428 cj

09-08-2000, 12:42 AM

Just to add to this conversation:
Cars before '72 were rated Gross horsepower which is without full exhaust on an engine dyno with no accessories, in '72 it was changed to SAE (society of Automotive engineers) NET, which is with the engine installed in the vehicle, full exhaust and accessories and at the tail end of the transmission. This makes a big difference in accuracy of ratings. To mix this all up some of you guys were comparing horsepower at the wheels as well, not to mention the fact that a C6 on the 428 eats up a lot of power. The new Firebird WS6 ram air was found to have 320 horsepower at the rear wheels (NET rated at like 325 by GM), which is amazing and the new mustang Cobra had around 320 advertised horsepower and the rear wheel horsepower came around closer to 250. I stopped looking at power ratings along time ago, now i just pay attention to 1/4 mile times, you can't bullshit a good timeslip.

09-08-2000, 12:42 AM	#40
84stang83zephyr Guest Posts: n/a	Just to add to this conversation: Cars before '72 were rated Gross horsepower which is without full exhaust on an engine dyno with no accessories, in '72 it was changed to SAE (society of Automotive engineers) NET, which is with the engine installed in the vehicle, full exhaust and accessories and at the tail end of the transmission. This makes a big difference in accuracy of ratings. To mix this all up some of you guys were comparing horsepower at the wheels as well, not to mention the fact that a C6 on the 428 eats up a lot of power. The new Firebird WS6 ram air was found to have 320 horsepower at the rear wheels (NET rated at like 325 by GM), which is amazing and the new mustang Cobra had around 320 advertised horsepower and the rear wheel horsepower came around closer to 250. I stopped looking at power ratings along time ago, now i just pay attention to 1/4 mile times, you can't bullshit a good timeslip.