: What's the real peak HP of the 1981 368?



jayoldschool
08-13-13, 09:43 PM
Thought I would start a new thread. After doing some research for another thread, I have found that the rated HP for the 8-6-4 368 is 140HP. This number is at 3800RPM. That is much lower than other engine's ratings. What are your thoughts? Is that peak HP? Is it all out of breath past 3800? Or, did it make more at 4000 (4500?).

Interested to hear opinions. I don't suppose many of us have dyno numbers on one of these beasts...

1980coupe
08-13-13, 10:00 PM
Mines about 150 and it's the same engine but the 80 model, not the 81 variable displacement v864

jayoldschool
08-13-13, 10:16 PM
Yes, 150 is the factory rating for the carbed 1980. Not sure of the RPM, though. Would be interested to know.

Evg-ekb
08-14-13, 12:22 AM
Yes, for me the horse power which is specified in documents is very important: if it is 150 h.p. that I will pay a tax only 50 dollars a year, and if 264, already nearly 1000... Difference as you see not small (((

jayoldschool
08-14-13, 01:17 AM
You still haven't told us where you get 264 from.

Evg-ekb
08-14-13, 01:49 AM
You still haven't told us where you get 264 from.
I with pleasure would tell you... But here awful mess! I don't understand from where in documents such figures, the real VIN probably wasn't deciphered and chose any car. As option - Escalade.The customs sometimes too are mistaken. And then we can't deal with how to pay a tax)))On it I also wanted to learn what here the motor and what capacity from it. If it is valid 150, I will try to change documents.

cadillac_al
08-14-13, 07:57 AM
If the late 70's Chevy 350's are rated at 180 hp, the 4.1 being rated at 150 almost sound optimistic. I think the Cad 425's were rated around 180 too. I think the Olds 403 was rated below 200 hp and that engine was a beast. All these engines could probably be rated 100 hp higher if it were measured at the crank, which nobody has done since 1970. I'm sure there is plenty of documentation out there that the 4.1 is a 150 hp engine at best.

Evg-ekb
08-14-13, 08:33 AM
I seem found from where figure 264 undertook... Unfortunately site in Russian:
http://www.autonet.ru/catalog/auto/detail/267872.aspx

cadillac kevin
08-14-13, 08:37 AM
If the late 70's Chevy 350's are rated at 180 hp, the 4.1 being rated at 150 almost sound optimistic. I think the Cad 425's were rated around 180 too. I think the Olds 403 was rated below 200 hp and that engine was a beast. All these engines could probably be rated 100 hp higher if it were measured at the crank, which nobody has done since 1970. I'm sure there is plenty of documentation out there that the 4.1 is a 150 hp engine at best.

Al, I assume you meant 368 instead of 4.1.? No way a 4.1 has 150 hp.

greencadillacmatt
08-15-13, 01:52 AM
Al, I assume you meant 368 instead of 4.1.? No way a 4.1 has 150 hp.

Do you mean the HT4100 4.1? In 1984 it was rated at 135HP, I believe.

cadillac_al
08-15-13, 06:10 PM
Um, yeah, I thought we were talking about the 4.1. I'm surprised the 368 was only 150 hp. That is an engineering feat in itself; to make so little power out of 368 cubes.

jayoldschool
08-15-13, 08:50 PM
That's funny, I thought we were talking about the 1981 368...

csbuckn
08-15-13, 08:54 PM
I'd bet the 368 really is rated at 140hp because engineers probably wanted smooth power at city speeds. The cam probably falls flat anywhere above that since it's range is in the low RPMs. I'd bet it can do a mean burnout. The 1975 caddy 500 is rated at like 190hp.