: Old Cars True HP Ratings explained! N* vs Cad 500



Ultra Slow
11-26-03, 03:50 AM
This is a post that I got carried away with, but contains some good info for guys that did not know that muscle cars of the 60-70s, might actually have less power than the northstar they drive. It has to do with a comparison of the 400HP cadillac 500 Vs a Northstar, and why the 400HP is an overrated power rating.

"This is an interesting and great topic I say this because I have lived just this. I will explain as best as I know below and give you some examples of what changed over the years in cars HP#'s. I have owned pretty much the mentiond cars, 70 Eldo,.. but not the SLS... a couple of STSs instead along with a list of classic cars that I wount even go in to.... I will tell you without a shadow of a doubt, The STS will kick the bejesus out of the original 70 eldo.... no ifs, ands, buts, or, ors. The 70 eldo is not slow for what it is, and for this post, lets not even bring up the weight differences of an SLS/70 eldo, as its not the major factor on this example.

I think Katshot pretty much told the main reason, and this is why I dont want to mention weight factors....... Cars before 1972 were WAY overrated on HP. It was a "gross" rating and was used as a big selling point of cars, and it still has a serious effect today on the values and misunderstood performace of 60's and early 70's muscle cars.. Insurance in those days, like today, was priced with how much HP your car had. With some political influence and as a way to standardise the HP ratings, along with helping insurance rates for new cars buyers, a new way of rating cars HP came about in 1972. This is not to be confused with the fact that some engines did lose actual power because of lower compression. This all happened right about the same time. It is also not to be confused that power was lost in 1974 and later with the first generation of Catalytic Converters on 74 and newer gas powered passenger cars. It was a tough time, and all this stuff went into effect, but the HP ratings we are talking about here are a totally seperate issue.

Here is a perfect example if you are confused....I am not comparing this to a cadillac, but it transfers just the same to show HP ratings drop from 1971 ratings to 1972.... A 1971 LS5 454 corvette rated at the 1971 specs had 365HP.. In 1972 it had 270HP..... What was changed.????...ABSOLUTLY NOTHING! Same everything!.. Just by the way the HP was rated starting in 1972 it lost 95 HP. Many high compression engines were dropped in 1971 as I mentioned above, but this particular example is a low compression motor and carried on for years after. The 71 LS5 365HP was the low end Big Block.... This low compression big block LS5 stayed the same way up until 1974 when the big block was dropped in the corvette, but kept in cars/trucks with the added Catylitic Converter, to be about 200HP... The motor really did lose about 70HP from the first generation catylitic converter, but the 71-72 ratings change lost more power on paper than the emmissions did in actuality.

This even gets better..... The FASTEST stock, right off the floor corvette to its date, less some ZL1, L88 or way rare factory race car, was th 1973 454... Why???? First to have radial tires, so it hooked up and moved! The 1973 corvette, with 270HP will dust the MEGA overrated 1967 435HP tri power corvette, mainly due to traction, but the HP is not really that much different either when you convert the ratings post 71. We are looking at the 67 having, in actuality, roughly 300HP in todays ratings...the 73 having 270HP in todays ratings as it was rated 1972 and later and that is the same as todays ratings. When you add in the always "hush hush and never important" increased torque from the larger 454 over the 427, the 1973 is simply a bit faster, even taking the traction factor out. Dont try and tell this to the magazine preachers, or an uneducated mid- year corvette die hard, as they will think you are crazy, but its true. The real car guys understand this, but there are so many that you would think know, but dont.

As I mentioned above, if you took the 67 435HP car and rated in 1972, it would have about 300HP in todays world... Now dont be fooled as it gets even worse... thats not 300RWHP... Its flywheel... No US car has ever been rated at the rear wheel, unless its an independent rating... Take out the driveline loss on that 1967 435HP corvette, and go by the many dynos I have seen on those cars in actual stock form and you get about 230HP to the ground. Given that... Take an STS against a factory 1967 435 corvette.... Whos faster... In reality, if the 67 has radials, its close to about 60 then the STS will win. Been there, done this. You might not believe this, but using an "original" 67 425HP VS a Northstar STS, its true. You might read some mag article where some 67 classic corvette clocked off a 12:50 or something like that, but keep in mind that there are not too many restored corvettes that go back 100% the way they were built back then and usually have a little power added to them on rebuilds through mods. I lived that era, and I can tell you that the tales get taller as time goes on about how fast 60's muscle cars were in stock form. Most knowledgable people realise that the cars 60's/70's cars were fast in their day, and that day is unfortunatly gone.. In todays world an original 67 435HP corvette is not that fast compared to its legend. It really dynos to the ground about the same as an STS, of which on an STS 230-245 is not unusual to see the ground....FWHP in the STS'sr case.

So, to make things a bit more understood, for those guys like myself that build up these "70 similar 400HP" cad 500s... If I rated my current near 500HP cad 500 engine in pre 71 specs, it would be close to 650HP....Now thats WAY overrated. The 70 eldorado is more like 295HP to the flywheel in todays ratings, so you can see that a bunch of HP is added on these built up 500s over what they really were....

All cars that are now legends are just really that in stock form, including Hemis, GTOs, Chevelles, corvettes, etc of the mid 60's early 70's.... In reality, what made those cars have the image that they were super fast, were the many guys that hot-rodded the crap out of them ... in many cases, some nearly doubled the actual HP of the original from mods, etc. Personally I was running a true 11 second 67 GTO on the street and it looked stock to a point.. I am sure that some youger guys today, remember my 67 flying and buying a restored one today from that image possibly not knowing that it is not that fast by todays standards. I was this way too, as I remember many 57 chevys that flew... In reality, a 57 chevy was a high 17 second car... My 360HP GTO was a 16 second 92MPH car when it was new and original. The images of those modded cars are the cars that todays high dollar buyers are reminicing over. Many of these guys were not a part of actually racing them back then and so many dont understand the fact that these resored "muscle" cars are by no means fast in todays standards....

One thing is for sure and no one can argue with this... Those cars are worth a fortune compared to a more expensive car like a cadillac of the same day. I would say that their overrated HP #'s, along with the 60's-70's modded cars that ruled the night time of america have everything to do with it... HP "ratings" sells cars.... Just explaining this to many it very tough as alot of todays "investment type" classic car buyers, have no clue that their wifes daily SLS will probably beat their classic 60's muscle car. They would say you are crazy for even thinking that... If they do really want to know, and I have done this on occasion, and get some to actually race their classic car agaisnt a car like an STS.. Once they are beaten a number of times, they are shocked and just dont understand the outcome. I say... "if you want to make that restored to orignal car fast".. I can tell you how.

Long live the old ratings! I really wish that all this nonscence would be dropped and rear wheel HP ratings were a standard along with a vehicles power to weight ratio... This takes the BS out of everything and tells the buyer what he is really getting."

davesdeville
11-26-03, 06:01 PM
So, to make things a bit more understood, for those guys like myself that build up these "70 similar 400HP" cad 500s... If I rated my current near 500HP cad 500 engine in pre 71 specs, it would be close to 650HP....Now thats WAY overrated. The 70 eldorado is more like 295HP to the flywheel in todays ratings, so you can see that a bunch of HP is added on these built up 500s over what they really were....

You did get a bit carried away, but if one were to read that they would get a better understanding of the ratings.

Now you're trying to tell me a 70 500 at 10:1 compression will get less hp than a 76 500 at 8.5:1? I think you're not quite giving it the credit it deserves. I've heard from more than one source that a 76 gets 300-310hp and a link to one of the sources is in the original thread your post was put in. It only stands to reason that higher compression will give it a higher hp rating.

Ralph
11-26-03, 10:16 PM
I've read tons of musclecar mags in the 1980's when I was in HS. This was always a big topic. I researched my dad's 1971 Olds 442 W30, and it was rated at a conservative 360hp, (gross, before exhaust was attatched, fan belts, etc.) I read that in today's rating the actual is what a new DTS has, namely, the 442 is actually 300 hp! My dad always told me stories about the 442 having so much power (esp. on ice) that one time he took it to a hockey game, and at a stop sign it shook so much it almost went in the ditch! In other words, it had a lot of power! The fastest he had it up to was 150 mph with plenty of room to spare. So when I showed him his new DTS was actually the same power, he was suprised.

Something that always confused me is the rating of the street Hemi 426. Factory rated at 425, which seems low. Yet, I have read that it is actually 650 hp NET! Now, my question is, ratings were more then, so why was the hemi rated so low, and not overinflated like all other musclecars of the era? I understand about insurance rates, and the lower compression in 1971. Real musclecar enthuisiasts know that 1970 was the last truly great year for the ultimate in hp numbers.

Ultra Slow
11-27-03, 06:08 AM
There are no STOCK 76 500s that will do 300HP.... Thats like saying that my 80 cadillac is all stock and ran high 12's when it was new...... In fact the 76 big cadillacs were a good bit slower than the 77-81 cars for the obvious size difference..... Now on the 76, dump the cat, and you can start getting more power.. Put an intake, and full exhast and you will get close to the 300HP. Change the cam, raise the compression... No problem, the skys the limit to what you want to do. I will 100% agree that the 76 500 is a bit underrated at its 190HP, but it is not a 300HP engine in stock 100% original form. The reson that it is underrated is they used the Fuel Injection 500 for the ratings, thus really dropping the power.. The EFI motors through the late 70's and early 80's really were way slower than their carburated equivalant. Although the fuel injection is very cool, it is poor on performance as it was a first gen EFI system that a carb was simply superior to at the time in pretty much all aspects.

The Olds W30 was a great engine... Had 3 cars with high pump olds 455's in them. Was my favorite big engine for a long time and raced them all through the 80's. That is true that the W30 is about 300HP, but its more like 270-280 in reality if you used the 72-later ratings. It was fast for sure, but dont give the credit to the HP ratings as they were pretty much right on if measured in the 72 and later methods. What I did not go into big detail over in my original post was the torque. Motors like the W30, 70-500 cad, all had about 500ft lbs of torque to the flywheel.... Whatever crazy method car makers come up with rating HP, you cant jive the torque, and torque wins races on heavy street cars.. All street cars are heavy if they are over 2000LBS, according to the racing world.

Motors like the 70 Cad 500 are infact stronger motors than the Northstar, even though their HP ratings are lower than the Northstar on the same tests and ratings. They usually toted heavier cars than today. The torque on a 70 CAD-500 is WAY more than a N*, but the HP is a bit less... Torque is 200ft lbs over the N*.... Factor in torque with HP and you have a strong engine. A good designed and efficient running engine has about equal HP to torque, and the N* did just this and many modern engines do too! Not many big blocks do this... They usually have less HP than torque, and if you build them to have more HP than torque, they usually come apart pretty quick.

Take a motor thats ALL HP and little torque, you have a motor like they use in INDY... Yea its got 900HP in a 1200LB car, but put it in a 4000LB car and it will not run like you think it will, having to rev the crap out of it, and it wont last too long either. Same goes for putting a true 500HP built cadillac 500CID motor in a Simi Truck and comparing it the the avalible CAT-435HP Diesel that many high end rigs use. The cadillac 500 would barely pull that truck out the way compared to the Cat motor, and it would probably last about 2000 miles before it tore up under the stress and constand WOT use just to move the truck... Why..? Although the cadillac 500 has 500HP/600FT LBS... When that Cat-435HP is spooled up, its 435HP a bit less than the cadillac motor, but its creating more like 1200+ Ft Lbs of torque, and it does it at 1000 RPMS all day long without batting an eye. If that CAT-435 was not many thousand pounds itself, it would make a street car about as fast as you can get on the opposite extreme from an Indy engine.

With that said, take the N* and 70CAD 500 in the same car, the stock 70CAD motor is going to be faster, but dont think for one second its because it has more HP as it really does not... Its the torque.

An off the showroom, straight from the plant Hemis were not that strong stock. Like many other similar cars, they have created a legend due to the racing world of modified cars. Although I was never a mopar fan, still not either, and did not own a Hemi personally, I was around when these things were bought at the dealer and brought out to race againt like stock cars from GM. They were just a little stronger than a factory RAIV 69/70 Gto, and about the same as a 435 Corvette, and that was amazing in its day given the fact the cars hac very poor integrity, terrible suspension and just flat ugly... The Hemi cars were cheap compared to the vette, etc and ran about the same and that is what the fun of it was... A 426 Hemi Powered car was a mid/high 14 second car without mods off the showroom floor.... Add mods and they get fast as with all big CID, high compression motors of that time.

Comparing today, an STS is a 14:6 car, bone stock when driven right without the Mag drivers turning off the traction and locking out 1st gear.. Thus running high 15's as printed in many "weekly wipe" car publications.... It would give a STOCK hemi a darn good race down the 1/4 mile, and I dont have to tell you that it would kill the hemi past that.

With Hemi's as with most restored cars, . I dont think there are too many STOCK hemi engines around today even on the perfect restored original cars. Most get some upgrades to add power, and why not... In those days Hemi's and other muscle cars were quickly modified to have quite a bit more power than they rolled off the lot with, so again, the tales get taller with time as the people that actually raced them ALL modified them.

You have to remember that in the late 60's, dealerships were more than willing to add performance to new cars with things like headers, cams, intake, carbs, gears or whatever you wanted to the car... Many of the actual test cars that were given to mags like C&D, etc to print the test reports were not stock and had been massaged to be a good bit faster than the average one. This of course sells cars! The biggest thing I can tell anyone on a vehicles perfromace is "dont always believe what is printed" Many car manufactuers do get caught this way too.. The last one was late 90's 32V cobra... Claimed to be a low 13 car in the prints and hyped to the max. When actual motorheards bought these cobras and raced the crap out of them, pretty much evert one was a high 14 car stock, and the 32V motor is not easy to mod.. Ford bought back many of these, but this is a rare deal to see these manufatuers get caught.

There were many dealerships that built hot rod transplant cars in the 60's and I am sure most everyone knows them now.. Yenko, Baldwin, Berger, Nickey, etc... These were just chevy dealerships making a car the way many customers asked for in the past and created their own package of mods for them... All big profit! It was only when the strict EPA "PC" reign came about that they just blew it off and said they could not do it... Thanks to the EPA, these cars are worth increadible money today. Many of these cars were equivalant to 500-600HP cars in todays ratings, but were cars that were really no faster than a N* today before they were modified.

I am sure we will all be hearing about "how fast" the 86-90 5.0 mustangs were back in their day 30 years from now, as so many of them were hot rodded, blown up and trashed, creating an image of the car...... In reality, they are 15 second cars stock... In 30 years, 3 second 1/4 miles and 300MPH will probably be the standard in family car performance.






I've read tons of musclecar mags in the 1980's when I was in HS. This was always a big topic. I researched my dad's 1971 Olds 442 W30, and it was rated at a conservative 360hp, (gross, before exhaust was attatched, fan belts, etc.) I read that in today's rating the actual is what a new DTS has, namely, the 442 is actually 300 hp! My dad always told me stories about the 442 having so much power (esp. on ice) that one time he took it to a hockey game, and at a stop sign it shook so much it almost went in the ditch! In other words, it had a lot of power! The fastest he had it up to was 150 mph with plenty of room to spare. So when I showed him his new DTS was actually the same power, he was suprised.

Something that always confused me is the rating of the street Hemi 426. Factory rated at 425, which seems low. Yet, I have read that it is actually 650 hp NET! Now, my question is, ratings were more then, so why was the hemi rated so low, and not overinflated like all other musclecars of the era? I understand about insurance rates, and the lower compression in 1971. Real musclecar enthuisiasts know that 1970 was the last truly great year for the ultimate in hp numbers.

92_Deville_on_20's
11-27-03, 03:00 PM
Muscle cars in the 60/70's are classics, but definetly overrated as far as performance.

I find it hard to believe that those cars are faster than the cars these days STOCK from the factory. Muscle can't compare to the power, braking, handling, reliablity, and so on of new cars..period. Those cars are 30-40 years old and lack the technology.

Come on, we have cars from the factory laying down over 400hp to the flywheel stock and I can name so many cars that can run low 13's to mid 12's stock, and I not even talking exotics. I know several 4 bangers that will destroy any muscle you throw at it stock...example

Dodge Neon SRT-4..225hp 2.4L high 13's low 14's stock
Lancer EVO VIII...270hp 2.4L mid 13's in 1/4 mile
Subaru WRX STi...2.5L 300hp low 13's in 1/4 mile
Mustang Corba...5.4L V8 390hp mid 12's stock
ZO6..I don't even need to go there, we all should knew what she can do.

these are just a few examples, now here are some of my favorites..

BMW M5..the new one will sport a V10 and I sure it will have over 400hp
Mercedes SL 500 AMG..V8 493hp, need I say more.. :D

Ralph
11-27-03, 09:12 PM
Muscle cars in the 60/70's are classics, but definetly overrated as far as performance.

I find it hard to believe that those cars are faster than the cars these days STOCK from the factory. Muscle can't compare to the power, braking, handling, reliablity, and so on of new cars..period. Those cars are 30-40 years old and lack the technology.

Come on, we have cars from the factory laying down over 400hp to the flywheel stock and I can name so many cars that can run low 13's to mid 12's stock, and I not even talking exotics. I know several 4 bangers that will destroy any muscle you throw at it stock...example

Dodge Neon SRT-4..225hp 2.4L high 13's low 14's stock
Lancer EVO VIII...270hp 2.4L mid 13's in 1/4 mile
Subaru WRX STi...2.5L 300hp low 13's in 1/4 mile
Mustang Corba...5.4L V8 390hp mid 12's stock
ZO6..I don't even need to go there, we all should knew what she can do.

these are just a few examples, now here are some of my favorites..

BMW M5..the new one will sport a V10 and I sure it will have over 400hp
Mercedes SL 500 AMG..V8 493hp, need I say more.. :D


I have the utmost respect for cars of the "original" muscle car era. 1964-1974. There would be no Cobra Mustangs, or SRT Neons if the original iron didn't exist. Considering that the old bias ply tires would smoke all day and lost traction badly in many a musclecar review, I would like to think that if I still had my dad's w30, with modern tires, I could kick-ass on any of the new whizz-bangers that they are making today. The cars of yesteryear (and they are plentyful today) didnot need technology to go fast, they had the torque, and the proper format to do it in, namely RWD. Put a set of modern performance radials on a nicely restored musclecar like the 1969 rt charger I has in HS, and I'll stun many a Civic ricer! I will never forget my buddy Neil in the mid-80's cruising with his black 1971 440 Charger. No hood, but the fattest slicks you could stuff in the rear. He would love terrorizing pediastrians on a Saturday night by literally raising the front wheels off the ground at a green light! Talk about torque! Lets see a WRX do that!!

Ralph
11-27-03, 09:17 PM
For Ultraslow, I remember the Cobra hp problem you are referring to in the late '90's. I believe it was the '98 or '99 Cobra, and Ford put the wrong camshaft in, so they had to recall hundreds of them. Ford was worried it would hurt their image, if I recall correctly.

Ralph
11-28-03, 01:03 AM
Also, I would like to add that I think you can have all the technology you can stuff into a car, but a well-trained or experienced driver can do things with a rear-wheel=old tech. that would match or near a trac. control or allwheel drive, etc. Manufacturers have admitted to adding tech more and more simply because not all drivers are good drivers, and things like anti-lock brakes, stabilitrac, traction control, heck even automatic door locks, because people forget things and do not care about the functioning of their automobile. Some people need to get back down to basics and understand aspects of their car and how it functions, handles, and the effects of variables on these.

My first car was a 1970 Plymouth, and it was a great car to learn on. I would not trade that experience for any other type of car, ie. allwheel drive, front wheel drive, more modern tech, etc. I am glad I learned how to handle a 4,000 pound car with rwd on sheer ice, or in a sideways skid or fishtail. 92 Deville on 20's., you mentioned that some of these cars are 30 to 40 years old, they still get the job done just fine. I have a 90 year old rifle that shoots as straight as anything new, what's your point?

You are right about many cars laying out 400 hp nowadays, and it was fun in the 1980's to watch the second wave of "musclecars" evolve and escalate from there. I believe it started with the 1982 GT Mustang, then Buick went turbo, then everyone else jumped on the bandwagon after that.

Mercedes SL 500 AMG, BMW M5, not too many people can probably afford one of those. You can get an older musclecar, work it, and get a lot more hp than that. Plus, things can be done to suspensions today that make any "old" car handle awsome. That is all.

92_Deville_on_20's
11-28-03, 01:50 PM
What are you smoking on. Muscle cars were nice in there day and when restored right they are still nice. One of my favorites is the 69 GTO Judge.

But, even with nice radial tires will NOT out perfrom a car like WRX STi or a ZO6 on the drag strip and DEFINETLY not on a road course or auto cross.

No low tech over weight tin can muscle car is going to out accelerrate, brake, or corner better than a nice sports car of today's era I.E...ZO6, WS6, SS Camaro, Mustang Cobra, WRX STi, EVO VIII, M3...Hell I don't think they can hang with some of the sedans or sport wagons they are putting out these days like a Mercedes E55 AMG or the Audi S4 wagon.

Have you ever watched the Gumball 3000 on DVD before. Basically it is a all out blitz a cross the county in some nices cars on the planet. They just straight punish the cars for 3000 miles doing 1** mph the whole way making it a challenge for any car. Yes alot of those cars are exotics, but some of them are also cars that most car afford that they take and mod. But, not of those cars are muscle cars...I wonder why.

Also, most of the cars I just mentioned are affordable by today's standard.

lux hauler
11-28-03, 03:49 PM
Yes alot of those cars are exotics, but some of them are also cars that most car afford that they take and mod. But, not of those cars are muscle cars...I wonder why.
FWIW......there have been muscle cars that run the Gumball. I remember seeing pictures of a '72 Torino that competed as well as a 60's Mustang and a early 50's (?) Caddy.

Ralph
11-28-03, 09:11 PM
92 deville on 20's, you've obviously never owned or much less raced a true musclecar. I only smoke when I am on fire. I understand what you mean by some of the sedans today, they are killer IMO. My friend who owned the Midas where I lived had a 1969 RA111 GTO Judge, and he could kick anything in that town, including my 383 Charger of the same year. (just too heavy) Sometimes weight can be an advantage when it comes to issues like traction mind you. He could easily kick the 5.0 Mustangs, turbo Lazers and Daytonas (remember those), and any Camaro/Trans Am of the day. True, the cars you mention are more and more powerful now, but I guess I have a hard time accepting a 4cyl. Suburu kicking a beast like the GTO. I would love to see some drags with some new and old tech. comparisons.

There are still a ton of Musclecars out there, they are still racing, cruising, and kicking ass with the best of them, legends live forever, and with the factory movement towards restoration parts, etc, they will be with us forever.

Ralph
11-28-03, 10:33 PM
I will also add that my idea of real power is not having to rev-up to 8 grand to get it. (Honda 2000) Torque still is what pulls or pushes a car. Considering that most musclecars in the glory days had about as much torque as some exotics today (I'll get numbers if you wish), is nothing short of amazing. IMO. How many WRX's, SRT-4's, Evo's do you ever see pulling a trailer up a hill????? The answer = NONE. Torque is not only for racing, but it helps! Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it. :xevileye:

davesdeville
11-28-03, 11:32 PM
There are no STOCK 76 500s that will do 300HP

Maybe you're talking wheel hp, cause HRM and and Cad Company have taken stock or essentially stock 76 500"s to an engine dyno and gotten 303hp/468'# and 306hp/493'#s.

http://eldocountry.com/hrmtorque/hPage4.jpg and http://cad500parts.com/ (see the catalog)

Ralph
11-29-03, 02:05 AM
You can refer the mid to late 1970's as the dark ages for hp in cars. 1975 was when they put in cat converters, and my 1978 Dodge was only rated at 155 hp. Weren't 455's only rated around 175hp? (smoggers)

lux hauler
11-29-03, 02:26 AM
He could easily kick the 5.0 Mustangs, turbo Lazers and Daytonas (remember those),
You ARE kidding, right?
How can you compare a 2.2L, 150hp(?) turbo car to ANY muscle car OR car of any kind built today? Even the hp from the Mustang in the 80's was terrible (compared to the 60's and today). The '82 Mustang GT did what......a mid to high 15 second quarter mile....? I had a stock Ranger that was almost that fast. My buddy had an Escort that WAS that fast.

Ralph
11-29-03, 05:58 PM
You ARE kidding, right?
How can you compare a 2.2L, 150hp(?) turbo car to ANY muscle car OR car of any kind built today? Even the hp from the Mustang in the 80's was terrible (compared to the 60's and today). The '82 Mustang GT did what......a mid to high 15 second quarter mile....? I had a stock Ranger that was almost that fast. My buddy had an Escort that WAS that fast.

My point was that all the power ratings increased and cars became faster and more powerful in the 1980's. Toward 1990, we had good performing "modern" musclecars like the GTA and IROC Camaro. My point was also that Musclecars have stood the tests of time because they have been compared to a Daytona 2.2 in the 1980's, to a Neon SRT-4 today.

Here is a quote from Sept. 1987, "Muscle Cars":
"1985 saw the dawn of a new musclecar era. Detroit was building a new crop of youth machines. Cars that looked tough, ran hard, and sounded just right. The musclecar had been reborn. Those cars that "would never come again" began flowing off the assembly line and into the streets of America in numbers rivaling their ancestors of the 1960's.

At the same time Detroit rediscovered racing, getting back into the organized aspect of the sport with a vengance. All of a sudden, it was once again a very good time to be an automotive enthusiast.

The irony of it all is that the same things that killed off the musclecar back in the early 1970's are the things that gave birth to a new wave. Government regulations forcing Detroit to build more efficient, cleaner running, lighter and safer cars have actually become the hotrodder's best friend. The performance cars we have today are technological marvals. The streets are literally crawling with low 14 and high 13-second cars that get 20 mpg, don't hurt themselves and in general, a blast to drive.

I own a Hemi Roadrunner, I also own a brand new 5.0 liter Mustang. At the strip, the car will peel off low 14 second blasts and occasionally dip into the high 13's as many times as I can pull it to the line. With better traction, and some goodwill from the Gods, it should go into the 12's."

92 Deville basically implied that a WRX can beat a W30 455 Olds, now you know how I feel, right!?

Ralph
11-29-03, 07:08 PM
You ARE kidding, right?
How can you compare a 2.2L, 150hp(?) turbo car to ANY muscle car OR car of any kind built today? Even the hp from the Mustang in the 80's was terrible (compared to the 60's and today). The '82 Mustang GT did what......a mid to high 15 second quarter mile....? I had a stock Ranger that was almost that fast. My buddy had an Escort that WAS that fast.

If I recall, the Daytona turbo 2.2 was 170 hp.

Are you implying that your 500 cu. in. Caddy will be wiped by a new Focus svt, or a Neon? Take the same engine, put it into a lighter car, and the possibilities are probably endless. That was the idea behind the 5.0 of the '80's.

lux hauler
11-29-03, 08:35 PM
If I recall, the Daytona turbo 2.2 was 170 hp.

Are you implying that your 500 cu. in. Caddy will be wiped by a new Focus svt, or a Neon? Take the same engine, put it into a lighter car, and the possibilities are probably endless. That was the idea behind the 5.0 of the '80's.
My motor is nowhere near stock.

lux hauler
11-29-03, 08:43 PM
The Daytona Turbo was 142hp until 1987 when hp went to 174 for the intercooled version.
http://www.allpar.com/model/daytona.html

Ultra Slow
11-29-03, 08:44 PM
Good arguments.... Yes newer cars have the power and technology.. period.... A case one example will be the new GTO when it comes out, which it will eventually be offered with the LS6 6 speed, just like the V-series CTS... It will blow away stock for stock, any old GTO... Now making tho old GTO go much faster than it was stock, it not hard as it was never 100% efficient when it was built. Making an LS6 run harder without blowing or spraying it, is gong to take much more work as the motors are efficient to begin with.

The newer muscle car craze did begin again with the 82 GT, and got good with the GN, Vette, F-bodies.. All very respectable cars that had the acceleration of many classic hot rods, but the vettes and F-bodies offered something new.... Top Speed..... That has to be a factor in a well rounded car... Having a car that runs 10's at 105MPH with 4:56 gears, is not a car... Its a worthless machine that I would not even consider owning... Having a car that runs 12's, or what it can, and goes 190MPH is a real machine, and this is what new cars are striving for. New cars like the CL600 twin turbo, or the AMG version CL 65 are just unbelivable in performance. These cars are capable of 200MPH and have an easy 700HP with a few minor ECM mods... This is technology that can beat just about everything for a price!!!! That price might not be as much as you think, because I cant think of building an 11 second 200MPH drivable machine out of many capable cars for much less than plunking down 120K and buying one of these already done. THese cars also have something that is much harder to build tham performance... This is a big thing that is very important to me, and a reson I like the old cadillacs for perfromace... These cars have Integrity..... Having some built up car run 10 seconds one time using things like NOS and blowing up in a few runs is a joke... This is the hod-rod mentality that I cant relate too and I refuse to build or deal with cars like this... They are truly worthless and check the auto trader... See them all the time....... "10 second car and trailer", then a list of every aftermarket parts manufactuer following...... $5,000.00 OBO... 100K invested (or wasted) ... Not for me...

Having a car that runs as fast as it can and does it over and over and over again with a great top speed is what these new cars do... Its hard to beat that and the 60's cars NEVER did this.

There are also many new cars like the M5, etc and even the STS that do perform quite well too. All the cars mentioned above are great and are very respectable cars... There are just two that were mentioned that I have a hard standing up for..... I just would not consider a WRX or an S2000 a performance car.... They are nice "sports" cars, just like an MG or Fiat was in the 70's, but neither are fast and are WAY overhyped, all the way down to their magazine ratings. I consider both these cars the anti-muscle cars... They do just the opposite as the big engined cars did in the 60's/70's. They take tini-weenie, short lived engines and try and make big HP with them throwing the torque out the window.... You need both and its obvious by the performance out of an S2000 when its actually raced... an STS will waste it unless you side step the clutch at 8000RPMS and ruin the car to get its "rated" times... The brand new S2000 finaly addressed this and they are starting to get this right by adding torque....The only chance the WRX has is with mega boost... They can run with a STOCK LS1 in (acceleration only) this way, but the car becomes a short lived candle with a very limited future when this is done... It just makes more since to just buy and LS1 and be done with it if you want good acceleration......The S2000 is a very well built and nice car, but the power is very lacking... You can turbo charge them and make them fast....... Then again what would an STS do with a turbo, so the point is mute with an S2000... Nice "sports" car, but the word performance does not apply.

Ralph
11-29-03, 09:05 PM
Ultra, good info, however I beg to differ with you on one point. This one,
"Having a car that runs as fast as it can and does it over and over and over again with a great top speed is what these new cars do. Its hard to beat that and the 60's cars NEVER did this."

I know we all have different ideas on cars, but the first thing I thought of were the Hertz Shelby rent-a-cars. Those cars were abused, and beaten to a pulp on the track (the equivalence of leasing today, LOL) by people who rented them for the weekend, and did not care of the outcome. They were all returned on Monday.

Ralph
11-29-03, 09:14 PM
The Daytona Turbo was 142hp until 1987 when hp went to 174 for the intercooled version.
http://www.allpar.com/model/daytona.html

Interesting site.

Night Wolf
11-29-03, 09:21 PM
sure having a car that can go 200mph is cool.....but where are you going to go 200mph? how often are you going to go hat fast?

I would rather have a car that the first few gears are geared for really good acceleration, while the last gear is more laid back, so the enigne is not killing itself on the highway...... the limiting factor in my car is the tranny...is is geared high, beucase that's what it was made for, I would like to get the FDR from a Touring Sedana nd put it in my car, not a big differnce, but enough to make it a little more snappier and not hinder highway driving.

davesdeville
11-29-03, 11:40 PM
Top speed isn't very useful. I think for the US at least, 130 is about as high a top speed as is useful. I'd much rather have a car that's geared to get good acceleration through to around 130 than a car that takes awhile to get to 200. Here in NM, there are about 10 roads that I could go well over 130 on, but they're way the hell away from where anyone lives. The fastest I've gone (in a car) is just over 100mph, and I couldn't have done it if it weren't 3am way out of town. (Since I don't have a speedo I looked up the distance I went and timed it. Just over 10 miles, right at 5:48 through sweeping curves. I'm sure I went faster that night, just averaged 100.)

Ralph
12-01-03, 01:38 AM
My motor is nowhere near stock.

What kind of numbers can you get out of that beast? :burn:

Stoneage_Caddy
12-01-03, 02:49 PM
"This even gets better..... The FASTEST stock, right off the floor corvette to its date, less some ZL1, L88 or way rare factory race car, was th 1973 454... Why???? First to have radial tires, so it hooked up and moved! The 1973 corvette, with 270HP will dust the MEGA overrated 1967 435HP tri power "

what are the weight diffrences between the 67 and 73 big block vettes , always wondered , esp since dad has a 73 vette (190 hp smog 350 4 speed)

daytonas , now there was a car that was never understood let me break some figures out from memory

84 87- 147 hp turbo I
88 -89 high torque 2.5 turbo rolls out 150 hp or the 174 hp turbo II was available
90 majic lag-less varible nozzle turbo debuts one year production fo the 174 hp unit , high torque and 2.2 turbo II still around
91 no more vnt
92-93 turbo III arrives , 224 hp , headwork doen by lotus , notorious for warping/cracking its head

weight was around 2800-3100 lbs

by comp ...mustang :

84- 2.3 turbo 4, in the svo made 175 hp (2.3 turbo stangs were around since 79 pace car)5.0 only made 165 hp
85 -svo now makes 205 hp
86- svo still makes 205 hp , but has more weight
87 -92 reskin 5.0 makes 225 hp
93 either a 200 hp 5.0 or a 235 hp 5.0

curb weight around 3000 lbs also
daytona was close , only way i could see it being beatter is if i had drivetrain loss figures

lux hauler
12-01-03, 04:21 PM
What kind of numbers can you get out of that beast? :burn:
What is the motor capable of making, or what will my motor make?
I have been told by someone that I could expect 430hp and just under 600 lb. ft. of torque.....others disagree. If I put it on the dyno, I'll find out for sure.

I've heard of people running 700hp+ with a modded 500.

davesdeville
12-01-03, 06:32 PM
I've heard of people running 700hp+ with a modded 500.

Like J. Potter http://www.cadillacperformanceparts.com/info.html

Ralph
12-01-03, 09:05 PM
What is the motor capable of making, or what will my motor make?
I have been told by someone that I could expect 430hp and just under 600 lb. ft. of torque.....others disagree. If I put it on the dyno, I'll find out for sure.

I've heard of people running 700hp+ with a modded 500.


Those numbers are GOOD!

Stoneage, that's what I thought, namely tire technology making quite a difference.