Sunstroked

Yeah I figured that out after I posted and reread it.

Also I was going thru some junk in search of something else and found a time slip from Detroit dragway in which my 73 camaro ran a 14.77
Didnt give the mph but as I remember it, low 90 mph. Not much traction either. 350 engine.

kodpkd

Nobody said anything about the 68 327, 350 hp.
I just bought a 1968. I'm really looking forward to driving it. With side pipes,,, it sounds great.

Rescue Rogers

I was just going to add the L79 motor, the 327 350HP. And also the numbers were listed but not referenced, rear end ratios and transmission ratios. Horsepower is top end torque is what gets you there fast, and gear ratios is a torque multiplier. If you run a higher rearend, like 3.55 or 3.08 with a 4 speed M21 with the 2.20 first gear, its not going to be peppy off the line, but once your moving its pretty fun. If you throw a 3.70 in it with the wide ratio M20 with its 3.52 first gear it will be fun out of the llights and really snap your head back with 300 HP. Add 50 to 100 HP more and you'll really be excited. With a 4.11 rear end a 4 cylinder will snap your neck...but what will really be a good investment would be to look for a car with a 5 speed or 6 speed already in it. THe first gear is really low so you can run a higher rearend and the highway driving will be cooler temp running and lower rpm too.

derekderek

they lowered the compression a bit. the real power loss was timing and jetting for emissions. you get a 75 L48 that is creatively underrated at 165 HP and recurve the distributor, it is essentially a 71 engine. and if you want more power you do whatever you want to the engine. you buy the prettiest, solidest corvette you can afford. even if it has no engine!!! the engine and trans is the cheapest and easiest part of these cars to repair or upgrade. a gen 6 454 from a 98 silverado pick up can be had for a very few hundred bucks these days.

Rescue Rogers

I agree. I bought my car because the paint and body was in good shape, God knows the rest of it was a mess....The only thing I wish it had was a 5 or 6 speed

BKbroiler

Guys, just fyi, this thread is from 2011.

L-46man

RafalC.....Yes, you're overthinking. Lets stay with a 69. EVEN the 300hp SAE GROSS was more powerful than the subsequent years equivalent....so a 300 HP 69
is a SUPER little engine....certainly powerful enough to scare ya!

Sae gross and net as others have said...related to the accessories driven off the engine, alternator (-4) Waterpump (-3), AC up -7, PS -2.etc.

SAE net was all accessories installed and operating. As well as standard day/ temp and fuel octane corrections.

For me the 69 base engine is a great engine.

Batty Mantis

lol. I wonder what he ended up buying.

jpatrick62

[QUOTE=L-46man;1599718748]

Sae gross and net as others have said...related to the accessories driven off the engine, alternator (-4) Waterpump (-3), AC up -7, PS -2.etc.

SAE net was all accessories installed and operating.QUOTE]

I've often wondered about the Net ratings for cars. So, assuming they take into account all the power robbing options like AC and P/S (along with some smog devices) what about the ratings for non A/C and/or P/S cars?

L-46man

This should help....

https://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-tec...et-horsepower/

unka

jpatrick62

Thanks - great article!
So it would appear that net horsepower rating would vary even amongst the same engine lineup - for instance a 1969 base 350 with A/C and P/S would tend to have lover net HP rating than the
base 350 without those accessories. From what I read the manufacturers added all the available accessories to determine net horsepower - in this case the 1969 base 350 would be tested with
A/C and P/S installed and running.

The article seems to imply that the compression drop accounted for 10 HP drop from 1970 - 1971. It appears the net ratings of 1971 took the advertised power down about 20% as well.
So by those numbers, a 1969 L46 350 (had they been available) would have been rated at 315 HP in 1971 and 245 HP in 1972.

L-46man

how to resurrect an old thread and give it life again.

So by those numbers, a1969 L46 350 (had they been available) would have been rated at 315 HP in 1971 and 245 HP in 1972.

Considering that I've owned a 1969 L-46 350-350 for 42 years....that's a new one on me!

I get it...IF they continued the L-46 into 71-72 no changes, then.....

Okay! to confuse the livin' crap out of you....In and around 2000 I had the 69 Dynoed. Came up at 386 hp with electronic ignition and 104 AVGAS at the Flywheel. or 326 hp at the rear wheels. Nice cool moist winter day.
Then Wheeler Dealers did a resto on a 68 L-79...which is the 327 cu in version of the same engine and dynoed it and got about what I did. They added PERTRONIX as well.

Then to make matters worse....there's the 'blue-printing' variable.....blue-printing is basically building an engine to 'perfect specs and tolerances'...ideal tolerances. Yup! Even Chevy made in the course of normal production (occasionally) a few of these....ya know even a blind squirrel finds and acorn! Most units would be LESS....some were PERFECT.Timing specs change as well.

Back in the day we used to say "anything more than 300Hp in a 3000 lbs car is 'ego massage'...{that was a Mouse motor/ Rat motor 'dig')..course now you can get 460 hp right out of the box in a BASE Corvette....we've come a long way.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6y63yb

unkahal

leigh1322

Just curious when you dyno'd this, was it a chassis dyno or on a stand? Did you have headers or not?

boat196

That’s a great number, your stating that your motor is stock or original. What made you dyno your motor.
.