explain this-Old cars, big HP, slow times
09-15-2010, 07:56 AM
#11
Members
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West New York, NJ
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2006 525xi-Stock
Muscle cars were rated as crank HP and were not that far off. I had a '69 Firebird with a 400 from a '71 GTO and a 3 speed auto. I still had '69 heads on it so the HP was somewhere between 325-350 and the torque was around 445 lbs./ft. The car weighed around 3400lbs. I only had 2.56 rear end gears in it because those were the stock gears for a 350 2bbl. with a 2 speed powerglide. I could get up to 65mph at 5500 rpm's in first gear with those gears. I originally had the old Goodyear Eagle GT tires on it in 1988. I could blow those tires off the car anywhere below 30 mph. The best 0-60 I could get with a G-tech was 7.0 and I ran 14.0 at 104 mph at the dragstrip. I switched the tires to 26x8 DOT slicks and ran a 13.2 at 108. This was a bone stock 400 with cast iron heads, intake and a points ignition. I latter had the heads cleaned up a little bit, added an aluminum intake, Holley carb, roller rockers and HEI distributor. I probably had close to 400hp now. The car then ran a 12.7 at 111. This was still with the crappy rear gears. When I finally put 3.55 gears in the car, the small DOT slicks would spin a lot. I borrowed my friends 26x10 M&H Racemasters and ran a 12.2 at 114. The one front tire came off the ground and my windshield cracked. These engines did produce the advertised HP, it was just that it only made it one time under ideal conditions. The change to the Holley carb and HEI distributor was the best thing I did for consistent power. Otherwise I was always tuning and tweaking. The tires were the biggest handicap of the old cars. My original size from the factory would have been an F70-14. That is equivilent to a 205-215/70-14. These were rock hard Bias-ply no less. Don't be too ready to dismiss an old musclecar. It just needs some modern tires and ignition. Part of the change in HP ratings also occurred when compression ratios dropped and catalytic converters were added. In '69 cars had 10.0-11.0:1 compression ratios. By 72 they dropped to 8.0-9.0:1.
09-15-2010, 10:10 AM
#12
Members
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Dallas
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2004 Silver BMW 525i, loaded w/o Nav
2007 Ford Expedition Eddie Bauer, loaded w/o Nav
A lot played into the difference between yesterdays and today's cars.
Those big cars from back in the day, had their Horsepower rated via SAE, with no load on the engine (accessories, mufflers, etc..), plus this was a gross horsepower rating, and did not account for drive train loss, or power at the wheels. Consequently, a car back then with 400 Horsepower, would by today's standards (net), be putting out about 275 HP at the flywheel, before drive train loss.
This is why automotive magazines have gone as far as to say "today" is the heyday of sports cars- not the 60's.
While you'd be hard pressed to find a car built today, that will ever be as cool as a 1970 Chevelle 454 SS, or a 1965 Pontiac GTO- finding a car that will out run it will be as easy as finding any V6 Nissan Altima or Toyota Camry built from 2001 to present.
Manufacturers have figured out ways to do more with less, and manufacturers like Nissan have often found ways to ensure the least amount of drive train loss. While most manufacturers (late 90's, early 2000's) routinely had 20 - 25% loss of HP at the wheels, Nissan's were historically more efficient. This is why the 1997 Nissan Maxima SE, with it's 3.0L, V6 and 190 HP, was just as quick 0 - 60 and 1/4 mile as the 230 HP 1997 BMW M3, and the 230 HP 4.6L V8 1997 Mustang GT. Some say Nissan underrated the 3.0's output, but never proved it.
I remember the car I was in love with (1991 Camaro RS V8) in 1991, had a 305 cu in (5.0L) V8, pumping out 180 HP. The 2005 I4, 1.8L Honda Civic Si, puts out 197 HP, as did Nissan's 1.8L I4 in the 2000 Nissan Altima SE (180 HP). Today's Camaro SS has 426 HP, more than double what the Z-28 had in 1991, and almost 2.5 times the output of the RS V8).
I wonder where it's going to end though- With the CTS-V putting out 556 HP, and Mercedes' 63's putting out 600+. Those are rare cars, but today- just about anything with a V6 or above is putting out close to, or more than 300 HP. Just a decade ago, 300 HP was reserved for true sports cars and a handful of luxury cars only. My cousin just bought a Kia Sorento with a 275 HP V6, and Hyundai offers 380 HP in the Genesis...
Today is the best time to be driving- if you want a powerful and safe vehicle.
You guys may never consider driving a pickup truck or a full size SUV, but if you want to see huge power gains, that's where it's at.
Cadillac's Escalade puts out 403 HP, as does their top-line Sierra pickup, Toyota's Tundra has 380 HP, and Ford is rumored to be finially joining the HP wars, preparing a 400 HP 6.2L for the F-150. I think the Range Rover Turbo is getting close to (if not over) 500 HP, as have BMW with the X5-M...
Just think, we were all getting where we wanted to go (and getting tickets trying to get there) just 10 years ago, with nearly 50% less horsepower than the average vehicle has today.
Those big cars from back in the day, had their Horsepower rated via SAE, with no load on the engine (accessories, mufflers, etc..), plus this was a gross horsepower rating, and did not account for drive train loss, or power at the wheels. Consequently, a car back then with 400 Horsepower, would by today's standards (net), be putting out about 275 HP at the flywheel, before drive train loss.
This is why automotive magazines have gone as far as to say "today" is the heyday of sports cars- not the 60's.
While you'd be hard pressed to find a car built today, that will ever be as cool as a 1970 Chevelle 454 SS, or a 1965 Pontiac GTO- finding a car that will out run it will be as easy as finding any V6 Nissan Altima or Toyota Camry built from 2001 to present.
Manufacturers have figured out ways to do more with less, and manufacturers like Nissan have often found ways to ensure the least amount of drive train loss. While most manufacturers (late 90's, early 2000's) routinely had 20 - 25% loss of HP at the wheels, Nissan's were historically more efficient. This is why the 1997 Nissan Maxima SE, with it's 3.0L, V6 and 190 HP, was just as quick 0 - 60 and 1/4 mile as the 230 HP 1997 BMW M3, and the 230 HP 4.6L V8 1997 Mustang GT. Some say Nissan underrated the 3.0's output, but never proved it.
I remember the car I was in love with (1991 Camaro RS V8) in 1991, had a 305 cu in (5.0L) V8, pumping out 180 HP. The 2005 I4, 1.8L Honda Civic Si, puts out 197 HP, as did Nissan's 1.8L I4 in the 2000 Nissan Altima SE (180 HP). Today's Camaro SS has 426 HP, more than double what the Z-28 had in 1991, and almost 2.5 times the output of the RS V8).
I wonder where it's going to end though- With the CTS-V putting out 556 HP, and Mercedes' 63's putting out 600+. Those are rare cars, but today- just about anything with a V6 or above is putting out close to, or more than 300 HP. Just a decade ago, 300 HP was reserved for true sports cars and a handful of luxury cars only. My cousin just bought a Kia Sorento with a 275 HP V6, and Hyundai offers 380 HP in the Genesis...
Today is the best time to be driving- if you want a powerful and safe vehicle.
You guys may never consider driving a pickup truck or a full size SUV, but if you want to see huge power gains, that's where it's at.
Cadillac's Escalade puts out 403 HP, as does their top-line Sierra pickup, Toyota's Tundra has 380 HP, and Ford is rumored to be finially joining the HP wars, preparing a 400 HP 6.2L for the F-150. I think the Range Rover Turbo is getting close to (if not over) 500 HP, as have BMW with the X5-M...
Just think, we were all getting where we wanted to go (and getting tickets trying to get there) just 10 years ago, with nearly 50% less horsepower than the average vehicle has today.
09-15-2010, 10:48 AM
#14
Members
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Dallas
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2004 Silver BMW 525i, loaded w/o Nav
2007 Ford Expedition Eddie Bauer, loaded w/o Nav
The real difference between then and now is in how HP was measured then compared to now. An M5 today, measured by the standards of the 60's, might be said to have 650 HP- or more.
-------------------------------------
Drivetrain efficiency has to do (partialy, as does gearing, aerodynamics, etc.) with why cars of similar weight, are out-performed by a car that has less horsepower, and why cars that are heavier can out run cars of similar power. How efficiently and effectively the power is put to the ground, means more than how much power one has on tap.
When it comes to efficiency, I think Porsche is at the top of the food chain. Even with 480 HP, the 911 is quicker (even though in some cases its heavier) than cars with 100 more HP.
Sure there are faster cars, but to routinely out-perform a 911 Turbo (0 - 60 , 1/4 mile), you have to buy a Bugatti Veyron, with $1.5M (nearly 10 times the cost) and 1,000 HP (more than double the HP).
Anything less, is a fraction of a second away from reading the Porsche's license plate.
(Excluding tuner cars)
09-15-2010, 11:01 AM
#15
Members
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West New York, NJ
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2006 525xi-Stock
The only difference in ratings is that the old cars ran the cars with no accessories and open exhaust. I would not say the difference is as much as 400hp dropping to 275hp. It is more like dropping to 350hp. I don't think I would have been able to run low 12's with 275hp. Cars today are also heavier than in the 60's. I said my car was around 3400 lbs., but that was probably the weight with me in it and a full tank of gas. A new Camaro weighs 3900lbs. dry. If you look at the 0-60 times and the 1/4 mile times and mph of a 60's car, you will see a big disparity. It is pretty obvious that tires were a big factor. Even the slicks back then would still spin quite a bit. And as far as a Camry and an Altima beating GTO's and 454 Chevelles, that is a joke. Most GTO's ran in the 13's on those old crappy tires. A Chevelle with a LS6 454 ran 13.1 on stock tires. A 454 SS Chevelle with some wide modern rubber will still beat a new Camaro SS. A standard 327 or 350 Camaro is more in line with an Altima. They were good for high 14's on the old tires. One guy I worked with had a Chevy crate LS6 in a '71 Chevelle. The only thing different he did was run an electronic ignition and sticky street tires. He ran 12.5's all day long with a 3.08 rear end. Yes the HP ratings are different, but don't start dismissing them as slow.
09-15-2010, 09:00 PM
#16
Members
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Dallas
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2004 Silver BMW 525i, loaded w/o Nav
2007 Ford Expedition Eddie Bauer, loaded w/o Nav
The only difference in ratings is that the old cars ran the cars with no accessories and open exhaust. I would not say the difference is as much as 400hp dropping to 275hp. It is more like dropping to 350hp. I don't think I would have been able to run low 12's with 275hp. Cars today are also heavier than in the 60's. I said my car was around 3400 lbs., but that was probably the weight with me in it and a full tank of gas. A new Camaro weighs 3900lbs. dry. If you look at the 0-60 times and the 1/4 mile times and mph of a 60's car, you will see a big disparity. It is pretty obvious that tires were a big factor. Even the slicks back then would still spin quite a bit. And as far as a Camry and an Altima beating GTO's and 454 Chevelles, that is a joke. Most GTO's ran in the 13's on those old crappy tires. A Chevelle with a LS6 454 ran 13.1 on stock tires. A 454 SS Chevelle with some wide modern rubber will still beat a new Camaro SS. A standard 327 or 350 Camaro is more in line with an Altima. They were good for high 14's on the old tires. One guy I worked with had a Chevy crate LS6 in a '71 Chevelle. The only thing different he did was run an electronic ignition and sticky street tires. He ran 12.5's all day long with a 3.08 rear end. Yes the HP ratings are different, but don't start dismissing them as slow.
That said, I'd take a 1965 GTO or Chevelle 454 SS in mint condition, over a 2010 M5, any day of the week.
I've driven a lot of cars, but the car I miss driving the most, was my uncle's 1976 Pontiac Bonneville Coupe, with the 455 cu. in. V8. The kind that when you gas it in park, it made the car dip. It won't look pretty by today's standards, but man- I really loved driving that car- as did I my first car, my Mom's 1973 Ford Gran Torino Elite (Coupe), with the 351 Cleveland.
1976 Bonneville Coupe: http://www.computersupport.ca/Restor...G_6313-700.jpg
1973 Gran Torino Elite: http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewik...rd_Elite_2.jpg
I learned how to drive in big buckets like this so- moving to todays smaller cars was almost like a video game, by comparison.
1970 Chevelle 454 SS Performance specs: (Now, they say this car went 0-60 in 6.1 seconds (Still slower than the V-6 Altima), but they also say it ran 1/4 in 13.1 @ 103 MPH- so it must've been a beast after 60. I was only 1 at the time, so I've never driven one- but it is a car I have admired, from a distance, for years.
http://tarpon.tamug.edu/~twarden/Sup...20454%20SS.htm
The Dodge Charger gained greatly from 1966 - 1969, with the 426 Hemi going from 0-60 in 6.4 seconds in 66', to 0-60 in 5.3 seconds by 1969, and 1/4 mile in 13.8 @ 105 MPH.
There were a few beasts back then- but the 454 (GM) and the 426 Hemi (Chrysler) were at the top of the food chain back then... Well, except for the Shelby Mustangs- but those were rare.
09-16-2010, 02:25 PM
#17
Members
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West New York, NJ
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2006 525xi-Stock
It is true that an Altima or Camry would outrun most of the standard V8 cars, but you posted Big HP slow times. The LS6 was rated at 450hp and the Hemi was 425hp. Both the Chevelle and the 'Cuda ran 13.1 with these engines on those old ass tires. A new Camaro is rated at 426hp and runs a 12.9. Most of the base V8's that would have a hard time with an Altima were rated 250-300hp. That is probably in the 210-260 range by today's ratings. Most of the cars below the LS6 and Hemi were rated in the 325-370 hp range. Even the top dog 440-6 pack was 390hp. By today's ratings it would be around 345hp and it was able to move a 4100 lb. Charger to a 14.0 give or take a little. The slow 0-60 and high trap speeds in the 1/4 validate the tires. Most of those times above 6.7 0-60 would drop quite a bit if they had some 265 wide modern rubber.
I love the Bonneville picture. I was always a Pontiac guy that is why I know what a Firebird or GTO can really do with some better rubber. My friends brother had a '67 GTO that I always tried to get from him. He would never sell though. He did let me drive it at the track though because I bet him I could get a 13.9 out of it. He would always short shift it and could only run a 15.6. I heated the crap out of the bias ply G-60's and let it scream. I got a 13.86 at 102 mph. It made him happy because his brother's Vette would only do a 14.0 and he always thought it was faster than the GTO. My other friend had a '72 Buick Electra 225 with a 455. That was our cruising car. It would lay rubber with 5 of us in it and hauled ass once it got rolling. It would easily take a Mustang 5.0 or an IROC above 30 mph. Of course we tweaked whatever we could on it though. Even with the BMW and my former Audi's, I always miss my '69 Firebird. I would take that as my DD over the BMW. It always made me smile when I drove it.
Check out this link for old road tests and HP ratings. You can see the slow 0-60 times and then the quicker 1/4 mile times and higher trap speeds. I would say that you can probably knock 10-15% off of the HP to meet todays standards.
http://www.cobranet.com/roadtest.htm
I love the Bonneville picture. I was always a Pontiac guy that is why I know what a Firebird or GTO can really do with some better rubber. My friends brother had a '67 GTO that I always tried to get from him. He would never sell though. He did let me drive it at the track though because I bet him I could get a 13.9 out of it. He would always short shift it and could only run a 15.6. I heated the crap out of the bias ply G-60's and let it scream. I got a 13.86 at 102 mph. It made him happy because his brother's Vette would only do a 14.0 and he always thought it was faster than the GTO. My other friend had a '72 Buick Electra 225 with a 455. That was our cruising car. It would lay rubber with 5 of us in it and hauled ass once it got rolling. It would easily take a Mustang 5.0 or an IROC above 30 mph. Of course we tweaked whatever we could on it though. Even with the BMW and my former Audi's, I always miss my '69 Firebird. I would take that as my DD over the BMW. It always made me smile when I drove it.
Check out this link for old road tests and HP ratings. You can see the slow 0-60 times and then the quicker 1/4 mile times and higher trap speeds. I would say that you can probably knock 10-15% off of the HP to meet todays standards.
http://www.cobranet.com/roadtest.htm
09-16-2010, 08:57 PM
#18
Members
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Dallas
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2004 Silver BMW 525i, loaded w/o Nav
2007 Ford Expedition Eddie Bauer, loaded w/o Nav
It is true that an Altima or Camry would outrun most of the standard V8 cars, but you posted Big HP slow times. The LS6 was rated at 450hp and the Hemi was 425hp. Both the Chevelle and the 'Cuda ran 13.1 with these engines on those old ass tires. A new Camaro is rated at 426hp and runs a 12.9. Most of the base V8's that would have a hard time with an Altima were rated 250-300hp. That is probably in the 210-260 range by today's ratings. Most of the cars below the LS6 and Hemi were rated in the 325-370 hp range. Even the top dog 440-6 pack was 390hp. By today's ratings it would be around 345hp and it was able to move a 4100 lb. Charger to a 14.0 give or take a little. The slow 0-60 and high trap speeds in the 1/4 validate the tires. Most of those times above 6.7 0-60 would drop quite a bit if they had some 265 wide modern rubber.
I love the Bonneville picture. I was always a Pontiac guy that is why I know what a Firebird or GTO can really do with some better rubber. My friends brother had a '67 GTO that I always tried to get from him. He would never sell though. He did let me drive it at the track though because I bet him I could get a 13.9 out of it. He would always short shift it and could only run a 15.6. I heated the crap out of the bias ply G-60's and let it scream. I got a 13.86 at 102 mph. It made him happy because his brother's Vette would only do a 14.0 and he always thought it was faster than the GTO. My other friend had a '72 Buick Electra 225 with a 455. That was our cruising car. It would lay rubber with 5 of us in it and hauled ass once it got rolling. It would easily take a Mustang 5.0 or an IROC above 30 mph. Of course we tweaked whatever we could on it though. Even with the BMW and my former Audi's, I always miss my '69 Firebird. I would take that as my DD over the BMW. It always made me smile when I drove it.
I love the Bonneville picture. I was always a Pontiac guy that is why I know what a Firebird or GTO can really do with some better rubber. My friends brother had a '67 GTO that I always tried to get from him. He would never sell though. He did let me drive it at the track though because I bet him I could get a 13.9 out of it. He would always short shift it and could only run a 15.6. I heated the crap out of the bias ply G-60's and let it scream. I got a 13.86 at 102 mph. It made him happy because his brother's Vette would only do a 14.0 and he always thought it was faster than the GTO. My other friend had a '72 Buick Electra 225 with a 455. That was our cruising car. It would lay rubber with 5 of us in it and hauled ass once it got rolling. It would easily take a Mustang 5.0 or an IROC above 30 mph. Of course we tweaked whatever we could on it though. Even with the BMW and my former Audi's, I always miss my '69 Firebird. I would take that as my DD over the BMW. It always made me smile when I drove it.
Man, I loved those old cars back then. I tell ya, if I ever get my hands on some real money, I'll have Chip Foose, or some other hot rodder, rebuild an old car for me (Say a Nova 396 SS http://www.vicarimotorsports.com/197...0Nova%20SS.jpg , or a 1966 Chevy Impala 2-door http://www.classicmidsizecar.com/inc...oletImpala.jpg), modernize it with today's technology (tires, suspension, gadgets, and maybe even an engine from today as well- since I'm dreaming), and use that as my daily driver.
Some guys around here sport old cars (Cutlass 4-4-2's, Barracuda's, Road Runners, etc., I've love to have either of the old cars I've mentioned... I'm just mad I didn't try to buy my uncle's old 1976 Bonneville. I'd be driving that car today, if I had a chance to. Heck, I'm not picky, I'll take a 1992 Bonneville SSEi, if I can find one in good shape! http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3004/...f80b876db8.jpg
09-17-2010, 01:37 PM
#19
Members
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West New York, NJ
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2006 525xi-Stock
Check out the stuff from Year One. I think it them that sells complete reproduction shells of some old cars. I know they did a modernized '77 Trans Am as a Smokey and the Bandit tribute. I keep wanting to find an old car to tinker with, but I am saving for a Factory Five Cobra replica. You get to build it yourself, your way from the ground up. Ford now sells the new 5.0 DOHC from the 2011 Mustang as a crate engine. That would probably be one of my choices.
09-17-2010, 02:35 PM
#20
Contributors
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: socal
Posts: 1,727
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
My Ride: 545I and a half dozen other rides
Apparently some of you guys have not priced a shell out. It would cost way more money to piece together a car than buying one complete.