Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Scott58 wrote:Actually cars have alot less power then they did in the 60's. There is just a hell of alot more of them.

Um, I don't think that is correct at all.
Mustang's during the 60's had the following engines and horsepower:
1964-1966
260 2bbl V-8 (early)
120 Horsepower 200 I-6 (4 lug wheels)
200 Horsepower 289 2bbl V-8 (C-Code)
225 Horsepower 289 4bbl V-8 (A-Code)
271 Horsepower 289 V-8 (K-Code Hipo 289)

then in 67 and 68, they added the big boys
302 V-8 comes with 230 HP or 250 HP
390 V-8 pumps out 270 HP or 325 HP
428 Cobra Jet with 360 HP

In comparison, we are getting a lot more horsepower with smaller displacement these days. After all, these were "sportscars", and they were pushing today's V-6 range power until you got up to the 390ci beasts. Hell, the nissan 3.5L that goes in the 350Z can come with 300hp stock in the expensive models.

That is 3.5 Liters, and 300 horsepower!! I'm sorry, but that alone makes your statement false. That is 213.5ci at 300hp naturally aspirated, compared to a 6.4L, 390 ci beast at 270 or 325HP.

sorry, that was just bugging me. I feel like these displacement/hp ratios are similar for other V8 musclecars in the 60s, so I think this is a pretty accurate comparison. You are also looking at double and triple the fuel economy for the same horsepower.

Little engines are certainly putting outmore power, but i still think the overall HP is probably still less. With all the little civics and focuses running around that pulls the numbers way down in my opinion. Alot of Blazers and minivans running around out there with less the 200hp also. Just alot more cars everywhere and I certainly like the HP of my S50 to get away from them when i need to

I would guess that while horsepower is high, torque is generally lower. Some of the big blocks from the '60's put out way over 400 pounds ft of torque, some approaching 500. I don't keep up with these kinds of specs today, but I doubt anybody comes close in car applications.
Here are some old specs from Musclecar Classics:
Ford Shelby 500KR 335 hp, 440lbs-ft torque
Dodge RT 440 375hp, 480lbs ft torque
Buick GS455 360hp, 510 pounds ft torque
Dodge 426 Hemi 425 hp, 490 pounds ft torque

When I was in college, I drove a 1956 Plymouth coupe in which I and some mad mechanic friends had dropped a big-block 383 Dodge police car engine with the automatic trans. Due to the car's overall light weight, it pretty much ate all comers. It screamed.

That is very true. There were a lot of torque monsters and quick cars. Now, most cars pushing that kind of horsepower are so ridiculously expensive, only the "quite wealthy" can afford them.

I see what you mean now, Scott. Not being alive during the 60's, I have no clue what the distribution was of people who had low hp cars, and the number of people with faster sports cars. Im willing to bet after you compare weight-hp on the average cars people owned back then, they probably arent that much faster. Especially if you take gearing into account.... 3 and 4-spds definitely cut the ride short, you just get there really quick.
Yes, there are quite a few drivers now. That is one reason I would like to get a little bigger bike for some preventive cager avoiding...haha

One of the big limiting factors back in the '60's [yes, I was there] was tire construction and quality. A lot of that big horsepower got wasted because the baloney skins of the day couldn't hook up. Those cars would have been faster than they were if shod with modern rubber.

Man this thread has really made me want to shop for a muscle car. That's a scary damn thing!

Don't forget most of those horsepower and torque ratings are the engine's gross power output. Nowadays, we use the SAE net output as what a car makes for horsepower. SAE net means the engine hooked up to a dyno, running all accessories and in a stage of tune where it would not get horrible gas milage.

The bad part about having a muscle car, though, is shoddy gas milage and expensive in general to own. For the price of my project muscle car and all the money I've dumped into it, I could buy a literbike that would spank it in the acceleration, handling and braking.

That said, they all have their places and you can pry my Mopar from my cold, dead hands.

oldnslo wrote:I would guess that while horsepower is high, torque is generally lower. Some of the big blocks from the '60's put out way over 400 pounds ft of torque, some approaching 500. I don't keep up with these kinds of specs today, but I doubt anybody comes close in car applications.
Here are some old specs from Musclecar Classics:
Ford Shelby 500KR 335 hp, 440lbs-ft torque
Dodge RT 440 375hp, 480lbs ft torque
Buick GS455 360hp, 510 pounds ft torque
Dodge 426 Hemi 425 hp, 490 pounds ft torque

When I was in college, I drove a 1956 Plymouth coupe in which I and some mad mechanic friends had dropped a big-block 383 Dodge police car engine with the automatic trans. Due to the car's overall light weight, it pretty much ate all comers. It screamed.

2006 Corvette Z06 505 HP, 470 lb-ft
2006 Dodge Viper 500 HP, 525 lb-ft
2006 Dodge Charger SRT8 425 HP, 420 lb-ft
2006 Ford GT 550 HP, 500 lb-ft
2005 Saleen S7 750 HP, 700 lb-ft

American made motors (V8+) havn't really changed all that much in the past years. Most all are still pushrods, and hose that aren' are SOHC. And the reason you get 300 HP out of Nissan's VQ35DE in the 350Z is because it's loaded with technologies. The VQ has DOHC, variable timing, higher compression (than most american V6's) and revs up a little bit. The car itself has an intake and exhaust system designed to provide semi-free flow of air/exhaust. That's why you get "only" 260 HP out of an Altima with the same motor. The thing is, short of turbo/supercharging, those high hp, small displacment japanese motors are close to maxed out. Whereas you slap some race headers, straight pipe and a CAI on a Z06, retune the ECU to make better use of it (same concept as rejetting a carb) and you'll get some omgwtf power out of simple bolt-ons. Toss in high-compression pistons, race cam, over-bore, balance the crank, etc. (still no forced induction) and you'll be even more scared of the damn thing. THEN twin turbo it and all the turbo goodies (timer, boost controller, etc) and the thing won't need any more than 1st gear to do every speed limit in the US.

Now, do that to a 350Z. $100 says it won't be anywhere near as fast or scary. Not that I'm saying the 350Z is bad or anything, I'd personally love to have a supercharged one, which can be had for less than a base model Vette.

While those old '60's engines were all normally aspirated, I imagine some could take some add-ons. Some of the modifications you suggested produced huge horsepower increases back in the day, too. It was not uncommon then to tune a 426 hemi up to 1500hp+ for the drags, and Mopar still sells the engine block to the build your own funnycar and fuel dragster crowd. Not sure, haven't followed it for years.
Engineering marches on, and there are a lot of years that have gone by since the '60's. It's only natural that new performance technologies develop. What seems odd is that it hasn't produced more power than it has. I'm guessing, but wouldn't be surprised if the modern high performance engines are engineered and built at a higher state of tune than in the old days, too.

Hey Guys Im 22 years old have no bike riding experience and several years of car driving under my belt. I live in a very snow intensive winter wind ice, snow all the time during the winter, and you know what 90% percent of the time when people wind up in the ditch its the 4WD SUV's im not kidding you 9 out of 10 cars that loose control and go in the ditch are 4WD SUV's.

That's because 9 out of 10 cars on snow-covered, icy roads ARE 4WD SUVs.