Stock Hp and torque?

[WB72]

What kind of horse power and torque would have a 72 350 with a th400 have when it was new?

[67_C-30]

165HP @ 4000 and 280TQ @ 2400 if its a 2bbl

175HP @ 4000 and 280TQ @ 2400 if its a 4bbl

These are net ratings, which is the rating system that all new cars and trucks have used since 1972. This info was taken from an old MOTORS Truck and Diesel repair manual. It covers 1960 - 1974 if anyone else is curious as what their engine is rated.

[skokie]

How about a 68 327 with a qjet?

[67_C-30]

240HP @ 4400 and 330TQ @ 3000

[71400lb]

Not to hijack the post, but what about a 1972 400 SBC with a 4 bbl Quadrajet/400 Turbo?

71400LB
Cheyenne c/20

[rusted75 half ton]

How about a 69' 396 with Q-jet

[joelboxt]

what about 71 350 with a quad.

i think it 250 hp?

joel

[67_C-30]

'72 400 4 bbl

240HP @ 4400 and 345TQ @ 3300

'69 396 4 bbl

310HP @ 4800 and 400TQ @ 3200
(This is the engine that I have in my '69 Car hauler, and it is brutal )

'71 350 4 bbl

250HP @ 4600 and 350TQ @ 3000

[70 shorty]

Hijack still on

Any ideas on a 70 with a 250? Mine's nowhere near stock, I'm just curious where it started out.

[67_C-30]

155HP @ 4200 and 235TQ @ 1600 in stock form

[ezernut9mm]

damn, a 75 horse drop from 71 to 72 in the 350. is this just a matter of head design and intake? this truck would be real fun with those extra ponies...

[67_C-30]

No, its not a drop in the performance at all. All cars up to 1971 used gross HP ratings. After 1972 they went to net HP ratings meaning the HP was measured as the engine was installed (with all belts, including A/C, power steering if applicable, stock exhaust system, air cleaner, etc.) in the vehicle. Prior to that they were measured on a dyno, at the flywheel with minimal, if any, accessories. The net rating is Not Rear Wheel HP, though, although that's what a lot of people think it is. The general rule of thumb is that you can take the HP rating of a 1971 and older engine, and subtract 25 - 30 percent, and its pretty close to the net system has been used since 1972 and is used now. On the other you can add the same amount to today's engine, and see why the newer engines perform so well, compared to the older ones.

[ezernut9mm]

ah, ok. thanks for clearing that up for me.

[71400lb]

So then to find out the rear wheel horsepower, do you subtract another 20% for automatics and 15% for stick-shifts?

So my 1972 SBC 400 4bbl would be 240 gross hp, less 30% equals 168 net hp, then minus another 20%(automatic tranny), equals 134 rear wheel horsepower?

Also;
My 1967 Chrysler 300 with a Big Block 440 4bbl=350 gross hp, minus 30% equals 245 net hp, less 20%(automatic tranny) equals 196 rear wheel horsepower?


Rick
1971 Cheyenne C/20

[67_C-30]

Originally Posted by 71400lb

So then to find out the rear wheel horsepower, do you subtract another 20% for automatics and 15% for stick-shifts?

So my 1972 SBC 400 4bbl would be 240 gross hp, less 30% equals 168 net hp, then minus another 20%(automatic tranny), equals 134 rear wheel horsepower?

Also;
My 1967 Chrysler 300 with a Big Block 440 4bbl=350 gross hp, minus 30% equals 245 net hp, less 20%(automatic tranny) equals 196 rear wheel horsepower?


Rick
1971 Cheyenne C/20

No, your 1972 400 is already rated net HP. 1971 and lower years used gross HP ratings.

As far as your 440, it would probably be around 300 net HP. It is a 10:1 compression engine, and accessories seem to have less effect on stronger, higher compression engines.

I rear wheel dyno has made many people cry. I have seen factory muscle cars with 350-400 factory HP ratings pull up on the dyno and register 250-300 HP.

Here's a link explaining it a little better that I did:

http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/horsepwr.html