MustangWorks.com - The Ford Mustang Power Source!

Go Back   MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums > Mustang & Ford Tech > Classic Mustangs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar

Notices


 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 03-08-2002, 10:41 AM   #12
thunderbolt
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 380
Default

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...)
thunderbolt is offline   Reply With Quote
 



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:13 PM.


SEARCH