68 Chevelle SS 396 vs 2017 Malbu 2.0 T

Joined
Dec 31, 2017
Messages
15,357
Location
SE British Columbia, Canada
Although there is nothing in common other than the Malibu name used to travel with the Chevelle name, here is how the 2.0 Turbo did against the mighty SS 396. Here are a couple of screen shots from 0 to 60. Enjoy.
68 Chevelle SS 396 7.7 sec.
2017 Malibu 2.0 T 5.7 sec.

DF4186F8-2239-467F-9108-35BEDB08AF3F.pngD81DB4EF-1D6B-4BCD-BF55-AD84B4C98111.png
 
Last edited:
The '68 Chevelle was the 1st year of the new design, but was basically the same A body underneath.
The '68 had the small tail lights. Beautiful car...
 
Usually about 60 hp less is all
I've seen it expressed as a range of percentages that varies significantly. I know for a particular Ford engine it was on the order of 30% as the engine was unchanged in the move from gross to net and it was a solid 30% hit.

Edit: I should add that you can usually get a pretty good idea going by trap speed for a 1/4 mile run, which is unfortunately missing from the OP. My 225HP T-Top 5.0L would trap just under 100Mph stock, and that was probably the heaviest configuration you could buy. An E39 M5, which isn't a light car, will trap high 100-teens and it's a 400HP car not setup for drag racing. So if a 1968 something something is trapping 88, it isn't making 400HP (just as an example).
 
I've seen it expressed as a range of percentages that varies significantly. I know for a particular Ford engine it was on the order of 30% as the engine was unchanged in the move from gross to net and it was a solid 30% hit.
Don't forget that 1972 was when they went to net in 72. A 1970 4bbl 350 chevy had a 10.25-1 compression ratio and was rated @300hp. 1971 got 8:1 compression (7.7-1 was more like it) and was 270hp. 1972 was Net with the same specs as the 71 and was 245 hp. So there were more changes than just the new NET rating
 
Don't forget that 1972 was when they went to net in 72. A 1970 4bbl 350 chevy had a 10.25-1 compression ratio and was rated @300hp. 1971 got 8:1 compression (7.7-1 was more like it) and was 270hp. 1972 was Net with the same specs as the 71 and was 245 hp. So there were more changes than just the new NET rating

No, I know, that's why I sought out specific examples back when I was first looking into it because I was trying to find ones that were unchanged (same compression ratio, heads, intake, carb...etc). On the Ford example it was a 30% hit, but that was of course only for that specific engine, so I don't think you can just arbitrarily assign a HP figure to it, it would be a percentage that would vary depending on how the engine was equipped in the car vs undressed on the dyno (gross).
 
This is a quote from Super Chevy:

SuperChevy said:
Just how fast was a stock 1969 L78 Chevelle right out of the box? Hot Cars magazine tested one in their February 1969 issue, recording a 14.07/101 mph. Popular Hot Rodding magazine tested a 1968 L78 SS Chevelle and found they could get the car down to the high 13s with just a set of Casler slicks. A better shifter and linkage, headers and a proper setup could whittle the L78's time down into the low 13s.


101Mph trap is definitely not 400HP. I was trapping 101 with under drive pulleys, aluminum DS, E-fan and equal length shorties on a 25 year old stock 5.0L with north of 100,000 miles on it. It trapped 106 on the limiter when I broke the trans and it got stuck in 3rd after making 270 to the tires (~325HP flywheel) with heads/cam/intake and the M5 was a lot faster.

The V8 Chevelle apparently curbs at 3,350lbs which is actually lighter than my old Fox, which surprised me.

Supposedly the Jeep will run 12.8 (I've never run it) and it weighs 5,200lbs. That engine in a fox would move.
 
Last edited:
These comparisons bring out more questions.

Did you know that many major auto mags don't truly test 0-60 times? They test 0-60 with a 1-foot rollout.

A Few Words About Rollout
The term "rollout" might not be familiar, but it comes from the drag strip. The arrangement of the timing beams for drag racing can be confusing, primarily because the 7-inch separation between the "pre-stage" and "stage" beams is not the source of rollout. The pre-stage beam, which has no effect on timing, is only there to help drivers creep up to the starting position. Rollout comes from the 1-foot separation (11.5 inches, actually) between the point where the leading edge of a front tire "rolls in" to the final staging beam — triggering the countdown to the green light that starts the race — and the point where the trailing edge of that tire "rolls out" of that same beam, the triggering event that starts the clock. A driver skilled at "shallow staging" can therefore get almost a free foot of untimed acceleration before the clock officially starts, effectively achieving a rolling-start velocity of 3-5 mph and shaving the 0.3 second it typically takes to cover that distance off his elapsed time (ET) in the process.

We believe the use of rollout for quarter-mile timed runs is appropriate, as this test is designed to represent an optimum drag strip run that a car owner can replicate at a drag strip. In the spirit of consistency, we also follow NHRA practice when calculating quarter-mile trap speed at the end of the run. So we publish the average speed over the final 66 feet of the quarter-mile run, even though our VBOX can tell us the instantaneous speed at the end of the 1,320-foot course, which is usually faster.

On the other hand, the use of rollout with 0-60 times is inappropriate in our view. For one, 0-60-mph acceleration is not a drag-racing convention. More important, it's called ZERO to 60 mph, not 3 or 4 mph to 60 mph, which is what you get when you apply rollout. While it is tempting to use rollout in order to make 0-60 acceleration look more impressive by 0.3 second, thereby hyping both the car's performance and the apparent skill of the test driver, we think it's cheating.

Nevertheless, some car magazines and some automobile manufacturers use rollout anyway — and fail to tell their customers. We've decided against this practice. We publish real 0-60 times instead. But in order to illuminate this issue and ensure we do justice to every car's real performance, we've begun publishing a clearly marked "with rollout" 0-60 time alongside the primary no-rollout 0-60 time so readers can see the effects of this bogus practice.

Edmunds did back-to-back testing between "true" 0-60 and 0-60 w/ rollout. On a Corvette ZR1, the difference is 0.3 seconds: 3.5 0-60 w/ rollout and 3.8 0-60 w/o rollout.

Did the tester use a rollout when they were testing 0-60 times way back when? How about the more recent cars?

Way back when, where was the testing done and how were the cars equipped?

A dusty old airstrip will handicap traction and lead to far slower times than a prepped dragstrip. The cars that were tested, how were they equipped? Did that 396/325 Chevelle have a 2.73 gear or a 4.10?

If you look at some of the "pure stock" drag racing results, you'll see far better times. Granted, these are "ideal" cars. That is, you're allowed to modify the car to represent a "best option configuration". It doesn't have to be a numbers matching car, but it does have to be a configuration that could be ordered. No aftermarket parts, only OE stuff. This is also on a modern prepped strip, but still on skinny bias tires.

Best pure stock time I could find for a 1969 Chevelle 396/375 is 11.505 @ 118.73: https://www.psmcdr.com/all-time-lists
 
No, I know, that's why I sought out specific examples back when I was first looking into it because I was trying to find ones that were unchanged (same compression ratio, heads, intake, carb...etc). On the Ford example it was a 30% hit, but that was of course only for that specific engine, so I don't think you can just arbitrarily assign a HP figure to it, it would be a percentage that would vary depending on how the engine was equipped in the car vs undressed on the dyno (gross).
Then the 1971 350 with 270 hp vs the 1972 with 245. Gross in 71,net 72
 
If you look at some of the "pure stock" drag racing results, you'll see far better times. Granted, these are "ideal" cars. That is, you're allowed to modify the car to represent a "best option configuration". It doesn't have to be a numbers matching car, but it does have to be a configuration that could be ordered. No aftermarket parts, only OE stuff. This is also on a modern prepped strip, but still on skinny bias tires.

Best pure stock time I could find for a 1969 Chevelle 396/375 is 11.505 @ 118.73: https://www.psmcdr.com/all-time-lists

Not only are you allowed to modify them to be the "best" version, but you are also allowed to raise compression 1.5 points and upgrade to electronic ignition. Gaining 17Mph in the 1/4 says a fair bit about the power difference between showroom stock and "pure stock" as tested.
 
Not only are you allowed to modify them to be the "best" version, but you are also allowed to raise compression 1.5 points and upgrade to electronic ignition. Gaining 17Mph in the 1/4 says a fair bit about the power difference between showroom stock and "pure stock" as tested.
It appears you could also run a 4.0 plus set of rear gears which would have really helped.
 
Back
Top