Well, to the soul who conceived this change, thank you and the horsepower you rode in on. Muscle cars didn't die so much as go into hibernation- they reincarnated in the late 80's when gas got cheap again.
As a teenager many fellow revheads over rated the horsepower on their own hot rods. Now as an old man; I've come to understand some of the factors involved in horsepower ratings: 1) Some car makers did NOT want the real horsepower to be known for insurance reasons, 2) The changeover from gross HP to net HP ratings coincided with emissions standards being forced in engine design, 3) torque figures are rarely mentioned but are very important especially with heavier machines, 4) differential ratios are never discussed. The only true way to measure horsepower is through the rear wheels (excluding FWD). Most likely a more accurate measure of a car's overall performance.
I remember back in the seventies in school people would only put cams headers and carburetors and intake they hardly ever put a bigger gear and did head work and yes they all lied about their quarter mile or so saying 10 seconds and stuff that's impossible oh yes can't forgot the brand the yellow distributors with the yellow spark plug wires everybody put them dual point distributors on their cars I think the name was assel are something similar to that name
Hi Doug: You've just described the mods to my 1967 Olds Delta 88 which I restored back in the mid-80's and still drive. Blackjack Headers, Edelbrock intake, higher compression pistons and cowl induction for the 455 V-8. I left the cam alone but modified the suspension and oil system. A schoolmate found 4.60:1 ratio gears for his 69" Cutlass. @@DouglasWilford-ls1pf
To get a clearer picture of what was what regarding power, the best test is probably to use one of those HP calculators against quarter mile time. I assume they did not mis-represent the weight of cars. But as you mention gearing might be sub-optimal for that and tires were terrible before a certain time.
Few take into account the affect rear end ratios had on quarter mile acceleration. A lower HP vehicle from one manufacturer can easily out accelerate a high HP vehicle from another if it had a lower gear ratio ie 3.70 v 2.73...
Another well done video with excellent images, HCG. As you said, the only way to truly compare these engine outputs is to look at actual published performances that were regularly issued by the likes of Road & Track, Car & Driver, and Hot Rod magazine. And even then the variables of gearing, tires, and installed accessories could hugely affect comparisons. What I find amazing is the net horsepower now being produced by much smaller engines than the muscle/pony car era, although admittedly torque ratings per horsepower have significantly diminished. Cheers. 👍👍👍
@@thehopelesscarguy I have to admit that the current SUV/Crossover/Truck trend depresses me. Being retired for a couple of years and wanting to do some traveling requiring additional storage but not wanting to join the crowd, my daily driver and travel-mobile is a Buick Regal TourX wagon. I get the comfort of a sedan, all-wheel drive, tons of space, and in a design package that doesn’t look like every other car on the road.
This was a good topic. I never understood the gross vs net horsepower ratings. You are quite knowledgable about this topic. It was interesting to listen and learn. It seems the cars had less horsepower in net form. We will not talk about the late 70's and 80's because everything was pretty much underpowered. At GM each division had 350 or a 455 at one time. None were the same in terms of power. Then in the 80's they were putting 305 V8 and the 307 V8 in cars at GM. One was Oldsmobile and one was Chevrolet and The Chevrolet had more power and the Oldsmobile had less power. Then by the late 80's and 1990's the engines became corporate. Everyone one knows the 3800 V6. I recall in 1986-1987 time frame the early or pre 3800 V6 had different ratings. Some said 140 hp. Some said it had 142 hp. Some said it had 150 hp. Thank you for the topic.
For a long time the difference between gross and net was pretty minimal, but has but as hp stealing accessories such as AC and power steering became more common the difference continued to grow. Although I suspect the transition was done more for insurance, and in same cases, possibly tax reasons.
@@thehopelesscarguy I had heard about the insurance reason and not being involved in racing from the car makers. The world really started to change in the early 1970's with cars. The all the emissions equipment were robbing engines like the 455 of power. I know the power dropped on many cars. Thank you for explaining.
Individual vehicle trim (intake, exhaust, accessories etc.) would explain the differences in ratings for the same engine. Every engine needs to be certified per vehicle chassis or platform. Therefore you get slight differences in ratings between a B-body and a G-body with the same engine.
Well, to the soul who conceived this change, thank you and the horsepower you rode in on.
Muscle cars didn't die so much as go into hibernation- they reincarnated in the late 80's when gas got cheap again.
As a teenager many fellow revheads over rated the horsepower on their own hot rods. Now as an old man; I've come to understand some of the factors involved in horsepower ratings: 1) Some car makers did NOT want the real horsepower to be known for insurance reasons, 2) The changeover from gross HP to net HP ratings coincided with emissions standards being forced in engine design, 3) torque figures are rarely mentioned but are very important especially with heavier machines, 4) differential ratios are never discussed. The only true way to measure horsepower is through the rear wheels (excluding FWD). Most likely a more accurate measure of a car's overall performance.
I remember back in the seventies in school people would only put cams headers and carburetors and intake they hardly ever put a bigger gear and did head work and yes they all lied about their quarter mile or so saying 10 seconds and stuff that's impossible oh yes can't forgot the brand the yellow distributors with the yellow spark plug wires everybody put them dual point distributors on their cars I think the name was assel are something similar to that name
Hi Doug: You've just described the mods to my 1967 Olds Delta 88 which I restored back in the mid-80's and still drive. Blackjack Headers, Edelbrock intake, higher compression pistons and cowl induction for the 455 V-8. I left the cam alone but modified the suspension and oil system. A schoolmate found 4.60:1 ratio gears for his 69" Cutlass. @@DouglasWilford-ls1pf
To get a clearer picture of what was what regarding power, the best test is probably to use one of those HP calculators against quarter mile time. I assume they did not mis-represent the weight of cars. But as you mention gearing might be sub-optimal for that and tires were terrible before a certain time.
Few take into account the affect rear end ratios had on quarter mile acceleration. A lower HP vehicle from one manufacturer can easily out accelerate a high HP vehicle from another if it had a lower gear ratio ie 3.70 v 2.73...
Right.
Another well done video with excellent images, HCG. As you said, the only way to truly compare these engine outputs is to look at actual published performances that were regularly issued by the likes of Road & Track, Car & Driver, and Hot Rod magazine. And even then the variables of gearing, tires, and installed accessories could hugely affect comparisons. What I find amazing is the net horsepower now being produced by much smaller engines than the muscle/pony car era, although admittedly torque ratings per horsepower have significantly diminished. Cheers. 👍👍👍
It seems odd to me that people are now more likely to buy trucks but have less appreciation for torque.
@@thehopelesscarguy I have to admit that the current SUV/Crossover/Truck trend depresses me. Being retired for a couple of years and wanting to do some traveling requiring additional storage but not wanting to join the crowd, my daily driver and travel-mobile is a Buick Regal TourX wagon. I get the comfort of a sedan, all-wheel drive, tons of space, and in a design package that doesn’t look like every other car on the road.
Also remember the old saying horsepower sells cars torque wins races
@@DouglasWilford-ls1pf There is that.
@@Primus54 Perhaps the last of its kind, and a looker.
This was a good topic. I never understood the gross vs net horsepower ratings. You are quite knowledgable about this topic. It was interesting to listen and learn. It seems the cars had less horsepower in net form. We will not talk about the late 70's and 80's because everything was pretty much underpowered. At GM each division had 350 or a 455 at one time. None were the same in terms of power. Then in the 80's they were putting 305 V8 and the 307 V8 in cars at GM. One was Oldsmobile and one was Chevrolet and The Chevrolet had more power and the Oldsmobile had less power. Then by the late 80's and 1990's the engines became corporate. Everyone one knows the 3800 V6. I recall in 1986-1987 time frame the early or pre 3800 V6 had different ratings. Some said 140 hp. Some said it had 142 hp. Some said it had 150 hp. Thank you for the topic.
For a long time the difference between gross and net was pretty minimal, but has but as hp stealing accessories such as AC and power steering became more common the difference continued to grow. Although I suspect the transition was done more for insurance, and in same cases, possibly tax reasons.
@@thehopelesscarguy I had heard about the insurance reason and not being involved in racing from the car makers. The world really started to change in the early 1970's with cars. The all the emissions equipment were robbing engines like the 455 of power. I know the power dropped on many cars. Thank you for explaining.
Individual vehicle trim (intake, exhaust, accessories etc.) would explain the differences in ratings for the same engine. Every engine needs to be certified per vehicle chassis or platform. Therefore you get slight differences in ratings between a B-body and a G-body with the same engine.
@@davem8790 Thank you for explaining. That is why the 1986 Oldsmobile Toronado had 150 hp and the same year Oldsmobile 98 and 88 had 140 hp.