FULL DYNO RESULTS ON THE L78 396, OVERRATED AT 425 HP OR UNDERRATED AT 375 HP? WHAT DID IT MAKE?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 гру 2023
- HOW MUCH POWER DID THE L78 375-HP 396 REALLY MAKE? WAS THE 1965 L78 425-HP 396 CORVETTE OVERRATED? WAS THE 375-HP L78 396 CAMARO OR CHEVELLE UNDERRATED? HOW MUCH POWER DID CHEVY'S LITTLE BIG BLOCK REALLY MAKE? AFTER FINDING LEAKING HEADS IN PART 1, WE REPLACED THE HEADS FOR A SECOND TEST. I INSTALLED NEW 858 HEADS IN PART 2, ALONG WITH AN ELGIN REPRODUCTION FACTORY L78 CAM AND STOCK ROCKERS. I RAN THE 396 BOTH WITH LONG TUBE HEADERS AND STOCK, CAST-IRON BBC EXHAUST MANIFOLDS. CHECK OUT THE POWER DIFFERENCE THAT HEADERS MADE ON THE BBC. FINALLY WE HAVE DYNO RESULTS ON THE L78 396!
- Авто та транспорт
Have experience with those engines in the 70,s, I agree with the engine builder. We didn't have the carb and ignition technology back then
I would like to see a set of 350 horse oval port heads dynoed on that engine.
Great video and this takes me back to 1978 where "Popular Hot Rodding" magazine did several articles on a 396 rebuild = called "Project Engine" and what happens to torque and horsepower when different speed parts are used on an engine. The most significant part is of course the camshaft selection and to make a long story short = these guys coaxed 502 horsepower out of this 2 bolt engine. The last test was in the volume 18, number 9, September 1978 issue = truly great stuff!!
Back in the day (1971-72) I owned a L78 396 Corvette Sting Ray Coupe. My engine upgrades were Hooker headers, A set of Crower racing valve springs and a Mallory dual point distributor, which was more trouble than it was worth, as I spent alot time at Reath Automotive getting the points calibrated on their Sun distributor machine. But that engine was very stout. That throaty idle sounds familiar. Thanks for the memories.
Nice to finally see the finished product. I have a 1969 396 in a corvette. Has 215 oval port heads, 10.25:1 compression. Only changes from stock are a comp cams 268 and a chevy performance dual plane intake with a 750 vacuum secondary carb. With headers and running the manual water pump it made 435HP and 465TQ on the engine dyno. Your 396 above with a simple cam swap would make high 400's in power.
I test drove a 69 Chevelle back in 71, that had a 396/375 w/a three speed manual floor shift transmission. It was *very* strong. Made a lasting impression on me.
I recall the MkIV being introduced part way through the 65 model year, the first part of the year being the 409, but single 4 barrel only. For a very brief period, the L78 was rated at 450hp, before they dialed it back to 425. Chevrolet was in a difficult position, their new improved big block had to be seen as an improvement over the 425hp W engines of the year before, and the factory knew there was a 427 Mk IV being released in a short few months. If their 396 was already rated at 450 or 425, what would they have to rate their 427 at. That’s the problem when you play fast and loose with the numbers, it wasn’t the first time the Chevrolet division got themselves in this trap, and it wouldn’t be the last.
No that was the 427 rated at 450 then derated to 425
Glad to finally see this, impressive for a stock engine, no matter how you rate it. Keep in mind your testing done on the L79, LT1, DZ were all run with headers, so I think this is a great comparison to those engines. Thanks for doing it with manifolds and headers!
There is NOTHING like a big block chevy at full song.
Gives real meaning to chevy thunder!
Prove it
Hemi at full song 😃
440 at full song
Thanks, the first video, and this one together are the reality for anyone doing the hands on themselves. Also great to see an L78 perform as intended. Love any big block that is this close to stock. Those OEM style chrome valve covers are the best looking ones. Even though I'm not crazy about the ad hoc solution with the dent for the vacuum reservoir.
Cloned one of these motors using a 2 bolt block, open chamber rectangle post heads with some mild port work. Borrowed it to a buddy to use for a bit in his 69 Chevelle. We raced a mutual friends 68 Chevelle with a 454 that ran 12 flat earlier that day at the test and tune night. Both cars were very similar. 68 had slicks, 69 had drag radials on our little late night street race. The 408 won with full exhaust on the 69 vs open headers on the 68 by about a 1/2 a car length. The 68 guy was very impressed by the 408 and so were we. I have always been impressed by what the smaller BBC was capable of on the street and the strip, Good video thanks!
Same here. Head wants a 454 but after an afternoon blasting around in a built 396 its just right.
They dont like too much sustained rpm as I found testing the line lock too much. Wrist pin was crying lol
Glad to see this finally completed. Thank you Richard!
awesome Richard.. so cool to see these factory deals on the dyno.. i think you nailed the factory numbers with factory exhaust..in my opinion there’s no way that factory carb will make more power. like you said the venturis and over all sizing are damn close.
I love the sound it makes! Looks to me like the peak hp was waiting for you at 6100-6200 with headers. Nice re-creation, thanks Richard!
That overhead carb shot makes me proud to be an American! Really great series of videos. I may have to get an ultra xp for mine
Yeah but even while watching it on my phone I have an uneasy feeling anticipating the pop and a ball of fire in my face.
Thanks for sharing this! I've been waiting for these results
I know how badly you wanted to get this project done. I believe your findings are spot on , especially when one factors in the necessary factory accessories, carburetor and exhaust manifolds. Thank you for building the engine as close to stock specifications as possible. What were the camshaft's specifications? Well done Richard!
I had a close friend back in 1966 that bought a 66 Chevelle 396-375 that was special ordered by a guy who backed out of the deal. It didn’t have a radio or heater. The car was fast compared to the muscle cars back in that day. One thing I will never forget is that the Chevelle came with a 3 barrel Holley from the factory, we pulled the air cleaner off and I saw with my own eyes. I’ve seen 3 barrel Holley carburetors but this Chevelle 396-375 is the only one I ever saw that came from the factory with it. The guy who special ordered the car was going to race it and I’ve often wondered if the 3 barrel was used because of the special order that made it evident that the car was intended for drag racing.
the 3-barrel was not a factory option
@@richardholdener1727 I can tell you this that I saw the car straight from the dealership and It had the three barrel Holley on it, I am 100% sure it was the three barrel Holley. I don’t know how it came about but like I said I’m 100% sure that when he picked up the car the carburetor was on it.
Very informative video. Thank you.
Love the Carb Camera!
Thank you. Been waiting to see this. Very cool test. You tuned much better than o.e. and definitely a superior carb and ign. Be well.
Always nice to see Richard not running out of ideas to test.
I love this test. We have a sleeper version of this engine in our Chevelle. 509cid bowtie block dressed as an L79, (291 heads / 569 intake/ exhaust manifolds 396 badging) It's interesting to see just how much I could uncork if I added some long tubes.
I agree with the marketing being the reason for the difference in HP. In 1965 Chevy still offered the 375hp 327 and with it also having 11:1 advertised compression and a similar solid flat tappet cam I can see why chevy may not want two engine options rated at the same power especially since the small block was so much smaller in cubic inch.
Back in the '70s, my friend had a built L78 in his stock car, sold it to me. In my '68 Camaro, it would peg the right turn indicator in L2, Drive WAS the Millenium Falcon!!!
So now we know! Thanks Richard! The 1969 advertised specs for the 396/375 had peak power coming in at 5600 rpm, which is a little below the 5900-6000 rpm result from the test. Of course, 1960s advertised power figures were not always very reliable.
Thanks Ritchard, I have been waiting impatiently. I will ride with the 425 rating on mine as it has the proven upgrades that work. The 67 SS best release of 612 units.
Great - Thanks Richard. I've been waiting for this. Make sure the kids at Engine Masters as well as Steve Brule know this! LOL.
The 396/425 in the Corvette was rated with an 850 vacuum secondary carburetor. Chevrolet removed all of those any time one came to the dealer, and replaced it with a 750 vacuum secondary. The insurance companies went insane when the first big block Corvettes were released in 1965.
this wasn't carb limited at 425 hp.
11 to 1 solid lifters, yeah 425 hp
780 came on them. Any verification of the 850 used for ratings?
Absolutely wrong…..every 396/425hp and 396/375hp came with a 780 vacuum secondary carb from the factory (Tonawanda). Only the 427/430hp L88/ZL1 came from the factory with an 850….and that was a double pumper.
The main resign that all engines of big block or small block for that matter is back in the 60's to early 70" insurance companies would not insure a car if it made more HP then cubic inches!! I lived through that time and Ford or Chevy the 427 ford and 427 chevy where 424 HP rated if you look at the old test results, they did dino testing at way low RPM! like if you're a Chevy guy you know what a DZ-302 made way more then 296 HP! For me it was Ford back then, I build and race both now days, but the 289 HP "K" Engine was rated at 271 HP Yeah right! LOL!!! if you had to buy a new car on time you had to have insurance to cover the loan so a 435 HP Corvett or a 308 HP GT 350 Shelbey Mustang had to be bought cash! or get your own loan!! Definitely not like today where HP sells cars and insurance companies don't care? I built plenty of L-88's back in the day and with all GM parts 12.5 to 1 and the off road only Cam "Snowflake Aluminum Heads" They all made really close to 600 HP! some over! 289's with the same setup from ford 12.5 to 1, La Mans cam! made over 400 HP! etc. On pump gas! But we had 105 to 110 octan pump gas with real lead in it back then! LOL! @@richardholdener1727
Been waiting for this one.
Don’t forget the Corvette was rated at a higher RPM then the Chevelle. If I’m not mistaken they had different height intakes for hood clearance. The Corvette also ran a different exhaust manifold.
Probably different cam too. They do that a lot without saying they are doing it. Just like the 305 video, manual trans vs auto had different cams. Some weird random stuff like that. On the olds 455s they had slightly different cams for 2 and 4 barrel carb motors then there was different cams for what vehicle it was originally in. Engines and heads with the same casting identifier so not much of a way to tell without measuring the cam or knowing where it came from. Interesting stuff 👍👍
@@SpecialAgentJamesAki yes, their is some variation in cam spec for various years.
Vette guys woulda been mad if the A or F bodys made the same power. LT1, same story
@@gordocarbo I read somewhere that’s why they did it. Couldn’t have a family car making more power than the Vette. Marketing games at their finest.
cam is the same
U did an excellent job testing this engine
I dynoed a 1969 L78 396 that had a hydraulic flat tappet 238°/242° @.050 cam and weiand stelth intake with 850 carb and on my dyno it barely made 400hp with dyno headers.
Were you at high altitude or was the compression particularly low? Not trying to be smart, really asking because it just seems like it'd make more, even ground at less than optimal LSA.
@mikewillett5076 Engine had been rebuild at some point quite some time before it came to me to dyno. Still had the std bore TRW forged 11:1 pistons. Cam had been switched to a hydraulic flat tappet as mentioned. Leak down test was fair at 16-24% it just didn't make any power. I played around with timing and a/f ratios but it just never really responded well. Think it made 405hp @ 6000 rpm. I got a chance to drive the restored 70 chevelle the engine went into and it ran well. I think there are so many inflated dyno numbers out there most people would be surprised what an honest 400hp actually feels like.
@@DanClayton-fo6wt . Thanks for the reply. You know what? You are right about how powerful and honest 400 horsepower engine can feel. We tend to think of a 400 HP factory engine as powerful but not when we build one ourselves. But that is a good number!
Engine dyno or chassis? That can make all the difference in the world! Same if you are using any correction factors - everything has to be SPOT ON for them to not skew the results. I used to develop turbo kits for my own company and then the company that purchased us for a couple/few years after. Everything from diesel side by sides to muscle cars to exotics. I've literally got thousands of hours of dyno time. I know people like to bag on results and whatnot, but 400hp to the tire is healthy in just about any car less than 3500lbs.
would that be a L78 with a hydraulic lifters?
We ran a 396/375 on the engine dyno with the stock 780, stock solid lifter cam and manifolds but it had an electric water pump and made 378 on 110 octane gas!
If you don't NEED it, (I.E. optimal timing and A/F ratios on pump without knock) race gas will actually make less power. Slower burn rate and other factors.
@@JViello a 396/375 has 12.5 compression!!! And it’s supposed to be ran on leaded fuel.
@@scottsigmon926 12.5!? For the L78? You mean 11:1 right? I don't know what any of what I wrote has to do with your comment. It was just a factual statement about fuel octane. We were talking about what the engine produced from the factory in 1969 and you were using an example using fuel that had a MUCH higher octane than what was available in 1969, higher specific gravity etc etc etc.
If you are saying the engine YOU ran had 12.5:1...that might have been your problem right there. Race fuel isn't some magic bullet. Head design is much more complicated than "compression vs octane". There are designs that are optimised for a certain compression ratio and any attempt to raise it is met with less than great results. Again, just a stated fact, not saying your engine had this issue or that the L78 did.
@@scottsigmon926 LOL, no, L78 396/375 has 11/1 compression
It seems that I didn't have bragging rights back in 1971 when I bought a Black Chevy Impala that had what I was told was an L78 396 425 HP with a Muncie 4 speed. Compared to some other muscle cars I'd raced and some I'd owned I kind of had my doubts anyway. Money was tight and there was little left after a cam and intake manifold for a dyno test as well as all the broken parts. Regardless, the car was a sleeper. Like most of the rest of us, I wish I had that car now as well as all the years.
EXCELLENT ! BRING US MORE !!!
Great informative video.. I loved it.
I think we all kinda expected the results from what we saw with the sbc 302, 327 and 350lt1 testing. But now im curious what it does with a modern valvetrain and edelbrock rpm air gap.
I think you are spot on correct. 👍 Good info. Thx Richard
Thanks for coming back to complete this with the right cam. Nice test. These were hard to beat in a chevelle with headers and a 411 or 456 gear.
Had a fake 68 SS in the mags back in the early 90s..Loved that 396. Close ratio M21 tall fwy gear lumpy hft cam headers it never quit pulling. Was always surprised at how much torque it put out. No need for OD
Yes, I purchased new in 1969 Chevelle L78/ 396/375 HP, m22 rock crusher. I ordered it with 3:73 rear end bears which were not near low enough for street racing. These had lots of power & always regretted not getting at least 4:10 or 4:56 gears to unleash the true potential of these high reviving mills. I had a lot of valve spring peoblems, probably from over reviving the engine! I used to speed shift it @ 7000 rpm.
Great Video- real world scenarios and BUL’s challenges! 👍
Thanks for another classic engine test Richard! People will argue and claim this and that but marketing was responsible for selling cars and embellishing a little helped to push that. It also helped to bring about the change to the "Net" rating that started in 1971. Cars seemingly lost 50hp or more overnight. I figured the 396 would be closer to the higher number as I always figured the 427 with the same heads was around it's 425 rating. Now build one of those and lets see. I know Pontiac 400/455's will make about the same horsepower if they use the same heads just like your 302/327/350 test. But of course different torque numbers and peak rpms. No matter what it's cool to see actual numbers and not just good campfire stories and hyperbole! An actual 375hp in the late 60's is nothing to be ashamed of. Those cars were very fast with minor mods in light cars like the Nova and with a set of slicks bolted on the back. They can still embarrass a lot of the new muscle that has the benefit of 50+ more years of technology.
I had a 350 horse 396 out of a Chevelle in a Camaro and it took no crap from 375 horse motors. They have 10.25:1 CR, oval port heads and Q-Jet spreadbore manifold and it was running a small 204/214 @ .050" with slightly less than .500 lift. On pump gas and properly tuned the heads flow enough to feed the displacement just fine and the larger heads actually take away torque below 5000 rpm where much of a race is run. We did lots of top end pulls against 375 horse motors and never had one keep up. Of course..I'll take a little credit for this due to tuning but if you look at the dyno graphs the 375 doesn't exceed the 350 until well over 5000 rpm...so on the street I don't think the 11:1 CR helps very much as they're detonation limited on pump gas today and actual power of the lower CR motor able to match or even exceed it due to better timing advance being used. Love the old Big Blocks! :)
@@recoilrob324 Ive always preferred ovals over rectangle ports on these
With a little bowl work even 20 deg cam timing these really woke up!
@@recoilrob324 I bought a 70 Corvette in 1995. It had a 454/4speed of unknown vintage, definitely not the original engine. I pulled it apart after the summer cruising was over and it had rec port heads. I decoded it and turns out it was a 70 LS6 someone had ground the numbers off of, restamped and tried to pass off as the original engine (very poor work and very obvious it wasn't). After reading a couple of articles by John Lingenfelter about the superiority of the oval port heads I pulled the rec ports off, sold them in local classifieds (this was the 90's) and used the money to build a set of oval ports built to Lingenfelter's specs. I went from low 13's in the quarter with the rec ports to well into the 12's with a best of 12.51@110 and the car just felt like it had more torque. The oval port heads from what I have read over the years just superior on engines under 700hp or so. Of course if you have a 1200hp Pro Stock car I'm sure you want those rec ports!!
I street raced everything in those days, and I can tell you headers made a BIG difference on those big blocks. 😊
L78 was rated at 375hp iirc. And ran solid lifters and a cam with .500 thousands lift with special valve springs. Also a higher perf GM/Chevy aluminum intake made by Winters iirc
we have all that
@@richardholdener1727 if only there was a dyno video he could have watched!
Love the carb cam. Accel pump nozzles really flow a lot of fuel.
I like that you keep bolting manifolds on with these tests 👍
I had to pause the video to say that the carb cam is freakin' awesome. Nice editing!
Wow, I didn't realize headers made such a difference.
My uncle has several L98 swap vehicles, with a turbo 400 and 3.08 gears in a 89 camaro with Holley 750 in a pretty much stock L98 on 93 octane. Full assesories without ac. Put down right at 330 whp. Runs low 12s @110 mph. He has a L98 swapped in his 92 Silverado drag truck runs mid 11s 112-115mph. My uncle has at least 3 L98 engines sitting on stands. Mention LS swap around him and be prepared to get into a heated battle.
L98 TPI motor?
I think we need more carb cam! Awesome video Richard thanks again.
agreed
Thank you Richard! MAN I just love the way a big block looks... never owned one though
Great objective testing, Richard. Some folk love to state that the numbers were understated but testing shows otherwise. 375 sounds legit.
i think you are really close on that but the original 1965 vette motor supposedly ran 425hp out at 6400 "according to book" and the 375 hp L78 supposedly got the rating at 5600. i guess 800 rpm might make a difference if it honestly went there from factory, but like said might just have been marketing on them to help sell corvettes can't have them making the same as normal joe blow sedans. love the dyno numbers they don't lie.
The 1965 L78 was 425hp+ and had a 7200 red line, that first yr engine was quite special. After that the engine was detuned...
engine specs are identical (including springs and rpm potential)
@@richardholdener1727 That is correct, but if you owned a early 65 ss impala or a vette with the L78, engine was clearly different.
how can it be identical and clearly different at the same time?
@@richardholdener1727 Easy, the factory specs for that first early engine were not for it, they were for the 66 375hp..
Hence the 65 said 425 on air cleaner and the 66 said 375.
The 427 came out in 66, didnt need two engines at 425hp.
LOL, Engine was identical except for the exhaust manifolds. L78 is an L78.
Yes! Thank you, Richard. Made 390 hp with manifolds and over 425 hp with headers and a tune on day 2!
Thank you for the follow up video Richard I was disappointed in the first one when it started leaking water. I’d like to see you do another video like you have in the past with other engines were you optimize with modern cylinder heads and modern roller cam and intake manifold. maybe this is too much to ask but the 396 is probably one of my favorite big blocks and I was happy to see you do a video on it. thank you for the content. I very much appreciate it.
planned
Carb cam is pretty cool 😎 👌 👍
agreed-the squirters are adding plenty of random fuel
396 was a good honest engine when a lot where coming out weaker than you'd think. I'm a Ford/Mopar guy, but the 327 and 396s nice
i had a 454 from 2000 to 2016 with aluminum rectangle port gm snow flake heads and intake, it made 450 on 93 octane 10.5 compression. i ran an 850 holley oem water pump, stock type v belt pulleys. power wasnt great until it hit 3000 rpm then it roared.
So fascinating!
These are my favorite videos. The OEM's could list whatever the marketing dept wanted and the general public never really knew. Its the exact reason why I kept my 454 LS-7 that I found in a crate, bone stock on the internals and then took to westec to see what it really made. Keep em coming! how about a 455 shoot out (B/O/P) - all to factory specs?
that was cool-wish I knew you guys were running that-I would love a vid on it
I would love to see the BOP shootout also. I'd even cough up some of the parts!@@richardholdener1727
Thanks for finishing this baby off Richard. Been waitn for it.
My old man taught me to oil bath lifters overnight before installing.
Very interesting video for us old school guys
Great test. Absolutely 375 hp is correct.
This is eye opening. Thought it would make more torque
Stock ignition with points, full exhaust with restrictive mufflers, air conditioning compressor, alternator, water pump, power steering pump all hooked up with a load on them.
Air cleaner with stock filter housing.
Now you're seriously looking at 350 horsepower if you're lucky!
The ratings were a joke back then, they weren't even close!
Many speed freaks in the 60s frowned on things like AC, power steering, automatic, etc. Power steering doesn't hurt much in a drag race, but if you are deviating much from a straight line, puts a drag on the engine. AC, unless switched off, puts a big drag on the engine, and automatic transmissions also reduce performance potential somewhat.
No air in my 65 coupe.
Most people didn't have AC in 65. It exploded in popularity in about 69. Suddenly, everybody wanted it, and more than a few sports car people disliked power steering. They felt that it made the car a girl's car.
@@jamesbosworth4191 No power steering either in the 65 coupe I owned. Just a huge teakwood wheel! My dislike of power steering is years ago you lose the feel of the road.
@@brucesmith5426 Very true! You have better control of the car with conventional steering. Ditto for power brakes. Conventional brakes are easier to modulate, especially in comparison with power brakes of the 50s and 60s - many were light-switch like, either full on or full off. If you so much as breathed on the brake pedal, you were almost thrown through the windshield. I never like that.
Nice test! Im glad u didnt run out & spend ur money to put aluminum heads on it right away! Good job Richard Holder!
Great video
I would love to see what some general improvements would do to this engine. Stuff like a better balancer, better oil control, roller rockers, better intake, e85. Do that with the stock cam and heads!
I would like to see the same tests... and then add a rowdy street/strip cam... and then add NOS to see how you can take one on a "relative budget" and up it in stages. Or, do the upgrades and add NOS with a stock cam... or both. Keeping in mind a hot street driver to the dragstrip and toss on slicks type of sportsman deal.
Awsome sauce man,,thanks
Back in the day when they were new, a buddy bought a new '69 Camaro 396/375, for what ever reason it did not run strong, he had trouble keeping up with A 350 Camaro, It was a beautiful black on black 4speed, I still give him a hard time for not keeping that car.
In addition; running the factory pulleys without the Meziere electric water pump would have reduced horsepower even more, so I would have to agree with you on the original rating of 375
The 30 over 402 BBC has served my '71 F250 highboy handsomely since 1979.
I love this kind of testing.
True to its rated colors. Some men back in the high octane days had inflated egos to go with inflated horse power numbers.
There was a test done on one of these that made 425 HP with manifolds and
up to 450+ HP and 465 Torque with headers , might have been in HOT ROD
awesome engines the 396/402 BBC
Awesome? They usually won’t go 100,000 miles and those are the ones that don’t throw rods, I’ll take a small block anyday.
@@alanmeyers3957 You are correct , most performance engines do not make 100,000, a lot do not make 5,000 miles without wounds being repaired and I am talking about performance engines in cars that are being pushed hard , dragstrip etc . both small and big blocks.
thats awesome i have a mildy built 396 with ported head and intake and holley 770 street avenger long tubes msd dizzy and roller rockers and a summit racing came and was wondering what kinda power it make.
The 3310-1 has the spivys on the boosters to help distribution with the stock intake manifold .
Well done 😀
that's pretty much spot on... I saw them squirters having fuel pulled thru them.. looked like the primary may have been leaking at the gasket? I've got the 325 hp version in my 68 Chevelle SS 4 speed. It has oval port semi closed chambers that makes great torque. Crane 270 old school car. Its a tire fryer with 3.31 gears.
Saw that also
You are correct.
This is the kind of builds I love! I'm posting a '70 396 (402) next.
had an Ls3 396 that was definitely underrated! torque to the moon
I would like to see what it would make with ported 049 oval port heads l-88 cam and single plane manifold
another factor is the remainder of the exhaust system. Pontiac ran into issues plugging the GTO engines into the Firebird, due to all the 90 degree bends an F body demands of the exhaust system past the rear axle and around the fuel tank. And on some Chevy big blocks, there were different intake manifolds to clear different hood lines--I'm too lazy to look up the specs on different L78 placements, perhaps someone can chime in if the Chevelle, Corvette, and Camaro all got the same manifold or not. i think the NSRA or ISRA had an issue with LS6 intake manifold choice in the 1980's?
Very consciences comparison
That thing sounds good!!
Sounded like it wouldn't pull a greasy string out of a
Lol im playing it sounded great thaks for the video!!!
Nice video! I´m actually building 2 396 at the moment, one that was in the chevelle when i bought it and another one since the one that was in the car gave up on me. How much more power do you think that engine makes with a higher manifold and a streetable cam? I think im gonna build one with turbos and one more oldschool that just sounds nasty. Awesome videos, and sorry if im not spelling everything correctly. Greetings from Sweden
you are forgetting one thing,as a 66 chevelle owner with the 360 horse 396,i noticed that the horsepower rating for the chevelles was at 5200,corvettes 6200,and using your graph it is basically as gm said chevelle 5200 375,corvette at 6200 425,so if you wanted 425 horse in the chevelle just rev higher
the 425 hp rating was only in 1965
The carburetor squirting was quite a sight
My L34 396 with a 750 Holley, hydraulic roller camshaft, Edelbrock airgap and headers made 399.5 HP on the dyno. I think the numbers for the L78 were pretty accurate for the 375HP. 425 HP was marketing.
Edit: MY 1970 so it was a 402. But it was bored 40 over which made it a 410 cid.
Wow, I would have expected a bit more than 400 with the upgrades you list. Guessing you weren’t thrilled with the result?
@@danmyers9372 was happy with it.
In addition to my comment earlier, the L78 engine had a different cylinder head with 1.99 insted of 1.88 exhaust valves. Those heads are hard to find and extremely expensive. Those heads were on 1965 425 hp vetts and 375 hp z-16 chevelle. That would add even more hp to what i already mentioned.
Like to know where you got that info. No Factory Big Block heads came with bigger than 1.88". Not even ZL-1 heads.
@@playlist55some of these comments sound like fairy tales, the snowflake heads and duntov cams, etc.
@@alanmeyers3957LOL, it's like people that actually read the book vs the people that skimmed thru the cliff notes. Sometimes I look at a comment, and I think... should I correct him? Most of the time, I think... nah, I can't help him. Unless of course I think I can help someone else. Like I don't want anyone repeating the 1.99 thing.
3856208: ’65 rectangular port, closed chamber, 2.19- and 1.99-inch valves. Used on 396/425 hp, 396/375 hp Z-16 Chevelle... I copied that. Put it in your search bar. I'm not sure it's true. It was new to me when I read it. I have some books on BBC's but their buried in storage. I've also built a few and I still own one. No need to talk down to people just wanted to see equal comparisons to the original engine and equal dyno tuning time.
@@ws1807Yea, it's not true... I do have my books and I've built more than I can count. I didn't talk down to you. I did respond to someone else generically about posts. I hate having to argue with people that "read on a comment board" something that is untrue. Do your own research, I have done mine. Biggest factory Exhaust valve installed in a head, by the factory, was 1.88".
If we are talking apples to apples, i do recall that Mr Holdener's tests of the the L48, L82, L76, Lt1, and Dz302 all needed long-tube headers to be close to the factory "gross" Hp ratings assigned to them. No mention was made of manifolds
I seen Holley accelerator squirters do the same thing on a dyno a long time ago. The owner of the dyno pointed it out to us, said it was Holleys way of safeguarding against people leaning out the mixture. They put anti pullover squirters on our race car, no other changes and cleaned up the air fuel mix on the top end. Too bad they were illegal in our class!!
Never heard that before but makes sense.
On my 1970 L/78 I put a set of L88-L89 open chamber heads with the matching 12.5: 1 giant dome pistons with a bore at 402 cui
Harrison mag pulse distributor. I had the Hemi 2.25 intake valves from Chrysler. 120cc chambers. Factory intake with a 1” Moroso spacer below an 8.50 DP Holley plus a set of Hooker 11:51 race car headers with 2 1/8” primary’s
533 hp at 7,k on the floor Dyno
At MOTON Performance in Baldwin Long Island in my 1970.5 Z29 RS/SS Camaro.
The car had a 4.33:1 posi 12 bolt rear and super T10.
That's a lot of go power for a alloy t10 to handle. My 70 AMC Jav runs a 518hp 401 and I had to go back to the Iron case t10. Super t10 cracked after a few hard road course laps. 2yrs later the 50yr old stock case t10 is still running strong.
@@scoutdogfsr Had a 71 sst 401 .What did you do to yours to get that kind of power?
Broke my share of the top left ear of a few muncies...all big blocks.
I had the 375 hp BB I bought new in 1969. The dynos do not lie. 375 was a lot of hp in those days. I would love to hear one more time what the idle sounded like though mufflers. Thanks for goin to the trouble of getting the stock like cam.
A realistic comment, some guys act like these were the holy grail, they were slugs, compared to what we have access to now.
I have a set of L89 pistons and it was rated a 425 HP. These pistons in the book are 12.7 to 1 with a closed chamber head. 425 HP is an underrating.
L89 is an alum cylinder head option-there was never any production 12.7:1 396 motor. 425 hp is not under rated.
I like that you ran it with manifolds and headers. I'm a little surprised at how much it lost with manifolds. The guys at Horsepower Depot (red 67 L88 clone that runs FAST series) run 9.10s with stock manifolds, or should I say "stock" manifolds. I know better than to think they're truly stock, and even still, they admit they're a restriction, yet with as much power as they make (555ci engine running 7,500 rpm), I kind of expected less difference on an engine putting out so much less power.
I will add that even in a restoration using the original engine, i would choose a new cam grind. The cars owner could specify the repro cam but why?
Agree...one could keep the same @050 numbers but tighten cam timing up a bit to make power but still not kill lobes.
Love me some solid lifter engine sounds! Better than solid roller to be honest.
I had a L78 I bought and slightly modified for my 68 camaro back in the early 70s. I kept the heads cam and intake stock but changed to high compression pistons added headers and then a 3310 Holley. I put the car on a chassis dyno and they back calculated the ENGINE horsepower to 500-510 or so....
back calculated a modified motor? That isn't really the same as an actual dyno test but still a cool combo
Yeah - I know - but it was all I had back then. This was 73. Only chassis dyno, I was 19, what did I know back then? Enough to build a pretty stout motor though. It ended up in an offshore racing boat (not mine).
What makes you think they didn't put a hotter cam, better manifolds etc in the Vette to make that extra power? (It may be well known the cams are the same...I just don't know it. LOL ) What I do know is GROSS HP ratings were with no accessories and sometimes headers. That's the main reason power figures TANKED after 1972, it became SAE Net figures. The manufacturers were famous for tarting up engines for a good number and sending ringers to magazines for testing. The good old days weren't as "honest" as today. Then again, we had late 90's LS1's F bodies making (Corvette 😁) rated crank hp at the wheels. ;)