I should have read further in the thread. yes, around '72 or '73 they
changes the ratings from power at the flywheel to power at the axle. The
difference was about -20% for loss. There was additional loss because the
manufacturers chose to go the cheapest route to meet emissions rather than
the best way. That gave us 2 decades of cars that were underpowered and
could not be made to run correctly.


"c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
news:cuXCe.16758$uo6.1460@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Bill, you crack me up. Where in my post did I say that the horsepower
> ratings from back in the 50s and 60s were higher than actual? All I said
> was
> that comparing the ratings of the engines in the 50 and 60s is a different
> rating system than what they use today. In fact, most of the automakers
> were
> boasting numbers less than the actual horsepower of the engines back then,
> both for insurance reasons and because of the class system for the Stock
> and
> Super Stock drag racing classes. The 426 Hemi, Boss 429 and the W30 Olds
> 455
> were perfect examples of this.
>
> And of course, you had to pull something totally out of the blue about the
> Ford side oiler. I can see how anyone would have read that in to what I
> said. Sheesh.
>
> Chris
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:42DC3A77.6FB86BF7@***.net...
>> For those whom believe we really didn't have the horsepower, back in
>> the old days: http://www.cobranet.com/roadtest.htm You probably think
>> there was no reason for a side oiler, too.
>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> c wrote:
>> >
>> > Just remember that for quite a while engines have been rated in terms
>> > of
> net
>> > HP, not flywheel like they were back in the 50s and 60s. There is quite
> a
>> > difference in the ratings. I believe they changed the ratings around
> 1972.
>> > Also any street engine is fine with a 2 bolt block. there are a lot of
>> > engines out there that never had 4 bolt caps, and some can't even be
>> > converted, yet they seem to live under some very severe high horsepower
>> > conditions. It is also a known fact that the best stock small block
> Chevy
>> > block to use for racing is one that originally had 2 bolt mains, and
> then
>> > convert it to 4 bolt mains with the splayed outer bolts. I've seen
> several
>> > small and big block Chevy engines making some serious power, and still
>> > having the 2 bolt main caps without a problem.
>> >
>> > Chris
>
>

 

I should have read further in the thread. yes, around '72 or '73 they
changes the ratings from power at the flywheel to power at the axle. The
difference was about -20% for loss. There was additional loss because the
manufacturers chose to go the cheapest route to meet emissions rather than
the best way. That gave us 2 decades of cars that were underpowered and
could not be made to run correctly.


"c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
news:cuXCe.16758$uo6.1460@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Bill, you crack me up. Where in my post did I say that the horsepower
> ratings from back in the 50s and 60s were higher than actual? All I said
> was
> that comparing the ratings of the engines in the 50 and 60s is a different
> rating system than what they use today. In fact, most of the automakers
> were
> boasting numbers less than the actual horsepower of the engines back then,
> both for insurance reasons and because of the class system for the Stock
> and
> Super Stock drag racing classes. The 426 Hemi, Boss 429 and the W30 Olds
> 455
> were perfect examples of this.
>
> And of course, you had to pull something totally out of the blue about the
> Ford side oiler. I can see how anyone would have read that in to what I
> said. Sheesh.
>
> Chris
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:42DC3A77.6FB86BF7@***.net...
>> For those whom believe we really didn't have the horsepower, back in
>> the old days: http://www.cobranet.com/roadtest.htm You probably think
>> there was no reason for a side oiler, too.
>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> c wrote:
>> >
>> > Just remember that for quite a while engines have been rated in terms
>> > of
> net
>> > HP, not flywheel like they were back in the 50s and 60s. There is quite
> a
>> > difference in the ratings. I believe they changed the ratings around
> 1972.
>> > Also any street engine is fine with a 2 bolt block. there are a lot of
>> > engines out there that never had 4 bolt caps, and some can't even be
>> > converted, yet they seem to live under some very severe high horsepower
>> > conditions. It is also a known fact that the best stock small block
> Chevy
>> > block to use for racing is one that originally had 2 bolt mains, and
> then
>> > convert it to 4 bolt mains with the splayed outer bolts. I've seen
> several
>> > small and big block Chevy engines making some serious power, and still
>> > having the 2 bolt main caps without a problem.
>> >
>> > Chris
>
>

 

I should have read further in the thread. yes, around '72 or '73 they
changes the ratings from power at the flywheel to power at the axle. The
difference was about -20% for loss. There was additional loss because the
manufacturers chose to go the cheapest route to meet emissions rather than
the best way. That gave us 2 decades of cars that were underpowered and
could not be made to run correctly.


"c" <c@me.org> wrote in message
news:cuXCe.16758$uo6.1460@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Bill, you crack me up. Where in my post did I say that the horsepower
> ratings from back in the 50s and 60s were higher than actual? All I said
> was
> that comparing the ratings of the engines in the 50 and 60s is a different
> rating system than what they use today. In fact, most of the automakers
> were
> boasting numbers less than the actual horsepower of the engines back then,
> both for insurance reasons and because of the class system for the Stock
> and
> Super Stock drag racing classes. The 426 Hemi, Boss 429 and the W30 Olds
> 455
> were perfect examples of this.
>
> And of course, you had to pull something totally out of the blue about the
> Ford side oiler. I can see how anyone would have read that in to what I
> said. Sheesh.
>
> Chris
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:42DC3A77.6FB86BF7@***.net...
>> For those whom believe we really didn't have the horsepower, back in
>> the old days: http://www.cobranet.com/roadtest.htm You probably think
>> there was no reason for a side oiler, too.
>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> c wrote:
>> >
>> > Just remember that for quite a while engines have been rated in terms
>> > of
> net
>> > HP, not flywheel like they were back in the 50s and 60s. There is quite
> a
>> > difference in the ratings. I believe they changed the ratings around
> 1972.
>> > Also any street engine is fine with a 2 bolt block. there are a lot of
>> > engines out there that never had 4 bolt caps, and some can't even be
>> > converted, yet they seem to live under some very severe high horsepower
>> > conditions. It is also a known fact that the best stock small block
> Chevy
>> > block to use for racing is one that originally had 2 bolt mains, and
> then
>> > convert it to 4 bolt mains with the splayed outer bolts. I've seen
> several
>> > small and big block Chevy engines making some serious power, and still
>> > having the 2 bolt main caps without a problem.
>> >
>> > Chris
>
>

 

..The 'big" V-8 in marine use was Chrysler's 440. There are still a lot of
them around in the older wood boats.

As for professional racing they used WWII era Allison's designed for
aircraft, V-12 Packards, or Rolls-Royce.






>
> The much storied 426 Hemi ("Race Hemi", "late Hemi", whatever...) was
> such an engine. It excelled at NASCAR in its day, thereafter in nitro
> burning dragsters with 100% power TBO of something like seven seconds.
> But you know why they were never used in marine applications? The
> valvetrain was good for a hundred hours, maybe, even at the 350-400 hp
> mark, and at 500 hp the lower end had maybe fifteen good hours.
> Monteverdi built a sports car called a Hai, with the Hemi, and few were
> built-they _could not_ make the Hemi live on the Autobahn for more than
> maybe ten thousand miles. Jensen would have nothing whatever to do with
> the Hemi.

 

..The 'big" V-8 in marine use was Chrysler's 440. There are still a lot of
them around in the older wood boats.

As for professional racing they used WWII era Allison's designed for
aircraft, V-12 Packards, or Rolls-Royce.






>
> The much storied 426 Hemi ("Race Hemi", "late Hemi", whatever...) was
> such an engine. It excelled at NASCAR in its day, thereafter in nitro
> burning dragsters with 100% power TBO of something like seven seconds.
> But you know why they were never used in marine applications? The
> valvetrain was good for a hundred hours, maybe, even at the 350-400 hp
> mark, and at 500 hp the lower end had maybe fifteen good hours.
> Monteverdi built a sports car called a Hai, with the Hemi, and few were
> built-they _could not_ make the Hemi live on the Autobahn for more than
> maybe ten thousand miles. Jensen would have nothing whatever to do with
> the Hemi.

 

..The 'big" V-8 in marine use was Chrysler's 440. There are still a lot of
them around in the older wood boats.

As for professional racing they used WWII era Allison's designed for
aircraft, V-12 Packards, or Rolls-Royce.






>
> The much storied 426 Hemi ("Race Hemi", "late Hemi", whatever...) was
> such an engine. It excelled at NASCAR in its day, thereafter in nitro
> burning dragsters with 100% power TBO of something like seven seconds.
> But you know why they were never used in marine applications? The
> valvetrain was good for a hundred hours, maybe, even at the 350-400 hp
> mark, and at 500 hp the lower end had maybe fifteen good hours.
> Monteverdi built a sports car called a Hai, with the Hemi, and few were
> built-they _could not_ make the Hemi live on the Autobahn for more than
> maybe ten thousand miles. Jensen would have nothing whatever to do with
> the Hemi.

 

..The 'big" V-8 in marine use was Chrysler's 440. There are still a lot of
them around in the older wood boats.

As for professional racing they used WWII era Allison's designed for
aircraft, V-12 Packards, or Rolls-Royce.






>
> The much storied 426 Hemi ("Race Hemi", "late Hemi", whatever...) was
> such an engine. It excelled at NASCAR in its day, thereafter in nitro
> burning dragsters with 100% power TBO of something like seven seconds.
> But you know why they were never used in marine applications? The
> valvetrain was good for a hundred hours, maybe, even at the 350-400 hp
> mark, and at 500 hp the lower end had maybe fifteen good hours.
> Monteverdi built a sports car called a Hai, with the Hemi, and few were
> built-they _could not_ make the Hemi live on the Autobahn for more than
> maybe ten thousand miles. Jensen would have nothing whatever to do with
> the Hemi.

 

Billy Ray wrote:
> .The 'big" V-8 in marine use was Chrysler's 440. There are still a lot of
> them around in the older wood boats.
>
> As for professional racing they used WWII era Allison's designed for
> aircraft, V-12 Packards, or Rolls-Royce.

The older heavy as hell Chrysler 392 went into a lot of boats,
gensets, irrigation pumps and start carts. All of which have been
bought up and made into drag and schlock rod engines today. They were
reliable but they were 250-300 hp engines tops and they weighed close
to a thousand pounds.

The 440 was a great engine. There are still a lot of them in boats but
older working boats made with them are usually repowered with diesel,
have been for years.

The Unlimited hydro idiots bought Allison 1710s by the trainload, used
them up like popcorn and scrapped them. When the old castings and
cranks got scarce they changed the rules and are now all running
surplus runout Lycoming turboshafts, rather than paying to build new
Allison stuff. The V12 Packard you are talking of is either the PT boat
engine, which has never been used in marine racing to my knowledge, or
the V-1650-9A Packard license built RR Merlin, of which a few were, but
the two stage two speed blower was a disadvantage.

 

Billy Ray wrote:
> .The 'big" V-8 in marine use was Chrysler's 440. There are still a lot of
> them around in the older wood boats.
>
> As for professional racing they used WWII era Allison's designed for
> aircraft, V-12 Packards, or Rolls-Royce.

The older heavy as hell Chrysler 392 went into a lot of boats,
gensets, irrigation pumps and start carts. All of which have been
bought up and made into drag and schlock rod engines today. They were
reliable but they were 250-300 hp engines tops and they weighed close
to a thousand pounds.

The 440 was a great engine. There are still a lot of them in boats but
older working boats made with them are usually repowered with diesel,
have been for years.

The Unlimited hydro idiots bought Allison 1710s by the trainload, used
them up like popcorn and scrapped them. When the old castings and
cranks got scarce they changed the rules and are now all running
surplus runout Lycoming turboshafts, rather than paying to build new
Allison stuff. The V12 Packard you are talking of is either the PT boat
engine, which has never been used in marine racing to my knowledge, or
the V-1650-9A Packard license built RR Merlin, of which a few were, but
the two stage two speed blower was a disadvantage.

 

Billy Ray wrote:
> .The 'big" V-8 in marine use was Chrysler's 440. There are still a lot of
> them around in the older wood boats.
>
> As for professional racing they used WWII era Allison's designed for
> aircraft, V-12 Packards, or Rolls-Royce.

The older heavy as hell Chrysler 392 went into a lot of boats,
gensets, irrigation pumps and start carts. All of which have been
bought up and made into drag and schlock rod engines today. They were
reliable but they were 250-300 hp engines tops and they weighed close
to a thousand pounds.

The 440 was a great engine. There are still a lot of them in boats but
older working boats made with them are usually repowered with diesel,
have been for years.

The Unlimited hydro idiots bought Allison 1710s by the trainload, used
them up like popcorn and scrapped them. When the old castings and
cranks got scarce they changed the rules and are now all running
surplus runout Lycoming turboshafts, rather than paying to build new
Allison stuff. The V12 Packard you are talking of is either the PT boat
engine, which has never been used in marine racing to my knowledge, or
the V-1650-9A Packard license built RR Merlin, of which a few were, but
the two stage two speed blower was a disadvantage.