Nothing beats an old V8

[thastinger]

I typically much prefer more modern technology, however a few years back I drove a very tastefully modified (not too much, just things that improve) 66 mustang V8 "resto-rod" much like the one I owned as a young man. Truthfully, I had forgotten just how much fun that car was. That Mustang was clearly light, ultra-responsive, and fast. One cannot purchase a car like that today. Today's stuff is often very numb, overweight, unresponsive and yes, often underpowered when compared to a properly "uncorked" performance V8 of the past. AND, that's the secret. Many of those older engines took very little effort to get some real power. 325HP in a 2500 pound "old Mustang" is really fun, any way you slice it.

Put another way, today's Mustang GT would need more than 480HP to have the same power to weight.

Also of note, today's premier American performance sports car, the Corvette, still uses the classic American V8 architecture in relatively unmolested form. GM continues to experiment with alternatives, but short of some very high technology or electric drive, the simple, compact and lightweight V8 retains some notable strengths. The V8, for all it's faults, (often forced to be in detuned form) is still winning endurance races the world over. The 'Vette C7r, Caddy's V8 entries and plenty of privateer V8 entries are often seen leading.

I like V8s as much as anyone but the reality is that the highest performance production engines from the 60s era would be no match for their modern versions.
My 13 GT500 has 662HP/631TQ and weighs 2900Lbs.

 

[Trav]

It didn't take much to make those severely underrated engine powerful enough to exceed 662 hp by a wide margin.
The 429 twisted hemi was easily capable of over 850 HP, the 426 hemi could muster the same and even more quite easily, most of the original dragster engines were 426 hemi based. The big block Chevy with a little work could make tremendous power.

 

[thastinger]

It didn't take much to make those severely underrated engine powerful enough to exceed 662 hp by a wide margin.
The 429 twisted hemi was easily capable of over 850 HP, the 426 hemi could muster the same and even more quite easily, most of the original dragster engines were 426 hemi based. The big block Chevy with a little work could make tremendous power.

I disagree on the boss 429s, the NASCAR teams they were developed for got everything they could out of those with a holley dominator carbs on em. never close to 850 and they were 500 mile bombs.
Point is that modern engines can do 662 all day, every day, for 10s of thousands of miles without issue. My GT500 gets 28MPG at 80MPH on the open road too.

 

[Trav]

Just saying, those old engines could easily make as much or more HP with not too much work all day long. These were natually aspirated engines and you want to compare them to a forced induction engine. Put a blower on either the 429 or the 426 and see how much HP they make, a lot more than 662 for sure.

 

[supton]

Was it me or was the Buick bogging just off the line, once it hooked? Might be intentional, to help hook up.

I was kinda impressed. Makes me think though, given a long enough strip, that the Buick would lose. That is a lot of air to push! Hard off the line though, and that is what wins a drag race.

 

[edyvw]

Supra packs also more weight.

 

[edyvw]

Was it me or was the Buick bogging just off the line, once it hooked? Might be intentional, to help hook up.

I was kinda impressed. Makes me think though, given a long enough strip, that the Buick would lose. That is a lot of air to push! Hard off the line though, and that is what wins a drag race.

Yep, it is specifically made for drag race, plus it is lighter. Give it few more yards and he would not be able to see Supra's tail lights.

 

[Trav]

Put a Top fuel car in the indy 500 and its not winning anything. Anything more than 1/4 mile and a gasser is not the car.

 

[demarpaint]

Just saying, those old engines could easily make as much or more HP with not too much work all day long. These were natually aspirated engines and you want to compare them to a forced induction engine. Put a blower on either the 429 or the 426 and see how much HP they make, a lot more than 662 for sure.

+1 You'd have a powerful beast for sure.

 

[supton]

I'm not saying I'm shocked, I'm saying I'm impressed. Similar power, but lighter weight. But which has better chassis, for less flex/better traction? certainly one has more years of knowledge to draw from. Chassis and engine design & tuning, gear ratios, traction control, so on and so forth.

Less gears so bigger rpm splits? maybe not, I think it said M21 which is a tight ratio trans. I think that was the bog I was hearing, once it caught the engine was just under its powerband (which by the looks of it, was still impressive) (tall overall gear ratio). Area under the curve (wide flat torque curve) shouldn't matter as much as area under curve between shift points, not sure who wins there.

 

[02SE]

Horses for courses...

 

[Gene K]

As Cujet said, those old V8s were built very simple and were easy to make power with just bolt-on parts. Better carb, header-back exhaust, and adjust the timing curve, it wasn't uncommon to see a 40-50 hp increase (240 rwhp to 290 rwhp). Even into the 90s with the 2nd gen SBC LT1 engine, they were rather choked from the factory with a tiny camshaft, small log-style manifolds, restrictive intake piping, and a pig rich tune. Just fixing those restrictions and tuning will pickup as much as 50 rwhp. Go further with higher ratio roller rockers, electric water pump, underdrive pulley, and other "freeing up power" mods, you can push into the 300-310+ rwhp range. The most I've seen made by bolt-on only LT1 was 329.7 rwhp on E85. Just a camshaft change makes it easy to get into the 350+ rwhp range, >100 hp from stock and still using the stock throttle body, stock intake manifold, stock heads, stock compression, and stock bottom end.

I expect my LT1 to be in the 320-330 rwhp (~375 crank HP) range with just bolt-on parts.

The only carbureted small block I can't think of that might have made 240 rwhp stock was a '70 LT1.

A typical Mustang 289 2bbl made about 140 bhp net. Likely less than 120 rwhp on a good day. The high compression version of the 4 bbl might have made 135 rwhp. A 289 Hipo might have made 170 rwhp and I'm doubtful of that.

I love the old cars and the way they feel but people tend to inflate what they actually made.

A 330 bhp LT1 made 255 bhp net and about 210-215 rwhp.

 

[RDY4WAR]

Nothing inflated. Here's the dyno curve.

 

[Trav]

The only carbureted small block I can't think of that might have made 240 rwhp stock was a '70 LT1.

A typical Mustang 289 2bbl made about 140 bhp net. Likely less than 120 rwhp on a good day. The high compression version of the 4 bbl might have made 135 rwhp. A 289 Hipo might have made 170 rwhp and I'm doubtful of that.

I love the old cars and the way they feel but people tend to inflate what they actually made.

A 330 bhp LT1 made 255 bhp net and about 210-215 rwhp.

No blower!

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/0907phr-building-a-721hp-buick-engine/

 

[Gene K]

Nothing inflated. Here's the dyno curve.

View attachment 27238

Yes, the question is dynocurve on what.

1. That's not the dyno curve from an old stock carbureted small block.

2. It doesn't have an rpm axis.

3. It is by definition inflated since it is in standard instead if SAE Net.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

I calculated the FORD 428scj in a KR500 only put down about 290 Hp given its 101 MPH trap speed .

Then we find the VW Jetta GLI 4 cylinder FWD econobox just as Fast and Quick.

See the trustworthy Motorweek test below: Acceleration tests are at 3 min 38 seconds in ...




Which would you rather OWN though ! ?

 

[Trav]

It had almost 365 but was detuned, a bigger cam, headers and carb would unleash it.

Testing 4-2-8…How Much Horsepower Does the Ford 428 Cobra Jet Really Make?

Ford’s 428 Cobra Jet doesn’t need cross-bolted mains and solid lifters to make the scene, check out our buildup and and dyno test of a 1969 428 Cobra Jet.

www.hotrod.com

 

[Cujet]

The high compression version of the 4 bbl might have made 135 rwhp. A 289 Hipo might have made 170 rwhp and I'm doubtful of that.

You are not wrong (in fact you are generous) when you talk about as delivered vehicles. However, I can tell you from thousands of dyno runs, working to develop parts for Ford, and other race teams, the old V8's could and did make power. The 289 powered GT40 could go 200+MPH. Doing that required 400HP. They knew how to make that power well before that engine found it's way into the GT40. My point in my earlier post was simply that the well prepped old Mustang was responsive and fun, and that it had some good qualities. Not that it was a better and faster track or street car than today's stuff. I don't want one, been there, done that.

But I'm not here to defend old iron. I prefer the new stuff. Like 'thastinger' notes, today's 4 valve, DOHC engines can and do make big HP all day long, and they do it with a smooth idle, good low end torque, great efficiency and are emissions compliant.

The C7 Corvette, a car I like and want, is what I consider underpowered. People say it's fast, but to me, it never pulls hard and it feels numb. That's reflected in the local 1/4 mile trap speeds of 113-115mph. If a car can achieve 125+ in the 1/4, then I feel it has enough power. But that's a personal preference.

 

[Gene K]

You are not wrong (in fact you are generous) when you talk about as delivered vehicles. However, I can tell you from thousands of dyno runs, working to develop parts for Ford, and other race teams, the old V8's could and did make power. The 289 powered GT40 could go 200+MPH. Doing that required 400HP. They knew how to make that power well before that engine found it's way into the GT40. My point in my earlier post was simply that the well prepped old Mustang was responsive and fun, and that it had a some good qualities. Not that it was a better and faster track or street car than today's stuff. I don't want one, been there, done that.

But I'm not here to defend old iron. I prefer the new stuff. Like 'thastinger' notes, today's 4 valve, DOHC engines can and do make big HP all day long, and they do it with a smooth idle, good low end torque, great efficiency and are emissions compliant.

The C7 Corvette, a car I like and want, is what I consider underpowered. People say it's fast, but to me, it never pulls hard and it feels numb. That's reflected in the local 1/4 mile trap speeds of 113-115mph. If a car can achieve 125+ in the 1/4, then I feel it has enough power. But that's a personal preference.

I think we agree more than disagree.

I'm not disagreeing that a Trans Am prepped engine (or a GT40 in race trim) could make 400 bhp. I just had an issue with 240 rwhp from a stock car. Like a typical 289 Mustang of that era was delivered that way.

I just get tired of the stories of how someone's stock '68 Camaro RS 327/275 would beat up on the newest Camaro LT1. Sorry guys but it won't.

The old cars are great. Immensely satisfying to drive. The most enjoyable ride (I said ride not drive) I've ever had was in 260 Cobra. I'll always thank the man who took pity on the drooling 16 yo and gave me that. My fastest ride in a stock car of the era was a '69 Corvette Coupe L71/L89 M21. They had a rawness and directness that new cars lack and if you are lucky enough to own one, never ever sell it.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

It had almost 365 but was detuned, a bigger cam, headers and carb would unleash it.

Testing 4-2-8…How Much Horsepower Does the Ford 428 Cobra Jet Really Make?

Ford’s 428 Cobra Jet doesn’t need cross-bolted mains and solid lifters to make the scene, check out our buildup and and dyno test of a 1969 428 Cobra Jet.

www.hotrod.com

Thanks for the article! I had a '69 Fairlaine 500 sportsroof Cobrajet. I do not recall my car having those sexy 427 exhaust manifolds though- and I had that engine apart ( needed valve job and it slipped a piston pin in the #8 hole galling the cylinder wall)
Dyno testing torque @ RPM are near steady state; But to put it down when accelerating you are loosing 12-17% in the rear hypoid gears turning power 90 degrees. Then you have to accelerate the wheels and accessories then add that you are usually not in direct drive ( 4th) on a MT and you have windage and gear mesh losses in the 5-7% range in that toploader full of SAE 90.

Proof is in the pudding. Ignore ET, focus on trap speed. 101 MPH on a 3650 lb car (wet) tells you the HP.

transverse engines in FWD (not my favourite layout for sure) do not have that susbstantial hypoid loss as in RWD because they are not turning power 90 degrees.