User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 8:42:27 AM EDT
Concerns the '69 El Camino SS/396 I just bought ....
From the documentation that I found, the 396 in the stock El Camino SS/396 would have been putting out about 325HP and 410TQ - optional was 350HP and 420TQ. It came with the following dyno information that I don't have the knowledge to completely interpret ... can anyone help ............... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 9:19:20 AM EDT
[#1]
wheel hp is usualy lower than crank hp looks like 380 peak torque and 340 horse. was this engine or chassis dyno cam heads intake will all change these values. the air fuel ratio is consitant so it looks like some one tuned it well. It may be able to lean it out for a little more hp so long as it is not pinging |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 9:22:43 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
wheel hp is usualy lower than crank hp looks like 380 peak torque and 340 horse. was this engine or chassis dyno I don't know whether it was engine or chassis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 9:29:08 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know whether it was engine or chassis. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
wheel hp is usualy lower than crank hp looks like 380 peak torque and 340 horse. was this engine or chassis dyno I don't know whether it was engine or chassis. From their website: "We offer a "STATE OF THE ART "machine shop including the Rottler F-67A CNC Machining Center, Engine Dyno, full Performance and stock engine parts department." http://www.reidsautomotive.com/About-Us.html Figure 10-15% loss to the wheels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 9:30:18 AM EDT
[#4]
if it was a stock rebuild it seems ok. todays numbers are more accurate than back then. if it was a performance build it would seem the numbers are low. is there any cam or compression ratio or head info? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 9:34:09 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
if it was a stock rebuild it seems ok. todays numbers are more accurate than back then. if it was a performance build it would seem the numbers are low. is there any cam or compression ratio or head info? Today's manufacturer numbers are more accurate. The engine shop can dyno the engine naked if they want, there's no SAE tech watching over their shoulder. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 9:38:41 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Today's manufacturer numbers are more accurate. The engine shop can dyno the engine naked if they want, there's no SAE tech watching over their shoulder. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: if it was a stock rebuild it seems ok. todays numbers are more accurate than back then. if it was a performance build it would seem the numbers are low. is there any cam or compression ratio or head info? Today's manufacturer numbers are more accurate. The engine shop can dyno the engine naked if they want, there's no SAE tech watching over their shoulder. true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 9:40:44 AM EDT
[#7]
I just saw the comments area of sheet says stock restoration.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 11:40:40 AM EDT
[#8]
Your not the first person to be underwhelmed by older engines when it comes to true output.
Why do you think most people spend the $$$$ and drop more modern engines in their older rides? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 11:31:28 AM EDT
[#9]
HP and Torque numbers that engines were rated for in the sixties weren't very honest. When they were rating engines they used a process that was not representative of what you would find in a production car.
When the engine was tested for rating the manufacturer would send a special engine, with a special carb, special headers and no accessories at all. In the early seventies the rating agency changed requirements and started requiring engines provided be production engines, with the carb and exhuast manifold that would be installed in a production car, and basic accessories, alternator, power steering pump if it was standard on the model and the like. The year that those changes took place almost all engines saw a huge decrease in rated power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 8:27:22 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
HP and Torque numbers that engines were rated for in the sixties weren't very honest. When they were rating engines they used a process that was not representative of what you would find in a production car. When the engine was tested for rating the manufacturer would send a special engine, with a special carb, special headers and no accessories at all. In the early seventies the rating agency changed requirements and started requiring engines provided be production engines, with the carb and exhuast manifold that would be installed in a production car, and basic accessories, alternator, power steering pump if it was standard on the model and the like. The year that those changes took place almost all engines saw a huge decrease in rated power. Lol, always chuckle at clueless morons at car shows/meets who carry on about their slow ass heaps from the 60's that would get dusted by an automatic V6 Mustang/Camaro of today. Most of the crap form the 'Muscle Car Era' was slow as rotting dog turds and would have a hard time keeping up with a V6 Accord of today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2015 8:40:56 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol, always chuckle at clueless morons at car shows/meets who carry on about their slow ass heaps from the 60's that would get dusted by an automatic V6 Mustang/Camaro of today. Most of the crap form the 'Muscle Car Era' was slow as rotting dog turds and would have a hard time keeping up with a V6 Accord of today. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
HP and Torque numbers that engines were rated for in the sixties weren't very honest. When they were rating engines they used a process that was not representative of what you would find in a production car. When the engine was tested for rating the manufacturer would send a special engine, with a special carb, special headers and no accessories at all. In the early seventies the rating agency changed requirements and started requiring engines provided be production engines, with the carb and exhuast manifold that would be installed in a production car, and basic accessories, alternator, power steering pump if it was standard on the model and the like. The year that those changes took place almost all engines saw a huge decrease in rated power. Lol, always chuckle at clueless morons at car shows/meets who carry on about their slow ass heaps from the 60's that would get dusted by an automatic V6 Mustang/Camaro of today. Most of the crap form the 'Muscle Car Era' was slow as rotting dog turds and would have a hard time keeping up with a V6 Accord of today. Agreed. Some "muscle cars" had it going on but most didn't. The Primitive tires of the day being the biggest thing holding the old cars back then followed closely by no overdrives seriously limiting how low the final drive can be. What I find strange is in the 40's and early 50's overdrives were somewhat common but for some reason as the 50's progressed and up through the 80's a 1-1 final drive ratio was deemed worthy |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:44:45 AM EDT
[#12]
There were a few engines of the day that were actually bad ass. The hemi and ls6 were under rated by the factory on purpose. The DZ302 in the z/28 was factory rated at 290...Supposedly it was much more powerful than that.
Power was overstated for marketing reasons, and understated for competition or insurance reasons. I've spoken to retired GM engineers that basically said they made shit up until the standards were established. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:02:40 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There were a few engines of the day that were actually bad ass. The hemi and ls6 were under rated by the factory on purpose. The DZ302 in the z/28 was factory rated at 290...Supposedly it was much more powerful than that. Power was overstated for marketing reasons, and understated for competition or insurance reasons. I've spoken to retired GM engineers that basically said they made shit up until the standards were established. Kinda like tow ratings up till last year with half ton trucks |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
