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers as 'Gross' horsepower. This figure was calculated on a test stand with no intake, exhaust or power-robbing accessories attached. After 1971, power levels dropped as manufacturers re-rated engines using the SAE's 'Net' process, which added intake and exhaust restrictions and the load of engine accessories, like the alternator and power-steering pump.

But there must be an equalizer, right? How do we know how much horsepower our favorite classic muscle cars really put down as compared to our latest batch of favorites from today's showrooms? We suggest you check out this informative article from Hagerty (below), which explains why a horse is a horse, of course, and why we shouldn't necessarily take off our rose-colored glasses even when presented with clear-as-day performance numbers that show things are better today than they had ever been in the past.

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/08/15/m...ugh-the-years/

Forty years after the end of the “classic” muscle car era, there is still some confusion over horsepower ratings, especially how they relate to today’s cars. Let’s try to clear it up.

Prior to 1972, American carmakers used the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) “gross” measurement of horsepower. Gross meant the figure was taken from an engine running on a test stand, with no air cleaner assembly, accessories or exhaust system connected.

By 1971, carmakers began reducing compression in many engines in order to meet upcoming emissions requirements and to use unleaded fuel. General Motors and Chrysler began advertising both gross and SAE net figures in 1971, derived from an engine tested with air cleaner assembly, accessories or exhaust system connected.

The net ratings, which were applied across the board for 1972, must have been a shock to some customers. Suddenly, muscle cars appeared to lose 100 hp or more.

For example, the Corvette’s optional LT-1 350 cu. in. small block V-8 had 370 gross hp in 1970 (with 11:1 compression), then a 330 hp gross rating (with 9:1 compression) for 1971-1972 with a 255 hp net rating. The mighty Chrysler 426 cu. in. Hemi kept its high compression and 425 hp gross rating for 1971 and showed 350 net hp.

Jim Campisano, editorial director of Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords and Super Chevy magazines, has revisited the classic muscle car horsepower topic numerous times over the years. The magazines have compared old and new muscle cars and have also put classic models on a chassis dynamometer to record rear-wheel horsepower.

“Rear wheel horsepower was at least 30 percent lower than the reported gross figure, in some cases even more,” Campisano said.

Some Super Chevy readers must have been stunned to see that an LS6 Chevelle SS, with 450-hp rating, put down 288 rear wheel hp in the dyno test. That would have put a net hp rating at around 350 hp for that legendary big block.

You don’t need a dynamometer to estimate net horsepower for classic muscle cars, or to check claims of current models. Roger Huntington, the renowned technical writer who penned articles for many car magazines into the 1980s, developed a formula to show the relationship between quarter-mile performance and power output. Others have refined those formulas and developed calculators, in which you can use performance figures and vehicle weight to get estimated hp. (To check hp figures for this article, we used calculators at http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm.)

Keep in mind that some muscle cars came specially prepped from press fleets, sometimes with non-factory supertunes. That’s one reason that making comparisons using vintage road tests can be sketchy. Different axle ratios, testing methods, drivers, test conditions and other variables also affect results.

But we can try anyway.

In 1970, Car & Driver tested a Pontiac Firebird Formula 400, which had a 330 gross hp rating and was equipped with a fairly tall 3.07 axle ratio. They recorded a 14.78-second ET at 98.9 mph. A 1970 Trans Am with the same engine, but with a 4-speed and a 3.55 axle ratio, was tested by Muscle Car Review magazine in 1995. That car burned the quarter-mile in 14.68 sec. at 97.17 mph, quite close to the C&D test 25 years before. Pontiac gave that engine a 255 net hp rating for 1971.

Now, let’s add a later model into the mix. When C&D tested a 1979 4-speed Trans Am with the emissions-controlled W72 400 engine, the one with a 220-hp net rating and the “T/A 6.6” decal on the shaker hood scoop, it ran a 15.3 second ET at 96.6 mph. That car had a 3.23 axle ratio. As a drag racer will tell you, the mph figure is the better indicator of horsepower than ET. So, the 35 net hp deficit from the 1971 engine seems accurate, and not nearly as bad as some might have thought three decades ago.

Some myths still persist, though, one being that the 1969-1970 Ford Mustang BOSS 302, which had a 290 hp gross rating, really had “around 400 hp.” Vintage road tests show mid-to-high 14-second ETs at 94-97 mph for a car weighing about 3500 pounds with a driver and test gear. That’s about 100-150 pounds less than the 400-powered Firebirds cited above. Given those figures, the BOSS 302’s 290 gross hp rating seems accurate, pegging net hp closer to 240.

Contrast that with the 2012-2013 Mustang BOSS 302.

Ford rates the modern BOSS with its DOHC 5.0-liter V-8 at 444 hp. Car & Driver, driving one the way most drivers would (not powershifting), recorded a 12.8-sec. ET at 113 mph. Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords, with hot shoe Evan Smith banging off full-throttle powershifts and the car running on drag radials, scorched the quarter-mile in just 12.07 sec. at 114 mph.

Those similar mph figures easily substantiate the car’s 444 net hp rating and leave no doubt that the 1969-1970 BOSS 302 was at least 200 net hp below that.

To be clear, debunking myths does nothing to tarnish the place that classic muscle cars hold in our hearts and garages.

“We still love the old ones,” said Campisano. “They’re cool looking, fun to drive and fun to look at. It’s just a different performance world today.”

http://www.hagerty.com/classic-car-a.../13/Horsepower
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/retro...#photo-167282/
Hoovey689 is offline  
Old 08-17-13, 10:41 PM
  #2  
Hoovey689
Moderator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
 
Hoovey689's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California
Posts: 42,283
Received 122 Likes on 82 Posts
Default

Reminds me I saw a 70's Charger earlier today. Burly V8 and a nice car, but the driver was a kid trying to showoff to everyone and acting like a real clown
Hoovey689 is offline  
Old 08-19-13, 01:27 PM
  #3  
LOWFAST
Advanced
 
LOWFAST's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Texas - DFW Area
Posts: 574
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

This is funny, espeically when you go to cruise-ins and car shows with the old muscle. Guys bragging about how thier 425hp 427 was "underated" buy the factory and it only ran 15 sec 1/4 miles because of the old tire technology. Nope, it ran 15 sec 1/4's because it only really made about 300hp!

The truth is most of this is nostalgia and the cars really were not very fast. And yes I own a piece of classic Iron, although my intent is to revise it to hang with modern muscle.
LOWFAST is offline  
Old 08-19-13, 01:54 PM
  #4  
FrankReynoldsCPA
Lexus Test Driver
 
FrankReynoldsCPA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 6,474
Received 62 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

I can see it for sure....but that's why you don't leave them stock

And before the naysayers jump in....I know that mod for mod, the newer more efficient engines will still make more power.

I would like someday to own a 67 Firebird 400 like my father's, and build it to be in the 400-450 hp range. I would be more than satisfied with that.
FrankReynoldsCPA is offline  
Old 08-19-13, 02:28 PM
  #5  
I8ABMR
Lexus Fanatic
 
I8ABMR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Waiting for next track day
Posts: 22,609
Received 100 Likes on 65 Posts
Default

I think one of the main differences would be the handling. The old cars were a nightmare when it came to braking or hard corners
I8ABMR is offline  
Old 08-19-13, 03:01 PM
  #6  
Kira X
美少女戦士セーラームーン

iTrader: (24)
 
Kira X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 東京都
Posts: 11,189
Received 409 Likes on 337 Posts
Default

I was always under the impression the cars were underrated and the old school muscle cars were insanely powerful. At least that's what the old guys at the meets make it seem like.
Kira X is offline  
Old 08-19-13, 05:17 PM
  #7  
Hoovey689
Moderator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (16)
 
Hoovey689's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: California
Posts: 42,283
Received 122 Likes on 82 Posts
Default

If I ever do a restore project (late 60's mustang or a XR-7 Cougar), modern disc brakes are a must!!
Hoovey689 is offline  
Old 08-19-13, 05:28 PM
  #8  
Nospinzone
Moderator
 
Nospinzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: MA
Posts: 4,168
Received 407 Likes on 315 Posts
Default

What?! My 1966 Pontiac GTO didn't really have 335 HP?

Very interesting reading, thanks Hoovey!
Nospinzone is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Hoovey689
Car Chat
2
04-14-13 06:26 AM
Hoovey689
Car Chat
16
01-03-12 10:10 AM



Quick Reply: Modern vs. Vintage: Horsepower through the years



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:22 PM.