

© Copyright 1995 thru 2008 - The Mustang Works™. All Rights Reserved.
MustangWorks.com is designed and hosted by Aero3 Media.
MustangWorks.com is designed and hosted by Aero3 Media.
![]() |
#12 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 380
|
![]() Sigh
67 289 w/ 2V carb was rated at 200hp but you have to remember this was pre 72 and hp was rated as gross not net. In other words, this engine made 200hp with the alternator, water pump, and everything else removed, at the crank. I have heard this translates to about 160 net hp. So at the rear wheels you can easliy have 120-130. Don't forget old autos sucked up about 25% where as manuals only suck up about 15%. These cars generally feel peppy because they were light weight and didn't usually have all the power robbers of today. (AC, PS, Air pump, etc...) |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
raced a Supra Twin Turbo | Stang35th | Stang Stories | 63 | 08-23-2003 12:36 AM |
Horsepower rating?????????? | gtsr515 | Windsor Power | 1 | 03-29-2003 10:45 PM |
Please Comment of Speed Secret # 2 | jim_howard_pdx | Windsor Power | 20 | 11-06-2002 11:44 AM |
horsepower rating? | 92CopStang | Windsor Power | 3 | 11-22-2001 06:09 PM |
1994-1995 5.0 horsepower rating | 1985Mustang | Windsor Power | 9 | 10-16-2001 12:26 PM |