gangbang malloy

what i dont get is this:


1969 Camaro SS 396cid (L78 block)
375hp
415tq

around 3500lbs

runs the 1/4 mile in 14.7 sec @ 98.7mph????


and the
2002 Camaro SS LS1 346cid
325hp rated (but actually 350hp)
375tq

about 3550 lbs

runs the 1/4 mile in about 13.3 sec @ about 105 mph


i dont know maybe it was the cheap bias ply tires of the 60s of too much power but shouldnt the 69 outrun the the 2002 model????

i dont get it but any input is much appreciated thanks

fast01z28

iTrader: (6)

the power ratings from back in the day was done differently than now. those motors wouldnt be rated the same by todays standards. think about the technology improvements over the years.

lemons12

iTrader: (71)

they actually have like 250 or something like that...
^^^^ is right... ratings were diff.

whytryz28

iTrader: (28)

the whole design of the big block 396 was a joke. Build it to todays specs using new tech. parts and you have a killer. My 327ci 69 would destroy my 01 any day of the week.

z2fast8

the motors in 69 was dyno'd out of the car with no accesories. and you cannot compare a built motor to a factory motor, thats just dumb

dkota1968

iTrader: (1)

Pure stock drags 2007 a 70' SS396 ran 12.85 at 111.6mph w/4.10 and 4 speed. 69' camaro ZL1 ran 11.79@116.15. 69' Yenko Camaro ran 12.096@117.49. Good numbers there.

checkbit

iTrader: (11)

prior to 1972, chevrolet reported gross horsepower. 1972 and after they reported net horsepower.

pretty interesting article...

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...rticleId=66170

Elite_Hot_Rod

My 69 SB Camaro SS 300HP 350 CID is respectable but no where near as fast as my 99 Z28 or T/A are.

gangbang malloy

so the 69s were over rated?


anyone here know what a STOCK 69 camaro SS 396 dynos or has a dyno sheet?

lemons12

iTrader: (71)

not really overrated.. for their time they were rated about right on.. but like said, they were rated differently.. so no they werent overrated hey were rated differently..

LS1Z28-00

iTrader: (8)

^^what pecker lips said . those little 302 chevys were little demons from what my dad tells me. said they did low 14 with like 101-102 traps. would be a good run for a lt1 outta a lil 302.

Elite_Hot_Rod

I saw a Chevelle with a 396 on the dyno one day, he made 275 RWHP and he wasn't very happy with it. Today we measure HP at the rear wheels, back then they measured HP at the flywheel with no accessories. My 99 T/A makes over 500 RWHP, my 69 Camaro prolly makes 250ish to the wheels if I'm lucky. Dyno numbers don't mean awhole lot to me and I don't compare my T/A to the Camaro, different creatures.

gangbang malloy

well there are 3 396s rated at 325,350 and the L78 at 375

maybe it was the lower one?



how bout all that torque they produced

lemons12

iTrader: (71)

TQ dies off real fast in those cars from what i know... but i could be off?? more insight please..

Elite_Hot_Rod

The 396 isn't a bad engine but the valve train isn't the best. The biggest CID the first gen Camaro had was 396 but Yenko and several others put 427's in them which I think was a much better engine and 454 is just a bigger bore. A buddy of mine has a 70 GS BB which were known for their torque and the car hauls *** but honestly the LSX is a better platform. His GS runs 6.20's where as my 408 LSX based 4th gen T/A runs 5.6's. I love my 69 but my 99 is and always will be way faster. This web site has alot of great 1st gen info.

http://www.camaros.net/

lemons12

iTrader: (71)

this may be a horrible example for my ? but i know nothing if its not 1993 and up... and ill be the first to admit it...

take for example the 6.6 L trans am... they are only a tad bit faster than say a 1995 mustang gt arent they? dont they have a **** load of TQ till about 40-60 mph then they just loose everything..?

gangbang malloy

correct me if im wrong but isnt the ls1 engine a "tuned" engine with high compression and a cam with a very very very mild lift?

where as the L78 396 is more in its basic and raw form?

ive heard when u take both engines and replace everything like high compression pistons and huge cams the 1st gen block will make lot more power over the ls1

lemons12

iTrader: (71)

that would make since... just as a 454 should make more power over a 427 AFTER you start modding, regardless of what the factory gave them hp wise..

Quaman

Dont slouch on the oldschool iron.Comparing these cars is just crazy..the vasts in technology and design = up to the time differances alone. Ex= rear suspension( leaf verse coil/torque arm) Tire compound/quality/width,and even aerodynamic advantages.
In the old big block 396's, which were basically still truck motors by the 1st gen era.When chevy started putting them in Fbodys instead of just Chevelles and big cars..they were still that truck motors, producing monstrous torque ( aka the RAT as compared to the mouse)..in which to help build that torque with the massive stroke found in these new engines...TINY duration cams with mediocre lift is what helped produce that..The story's we all hear and rave about of the good ol days isnt about the stockers,but the guys who like us turned the wrenches and feased out with what they had,substantial combos for the time.If were comparing Fbods it should be corresponding mod to corresponding mod..but the LSx still comes out lookin like a RAT..in a mouses clothing

TTSSZ

iTrader: (8)

My 427 in my 71 rsz dynoed at around 350rwhp untuned. That sounds a bit low but at 20% loss through the drivetrain would put it at about 437.5 hp at the crank. Its a 427/435hp motor, so Its right on the money. Thats with the stock 11:1 compression.

My 02 SS 345hp package dynoed at 327 at the wheels stock. At 20% loss, thats 408 at the crank.

So if you flip the rating systems for fun,
427 / 350 hp
346 / 408 hp.

so you see how the old big blocks are dogs, even the 427's