Black Blown 02

Ok, my father-in-law had a 68 corvette convertible.He says it ran low 13's bone stock on stock street tires at our 4400 foot elevation dragstrip (SLC Utah). I call BS!!! New C5's run mid to low 14's here stock.
Were these 68's extremely underrated, or is he exagerrating? BTW...this was his reply to my 4wd truck running a 14.8.

10.5 Dave

iTrader: (5)

Actually the old muscle-cars in the 60s are grossly overated.That vette would probably dyno maybe 190rwhp.I saw a "435 hp" 427 vette dyno 262 rwhp.The dyno does'nt lie.I would say that car stock would be at least 1.5-2 seconds slower than a C5.

Black Blown 02

ha! thats what I thought! thanks

Dean-o

The old 60s cars were rated with the motor on an engine dyno without accesories. By the time you bolt it in the car with accesories and drivetrain loss, a 300hp 350 would probably dyno 190+ rwhp. So that is absolutely correct. Although I believe they weighed only 2800lbs, which would make a big difference in ET. My 69 stingray, with a big block, shows 2800 lbs on the title, but I'm not sure if that is correct, I need to do some research. But I am positive that they are lighter than the new ones.

Dean

J-Rod

Do a search for a conversion from gross HP to net HP (SAE). That will help you figure out what the losses with the accessories bolted on are. Once you do that, you can figure the driveline losses just like any other car.

Black Blown 02

gross to net puts it at about 300 hp or 255 to the wheels. Smokemup says that would run a 13.4 at sea level or a 14.3 at 4400 feet. Thats about what c5's run here, so I still think thats a bit optimistic.