American Muscle question.

[Clark]

Was it a Merlin or a Meteor V12, I'm pretty sure 'The Beast' isn't supercharged which would make the engine a Meteor.

 

[FordMKIVJ5]

Was it a Merlin or a Meteor V12, I'm pretty sure 'The Beast' isn't supercharged which would make the engine a Meteor.

Honestly not sure, but yes it would be a Meteor if it's not S/C.

 

[hawkeye122]

That's because most power was made under 3800 rpm. Peak horsepower was at 3800, peak torque was made right around 2200, give or take depending on the year. Assuming you're talking about the old school 5.0s.

No, it's the newer 4.? From the 2008 model.

 

[Slash]

No, it's the newer 4.? From the 2008 model.

Oh the modular 4.6L. Probably the 3V version. Never really cared for the modular motors but they are still decent. They make power much higher in the RPMs than the 302s did though.

 

[Zenith]

Most people who try to use low specific output as an argument against American cars are unable to articulate why that is such a bad thing. I doubt that RDF97 is any exception.

 

[hawkeye122]

Most people who try to use low specific output as an argument against American cars are unable to articulate why that is such a bad thing. I doubt that RDF97 is any exception.

The only disadvantage I could see is extra weight. If a 4 banger has better output than a V8, then you may as well spring for less mass up front.

 

[Zenith]

The only disadvantage I could see is extra weight. If a 4 banger has better output than a V8, then you may as well spring for less mass up front.

Yep, but the mass savings are less than one would expect when the 4 cylinder block is made from iron and the V8 is aluminum. Strap a turbocharger and intercooler and suddenly packaging and weight savings are out the window while the power band is made worse and component wear becomes much more of an issue.

 

[MrWednesday]

Component wear, sure.

Power band? What's "worse" in this case? Depending on how the turbo is matched to the block, it can have a mammoth power band. The Ford 2.3-turbo I've driven has pretty much flat torque from 2k to 5k RPM.

 

[McLaren]

In my experience (Riding with some mates, One with a Mustang GT, the other with an Impreza STi), an American V8 will respond in most gears. Doing 50 on the freeway in 5th gear, step on it, and it will get on its way quite quickly. Meanwhile, the 4-pot turbo in the Subaru took quite a bit of time to find it's legs in 5th or 6th gear. This (to me at least) appears to be the Mustang having much more torque in the lower revs. Granted, once the Subaru got going, or was put in 3rd gear... game over, V8.

The Subaru won't be going anywhere in 5th or 6th at those speeds because the car should be way down in the RPM; highway gears. Couple that with the fact that a STi (like an Evo) loses most of its advantage in a race at around 60mph & it's obvious why it's not going to build any speed quickly.

With that said, there is no "game over, V8" at 50mph for a 4.6 Ford V8 against the STi's 4-banger. The V8 is at the perfect speed to make full use of its power, most likely in 2nd or bottom of 3rd to make a quick pull away. Above 70, the STi shouldn't even be close.

 

[1stlsx]

The amount of BS in this thread astounds me....

 

[Slash]

The amount of BS in this thread astounds me....

Care to elaborate?

 

[Cano]

crap, disregard.

 

[1stlsx]

Care to elaborate?

That's also not the same.

Being purposely conservative with the power numbers your engine produces (like when GM said the last generation of F-bodies had identical LT1 (and later, LS1) engines to the Corvette but somehow produced 40 less horsepower

Yup totally identical....

Corvette LS1
97-98 12554710 199/207 .472/.479 117

Camaro/Firebird
98 12557812 198/209 .500/.500 119.5

And dont even get me started on the differences in the factory tunes....

Let's say we have a hypothetical 400 cubic inch engine making 380 gross horsepower in 1968-1970. That engine in reality was making 280 horsepower on a good day. With the exact same hot cams, high compression and 4 barrel carbs from the late 60s, it was still making the same "380 horsepower" in 1971; but it was just rated accurately at the 280 horsepower it was really.

Have you never seen modern day dyno results of these motors?

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

------------------------------------------------------------------

Also you will note the RPM at which peak power was obtained. This same thing was done with the 98 Camaro...

Camaro only: Horsepower
V8 305 @ 5200 rpm

Corvette the LS1 was rated at 345 hp at 5,600 rpm

Seems pretty simple as to how it would be rated at less power... different cam, more restrictive exhaust, different factory tune and less RPM...

In all honesty did they make the same power, yes, and can I prove it, pretty much....

My car with 190K miles made 288hp @ 5600, given a 20% loss that equates to 345 hp at the crank at 5600, in line with the Corvettes rating at the higher RPM... But there is good reason for the lower rating given the lower RPM it is rated at and all the differences in the cars....

Component wear, sure.

Power band? What's "worse" in this case? Depending on how the turbo is matched to the block, it can have a mammoth power band. The Ford 2.3-turbo I've driven has pretty much flat torque from 2k to 5k RPM.

^ This. My Mazda I just got has killer torque from 2500 on. I can be in 6th gear at 2K and 40 mph and give it a little going up hill and it pulls up it nicely. The way the engine is built and designed contributes so much to how it runs. For people to sit here and say that a turbo 4 vehicle cant keep up with a N/A V8 in low RPM is incorrect. If the turbo car has a big turbo and is setup for high RPM then by all means yes the N/A V8 stands an extremely good chance of winning in a low speed high gear "race".

The thing to keep in mind tho, is once you begin to modify a V8 with a cam and ported heads / intake to make power you are moving the power curve up the RPM band. My Camaro makes less torque from 2500 to 4000 than my friends turbo Integra, so all things being equal low speed high gear locked up converter he would out pull me. Turbo 4 pot beating a V8 at low speed high gear, but his car runs mid 12's mine 11's.... him 350hp, me 425 hp. Most correctly setup drag cars operate in an RPM band of less than 2000 RPM, my car 5k-7k. Ive seen drag cars with 6k converters and a 7k redline or less and the car is on the converter the whole time making it quick, but not efficient....

I'd like to add from my experience most people racing 4 cylinder or even 6 cylinder FWD or AWD cars simply do not know how to race them or lack the testicular fortitude to launch the car how they should. I know racing my friends R32 I was quicker because I would launch at a higher RPM, could feather the clutch better and was quicker on my shifts.

I've only had my Mazda for a little over a week and driven it for less than 100 miles, but I can launch it already and trust me it is quick to 60 with the AWD and small turbo and Id venture a mid 13 second car that is getting 26 MPG...

 

[Tornado]

Yup totally identical....

Corvette LS1
97-98 12554710 199/207 .472/.479 117

Camaro/Firebird
98 12557812 198/209 .500/.500 119.5

And dont even get me started on the differences in the factory tunes....

I'm aware of the Y Exhaust vs. the Corvette's true dual exhaust and the different cam timing. I'm also aware that Camaros still tended to (especially the LS1 engined ones) pull the same or close on a dyno as the Corvettes with the same engine despite that, so they clearly weren't 30-40 horsepower down as claimed regardless of "differences in the factory tunes".

Have you never seen modern day dyno results of these motors?

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

------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah. You mean the "true" horsepower numbers for 60's muscle cars as from the book "American Supercars."


I've absolutely seen the claims that the completely fake gross HP numbers were actually underrated. Since gross HP meant whatever the marketing department said it meant and was measured under different procedures from car to car, I don't care what the "true" gross rating is because it has no value as an objective measurement to begin with. Those cars when rated under a consistent system that actually measured horsepower when installed in a car didn't make that much; which the power figures from 1971 (where some manufacturers included both ratings), contemporary statements from people in the industry that stated just how many liberties were taken to get the numbers claimed, and the performance figures of the stock vehicles clearly showed. There were only a handful that even got near their claimed power, and even less that were underrated; but that was because of just how low the engines were said to be rather than actually being very powerful, and far more engines were around at the time that were overrated by 80-100 horsepower.

 

[1stlsx]

I'm aware of the Y Exhaust vs. the Corvette's true dual exhaust and the different cam timing. I'm also aware that Camaros still tended to (especially the LS1 engined ones) pull the same or close on a dyno as the Corvettes with the same engine despite that, so they clearly weren't 30-40 horsepower down as claimed regardless of "differences in the factory tunes".

Your claim is they were identical, they are not identical nor should that be stated or even inferred, they are far from the same....

There were only a handful that even got near their claimed power, and even less that were underrated; but that was because of just how low the engines were said to be rather than actually being very powerful, and far more engines were around at the time that were overrated by 80-100 horsepower.

I'd love to see some factual proof that they were over rated. Any dyno number to back this up or just something you heard?

My father owned a 70 Mercury Cyclone with a 429 CJ. The car was rated factory at 375 HP but with a cam, intake and exhaust was making probably close to 500HP, so how under rated was this big block?

I have known guys with small black 60's Camaros that Im sure make well over the factory claims simply based upon how quick they are and are bone stock...

 

[Tornado]

Your claim is they were identical, they are not identical nor should that be stated or even inferred, they are far from the same....

I said they were identical engines that in reality produced about the same horsepower despite being rated notably differently. I'm sorry for this grievous error. I will now amend that to "identical engines with slightly different cam profiles and a different exhaust that in reality produced about the same horsepower despite being rated notably differently."

I'd love to see some factual proof that they were over rated. Any dyno number to back this up or just something you heard?

A whole lot of them. Here's one where a 1967 Hemi which was purposely built as close to stock specs as possible (but with a 1970 cam) that was rated for 425 @ 5000 and apparently "really" got 470 @ 6000 in fact got 315 at 4900; which when you apply a drivetrain loss of 15% still puts it a good hundred horsepower below the "real" number (but well in line with the number Chrysler gave it in 1971). Here's one where a Buick GSX Stage 1 was similarly built as close to stock as possible, and pulled almost the exact 360 hp number that it was rated for. A far cry from "it's actually 420 horsepower." The mythical COPO ZL1 Camaro didn't pull over 400 as installed, and that was an actual race engine that required racing fuel to run.

Plus the fact that ~3600 pound cars with 400+ horsepower wouldn't be running 14 second quarter mile times with 100 MPH trap speeds. And the fact that one manufacturer's procedure for measuring horsepower could (and would) be completely different from another's; or that (as an example) GM's intermediates with the big block engines of each brand could have an 90 horsepower difference in power (such as the difference between the Chevelle SS454 LS6 being rated at 450HP and the GSX 455 Stage 1 being rated at 360) and having performance that was pretty much the same (which probably has to do with the LS6 actually producing around 350 horsepower in reality in the Chevelle, since the Corvette "lost" a hundred horsepower from the same engine in 1971).

My father owned a 70 Mercury Cyclone with a 429 CJ. The car was rated factory at 375 HP but with a cam, intake and exhaust was making probably close to 500HP, so how under rated was this big block?

I'm sure it was. Any dyno number to back this up or just something you heard?


By the way, here's that 429 in a stock Mustang making 310 on a dyno.

I have known guys with small black 60's Camaros that Im sure make well over the factory claims simply based upon how quick they are and are bone stock...

"Quick" as in "V6 Camry quick" like they were when they were in period tests new? Or quick as in "produces the performance that suggests they had the power that they were said to have had."

 

[1stlsx]

I'm sure it was. Any dyno number to back this up or just something you heard?


By the way, here's that 429 in a stock Mustang making 310 on a dyno.

Actually no I do not have dyno number to prove this. But seeing as a I have a 425 WHP car that I race and the Cyclone in question trapped a best of just under 117 MPH you do the math.... Even being generous and saying the car weighs 3800# and trapped 116 thats ~475 HP to get that MPH So yea Id say it was making close to 500 HP. I actually build and race my cars on a weekly basis, I just dont read articles and talk about ****, I live it...

Also, Id be interested to know what gas the Mustang you posted was dynod on

 

[Slash]

If you want to play that card the Boss 351 Mustang made 383 according to a stock build Hot Rod magazine did. Spec to spec. Rated at 335.

428 CJ was rated the same and a dyno on Youtube with a clearly stock engine pumped out 410.

 

[Tornado]

If you want to play that card the Boss 351 Mustang made 383 according to a stock build Hot Rod magazine did.

Our pair of 302ci small-blocks was run at Westech on the Superflow 902 in the same configuration, meaning no accessories, an electric water pump, and 1 3/4-inch, long-tube headers.

Linky.

 

[Slash]

Linky.

I read that before. Definitely was an interesting read to say the least.



Though that was for a 302 not a 351. Fair point though.

 

[Tornado]

That was the same test that they tested the Boss 351 and got 383 hp. They ran the same testing procedures for all 4 tests.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

So, from this thread we can make a somewhat certain conclusion that american muscle isn't as strong as the legends want us to believe?

 

[Slash]

So, from this thread we can make a somewhat certain conclusion that american muscle isn't as strong as the legends want us to believe?

The reason they are so popular and so legendary is because at the time of their production most cars were making 1/4 mile passes at 30 seconds and 0-60s of 15-20 seconds. So when these cars were doing 0-60 in 5.5-6 seconds and making 13-14 second 1/4 mile passes they were seen as fast as hell; hence why they are famous.

In reality technology has come so far now it's pretty common to have a car go that fast, some modern V6s and 4 cylinders can keep up. Don't get me wrong those old cars will still put you in your seat pretty good though but today they are pretty normal and mostly for looks and sound. As much as I hate to admit it that's the reality now. Modern muscle in simple terms will pretty much spank a good majority of the old stuff. I've seen videos of the current V6 Mustang almost keeping up with a couple of big block cars on YouTube.

 

[Tornado]

So, from this thread we can make a somewhat certain conclusion that american muscle isn't as strong as the legends want us to believe?

There were some that are still decently quick today and they were certainly very fast for the time, but there is no real doubt that by the late 1980s performance of the best cars (Corvette, Turbo Trans Am, Buick GNX) was already good enough to come close to many of the better cars of the late 1960s (low-14s at around 100 MPH); and a lot of the myths about them (like how on modern tires they would be so much faster than modern cars, or that they were massively underrated from the factory) are just that.

 

[Slash]

There were some that are still decently quick today and they were certainly very fast for the time, but there is no real doubt that by the late 1980s performance of the best cars (Corvette, Turbo Trans Am, Buick GNX) was already good enough to come close to many of the better cars of the late 1960s (low-14s at around 100 MPH); and a lot of the myths about them (like how on modern tires they would be so much faster than modern cars, or that they were massively underrated from the factory) are just that.

For the most part. Some of them really were underrated and can easily perform better on modern tires. This isn't true for all of them though.

 

[Cano]

So, from this thread we can make a somewhat certain conclusion that american muscle isn't as strong as the legends want us to believe?

Of course. I'm one of the biggest muscle car heads in GTP and I've been saying for years that stock muscle cars are slow for today's world. In their heyday not even Ferraris of the era could match some of them, but that is also because even Ferrari's power claims were absolute bogus. Eveyrthing was bogus back in the 60s and 70s.