Muscle Car Wars Circa 1985
05-28-2012, 10:02 PM
#81
TECH Resident
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NJ
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't talking about actual performance we all know the cars of the 60s weighed alot and didn't handle well, i was talking about HP figures. As to them being weak. But apparently they cut their horsepower figures in half because of emissions? 190hp is something you see out of 4cyl cars.
05-29-2012, 12:04 AM
#82
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep in mind that horsepower was rated differently in the 1960s (SAE gross ratings) than it was in the 1980s. Also keep in mind that many engines in the 1960s were rated without driving accessories or with emissions plumbing that the vehicles were assembled with.
05-29-2012, 01:05 AM
#83
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't talking about actual performance we all know the cars of the 60s weighed alot and didn't handle well, i was talking about HP figures. As to them being weak. But apparently they cut their horsepower figures in half because of emissions? 190hp is something you see out of 4cyl cars.
The Camaro of the 1960's weighed notably less than most later versions, and it did weigh less than the 85 I-ROC with say, a 302 under hood. It was about the same in 1/4 mile testing... The I-ROC surely had more power... or better gearing or both.
190hp is 4cyl. territory today, but back then, you'd be lucky to see 100 in nearly any 4cyl.
05-29-2012, 02:32 PM
#84
Wasn't talking about actual performance we all know the cars of the 60s weighed alot and didn't handle well, i was talking about HP figures. As to them being weak. But apparently they cut their horsepower figures in half because of emissions? 190hp is something you see out of 4cyl cars.
