Anyone watch "Musclecar" on Powerblock?

[Fastback86]

!=

Whenever I see that, I'm convinced it's some sort of smiley face. But I can't figure out which one, so I spend 10 minutes trying to figure it out. Like, maybe it's a guy smoking?

He's trying to create the equals sign with the slash through it, i.e. "does not equal." He's quite right, accepted isn't the same as true, but I've not yet seen any evidence to the contrary.

[The Dark Side of Will]

! means "logical not"

!= does not equal
!> is not greater than
etc.

The usage is from programming and is correct.

The =/= is essentially ASCII art but also means does not equal.

He's quite right, accepted isn't the same as true, but I've not yet seen any evidence to the contrary.

What evidence have you seen *SUPPORTING* the idea that musclecar engines were under rated?

[Fastback86]

He's quite right, accepted isn't the same as true, but I've not yet seen any evidence to the contrary.

What evidence have you seen *SUPPORTING* the idea that musclecar engines were under rated?

As I said, I can't find the original source article online, but this is the excerpt that's popped up everywhere attributed to Huntington and which seems to be the basis of the "underrated" claim. Whether he's the only one to say it or the only one to write down what was well-known at the time is a question I can't answer.

"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!"

[The Dark Side of Will]

I've seen that table before, but haven't seen anything about the source of *his* information...

The whole idea strikes me as being unreliable and far-fetched.

[Shaun41178(2)]

I see the corvette 427 in there rated at 430. This guy claims it made 480 though. Like I said, my dad had a machine shop, he tore it all down and blueprinted it, put it back togethor and redynoed it, and he said it made very close to the factory rated hp at the crank.

Also once again, you are talking gross rated hp figures. Put all the accesories back on, the cast ram horn manifolds, full exhaust, and how much do the engines lose? 30 hp? More even?

And just because a cobra jet 428 had more displacement than its 390 counterpart, doesn't mean it made more power. Remember GM rated the fiero iron head 2.8 at 140 hp, and they also rated the camaro 3.1 motor at 140 hp. But maybe GM did that for insurance reasons? Under rated a tiny v6 motor?

[The Dark Side of Will]

I think I recall reading, when I was first getting into Fieros, that the 2.hates actually made 150-160 HP and were under rated for "insurance reasons"... just like the rating change from 140 to 135.

[slowpoke]

I thought that the car makers back then had teams that raced their cars in nearly stock form. When they were winning races who cared what the ratings were? If your beating everyone else, the cars are going to sell. Ever heard the saying "win on Sunday, sell on Monday"?

[Atilla the Fun]

TV show called Musclecar. Its sort of like Horsepower tv, or Hot Rod tv, or whatever its called now.

Anyways they had an older late 60's early 70's style buick on with a 455 in it. BIG POWER!!!!!! No replacement for displacement right? I was thinking to myself, ok, this has to make some decent power. Nope. They strapped it to the dyno, and it made a whopping 190 whp. I fell out of my seat. This was a factory style rebuild of the 455. Of course they went into the upgrades after that. Aluminum heads, intake, cam, bigger carb, long tube headers, trans, higher stall, of course time ran out before they could redyno. I suppose I have to tune in next time to see what it puts down.

The funny thing is, they then had an old 67 I think olds 442 on the show with a special racing package or whatever with a tri carb setup that was rated at 360hp from the factory, but then they went on to say that it was probably really "north of 400 hp" LOL is this a joke? You just had a 455 on that made shit for power, and now you turn around and claim a higher hp output than what the factory rated their motors at. Thats hilarious.

Its no wonder the old school losers on pedo-cks think the sbc swap is always make north of 350 hp no matter what head and cam package is in it. Its old musclecar old skool retarded logic. Its obvious where the SBC crowd on Old Europe get their arguing material from. What an embarrassment.

I've been away too long, or I would have caught this sooner.
Factory HP ratings before '72 always came from testing with no accessories, and with open exhaust, and many with headers. The tests were on engine dynos, not chassis dynos.
Many hot engines weren't so hot. But just as many were under-rated. Aside from the LS6, ALL of the over-429-CI engines had inadequate heads, and will fall short of rated power. On engines where those same heads were atop lesser CI, you have a better chance of exceeding the rated power.
To judge the real HP, you need to look at the old results from dragstrip runs. The MPH will reveal the truth. The ZL1 cars running 124 MPH with just 435 HP? Uh, no. More like 585 crank HP w/ headers.
But you're so closed minded and anti-V8-prejudiced, that explaining independently verifiable facts to you is the opposite of preaching to the choir.

[Shaun41178(2)]

FActory zl1s werent trapping 124.

http://www.corvettelegends.com/zl1.htm

Beefed up auto tranny with 4.88 gears, slicks, and open headers did 132mph. This was a purpose setup drag car mind you. Not a factory off the show room streetcar.

However one with a 4 spd trans and a 370 gear did it at 116 mph. Both used the same zl1 aluminum engine.

How is there a 16 mph discrepency? Did the manual trans motor make that much less hp? Did the 132 mph car have a bunch of weight taken out? 16 mph difference is huge. Thats roughly a 160 hp difference.

this guy claims his dynoed 523 hp at 7k rpm.
http://www.rogerscorvette.com/spots/feb98/spot.htm

At what rpm were the iron versions of this motor rated at?

Also the zl1 engine was a race engine. Only 2 factory corvette cars were sold with this engine.

zl1 corvette. it traps 191 kmh which you see at the end of the vid. Thats not even 120 mph.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUejD8TqEjw

You start reading peoples websites and the zl1's with headers is now over 600 hp. If it is true that headers add that much hp, then the factory was probably quoting the dyno tests with the headers on the car, and not the stock cast iron manifolds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJo9yLYU ... re=related
Thats a clone that made 503 on an engine dyno. 11:1 compression too. Of course the guy claims it should really be at 570 though on a different engine dyno. Always an excuse as to why it didn't make what one thinks.