jonmandude

I was looking over 1970 horsepower ratings today and noticed odd comparisons

1970 383 - 330 hp
2010 6 cyl - 300

1970 440 4bbl - 380hp
2010 5.7 auto- 380

1970 440 6bbl - 390hp
2010 5.7 6sp - 386

1970 426 Hemi - 425 hp
2010 6.1L - 425

I found it odd that the hp ratings were so close.

That means you SE guys can now tell people that you are driving the modern version of the 383.

dC.mx

Hooah ! I miss driving chally and all those 425 horses under the hood..

__________________

heminit

Very interesting!

__________________

Storm Rider

Very cool stats.

__________________


Challenger - Back from the Dead

genotex

It is truly only with 'glazed-over" eyes that we think that the 'old' muscle was better/quicker than the new. The technology today far exceeds the power of yesterday.
Far.

__________________
2011 GWE SRT392

1analguy

Absolutely!

In 1970, horsepower ratings were quoted in "SAE gross hp". Starting in 1972 (and ever after), they were quoted in "SAE net hp". The difference? "Gross" hp was achieved in an ideal dyno environment: tuned headers, velocity stack (no air cleaner), "peaked" carb tuning and ignition curve, no alternator or other engine-driven accessories, etc., plus (at least, at Chevrolet) the addition of whatever amount of "parasitic-drag" hp was required to spin the engine at it's peak power rpm. That's right...they would actually measure the amount of hp required to spin the engine at it's peak power rpm by driving it with an electric motor, and then add that value to whatever value they got with the engine running on it's own, to arrive at it's "gross" hp rating. The later "net" rating required the engine to be tested "as installed". This meant that it had to be equipped with the as-installed air cleaner, complete as-installed exhaust system, and alternator, with as-installed carb tuning and ignition timing, etc...and without any funky "parasitic" hp additions.

Example: I was into Corvettes back then, so I'll use the LT-1 small block of the period. It was their top performance option 350 (solid lifters, 780 Holley, big valves/ports, etc.). In 1971 (the last year for "gross" hp) it was rated at 330 hp. In 1972 (the first year for "net" hp) the same engine in identical specification was rated at 270 hp, the only difference being the difference between the "gross" and the "net" hp ratings. The '71 and '72 cars performed identically because their engines were identical...only the method of measuring and reporting their hp had changed.

It's so cool to think that our present 345 HEMI makes over 100 hp more than that "high performance" '72 Chevy 350 of similar displacement, while producing only about 1/100th of the exhaust emissions. I consider this last point to be rather key because I have a distinct memory of standing behind my 1970 LT-1 Corvette while it was idling. After only a few seconds my eyes would start to burn and water because of all the unburned fuel spewing from the exhaust due to that lumpy solid-lifter cam and that big Holley toilet of a carb. And the stink...OMG. I sometimes wonder if all the younger folks out there realize how good we actually have it right now...

__________________
____
Bob

jonmandude

The answer to that is simple....no, no they don't