ragtopfury
Well-Known Member
Not the 361 with the dizzy in the front??
Ooooh.... Now you're talking Golden Commando stuff....
Is it the sticker on the air cleaner????
- Thread starter 318willrun
- Start date
-
Ooooh.... Now you're talking Golden Commando stuff....
It a high performance engine if you get a woodie every time you stick your foot into the carburetor (or the fuel injector).
33IMP
Well-Known Member
Neither of those is remotely a high performance engine.
Now the 270hp or 283hp 283 IS a perform!nice engine.
So, I guess it is factory equipment that makes any engine a performance engine. There was a 210 horse 327, and a 375 horse 327. One of these is not the same as others.
1982 Dodge trucks..... 225 1bbl = 95 net HP, 225 2bbl = 100 hp. Factory equipment up'd it 5 hp, so technically, the super six is a performance engine.
I too think there were/are engines "intended" to compete on the track. Others, marketing.
33IMP
Well-Known Member
by the way, that cat with it's expression, you now have the best avatar on this site
Sorry, but that is ridiculous, and you know it. 210hp 327 gained 75% to 375. Did your /6 gain75 %? Show me a stock 225 rated at 175hp, we'll talk.
33IMP
Well-Known Member
Maybe there should be a threshold for factory high performance parts added to a bread-and-butter engine to be considered, and a starting point threshold. Five to ten % added to a 250hp minimum?
5hp added to 95 does NOT meet the threshold.
5hp added to 95 does NOT meet the threshold.
Last edited:
- I look at what the factory was targeting, and the intent when creating a particular "engine package". I really don't believe HP is the deciding factor. Although the 273 "commando" wasn't at the mountain top in HP, it was designed to compete in the Pony car war and the autocross races. That makes it a "performance engine".
- Also, many of the "performance engines" will be surrounded by support to the car. Such as the rear end, larger brakes, sway bars, or other such features.
For consideration, the 2.2 turbo. In the Daytona/Laser, it was meant to be a performance engine to offer in the market against the Iroc-Z/GT Mustang. But the exact same motor often was in the New Yorker in which they had no intention of it's buyer racing.
33IMP
Well-Known Member
I'm not familiar. What was the rated hp increase of the commando over the 2bbl 273?
Competing with the mustang at the time
2bbl 289: obvious answer-no
4bbl 225hp 289: meh. Not hp imo.
271hp 289: now thats a performance engine.
Don't you remember when (the 80's) there was a shift away from high compression to the stroker with lower compression so you didn't have to run 100 plus octane fuel in street/strip cars? The fuel became expensive and hard to find?
"rated" was 180 vs 235
Pretty much why the 340 got replaced by the 360. Low compression, smog engine with enough stroke/torque to do a really good job moving C-body, or go to work in a D200
33IMP
Well-Known Member
So, 30+% increase. Meets my personal threshold.
I always thought HP stood for "Hokie Pokie" what you all jibbering bout ?
Got one in a '62 Belvedere four door with a three speed manual and 3.55s. It runs surprisingly strong!
slantsixdan
=..=
In Australia, the 1969 Valiant Pacer came with a 225 Slant-6 factory-rated at…175 hp! So now can we talk? Great, I'll start: Chrysler South Africa put out 225 Slant-6s factory-rated at 190 hp, too. And all these numbers are more or less bogus. Consider: The 225 1bbl engine's published rating was 145 bhp and 215 lb-ft from 1960 clear through 1971. That's with nominal compression ratios that varied from 8.2 to 8.5, three different camshafts installed with various timing, dozens of different ignition advance curves, dozens of different carburetors, and around 8 significantly different emission control packages. Given that the 170's published power changed from 101 bhp to 115 bhp in 1967 when it was given the 225-sized carburetor and the upgraded camshaft the 225 had received for 1965, those "145 and 215" numbers get pretty hard to trust.
Nevertheless, let's keep torturing them and see what else they'll confess. Here are more realistic numbers from a 1961 225 engine, removed from a new Dodge Lancer, put through a 50-hour break-in, meticulously checked and set to factory specs, and put through well-documented tests in March of 1961. These tests were not done by or for Chrysler; they were done in General Motors' engine engineering department for competitive analysis.
Gross output (air cleaner removed)
Maximum BHP 126.5 @ 3800 rpm
Maximum Brake Torque 210.7 lb·ft @ 1600 rpm
Maximum output (just shy of detonation)
Maximum BHP 115.9 @ 3800 rpm
Maximum Brake Torque 196.9 lb·ft @ 1400 rpm
As-Installed Output
Maximum BHP: 104.5 @ 3800 rpm
Maximum Brake Torque: 189.4 lb·ft @ 1400 rpm
These numbers are notable for a bunch of reasons: they don't conveniently end in nice, tidy, round, advertising-friendly 0s and 5s like Chrysler's 145 (hp) and 215 (torque) figures. The gross BHP figure falls well shy of the published claim. It does, however, match up very well with the "127" rating Chrysler published for the industrial 225 configured and equipped just about identically to the passenger car engine in all the ways that mattered to output. That looks a lot like it was wisely decided that the only real purpose of a horsepower number on a passenger car is to sell the car, while people specifying industrial engines have a genuine need to know what they're actually getting. And the "as-installed" result looks a lot like the factory rating for the 225 once the SAE Net rating protocol came in for '72, plus a few horses for the better camshaft and minus a few horses for emissions equipment.
Iterate the exercise with the 170 engine: that "101hp" rating for the '60-'66 170 was another marketing fib. The Valiant was marketed as superior to the Corvair and Falcon. 101: just a little bit better than 100. And it rhymes with "fun". An ad man would much rather tell you a car has 101 horsepower than 100, because 101 sounds a lot better.
Now go iterate the exercise with whatever V8 engine you might want to do. It's the same bowl of instant ramen, with a different flavor packet mixed in.
Last edited:
33IMP
Well-Known Member
I had a 7.5 to one, peanut head 454 rated at 270hp in my dually. NOT a performance engine.
454 with good parts in a 70 chevelle, 450 horsepower. A performance engine.
454 dually engine with 10.5 pistons, .600 lift solid cam, big port aluminum heads, single plane intake and an 850 dp, becomes a performance engine.
454 with good parts in a 70 chevelle, 450 horsepower. A performance engine.
454 dually engine with 10.5 pistons, .600 lift solid cam, big port aluminum heads, single plane intake and an 850 dp, becomes a performance engine.
I'm with Dan here, marketing and air cleaner stickers were fun for the sale's person and buyer in a lot of cases.
IMO, it can be argued a stone stock engine with a good tune (distributor curve kit and limiting total timing) makes an HP engine. Certainly if you add a 4 barrel and some headers and certainly if you optimize the camshaft timing using a compression gauge. Between "all that", I think close to an honest 50 or possibly a little more HP might be added, depending on "how bad" or how "emissions leaned" the tune was to begin with. I've DONE IT several time and I can tell you first hand they all went from not even squeaking tires to literally broiling the hides. A car that can lay two rubber strips through second gear from a dead stop doesn't have an "HP" engine? Horse hockey.
Great addition, Dan! Thanks!
MidnightSwinger
Well-Known Member
I was born in ‘88.
harrisonm
Well-Known Member
I am going to agree with the ideas brought forth by @DionR and @Dana67Dart and maybe add a few of my OPINIONS. Some engines are automatically HP. For example, the 340 (even the lower compression later models and the HEMI. To determine if an engine is HP, I think you need to 1. compare the engine in question to other engines of the same displacement, 2. What vehicle is it in, and 3. consider what else is going on that year. A 383 with a 2 barrel is not HP no matter how much good towing torque it has. A 383 with a 4 barrel in a station wagon or truck is not HP because it is there for working power, not performance. A 383 4 barrel in a Road Runner is HP because it was intended to provide a decent level of performance in a performance platform. If there is a 2.2 L turbo charged engine in a 88 dodge Diplomat, that is not HP. If that same engine is in an 88 Dodge Daytona with a 5 speed, spoiler package and performance suspension/tires, it is HP. If, as in 74, compression and power are down, an engine, like a 340, can still be HP if an effort was made by the manufacturer to squeeze out some decent power while following the rules.
A Briggs and Stratton with a disabled governor is an HP engine. Although not for long.
-
