micahmayhem
12th-February-2009, 11:26 PM
I was just curious as musclecarclub.com has Nova history and I don't assume them to have information that isn't accurate...I was wondering why they state
"Production for 72 Nova: Engines: 350 V8 200 bhp.
Performance: 350/200: 1/4 mile in 15.5 seconds @ 88.4 mph"
While only 1 and 2 years prior the ratings had nearly 100
more horsepower out of the same 350ci.
Production for 71 Nova: Engines: 350 V8 270 bhp.
Production for 70 Nova: Engines: 350 V8 295 bhp.
Anyone know the anything about the distinctive hp loss in 72?:confused::confused::confused:
veno
12th-February-2009, 11:37 PM
I was just curious as musclecarclub.com has Nova history and I don't assume them to have information that isn't accurate...I was wondering why they state
"Production for 72 Nova: Engines: 350 V8 200 bhp.
Performance: 350/200: 1/4 mile in 15.5 seconds @ 88.4 mph"
While only 1 and 2 years prior the ratings had nearly 100
more horsepower out of the same 350ci.
Production for 71 Nova: Engines: 350 V8 270 bhp.
Production for 70 Nova: Engines: 350 V8 295 bhp.
Anyone know the anything about the distinctive hp loss in 72?:confused::confused::confused:
1972 was the year of death for all of performance.... compression ratios were nominal 7.5 to 8.5 cam profiles changed, cams were factory retarded... egr, lots of smog equipment... it only got worse as the decade worn on....
Most all engine were way down on HP starting in 1972.. by 1980 it was pathetic... a 1974 vett 454 boasted a miserable 220hp...
HP ratings for the 1972 350 in nova.. were 165hp 2bbl, and 200hp 4bbl. cam specs...lift .390/.410 2bbl .4006/.4100 4bbl.......255hp in vet with hipo cam....specs .4586/.4850
moboman
12th-February-2009, 11:44 PM
1972 was the year of death for all of performance.... compression ratios were nominal 7.5 to 8.5 cam profiles changed, cams were factory retarded... egr, lots of smog equipment... it only got worse as the decade worn on....
Most all engine were way down on HP starting in 1972.. by 1980 it was pathetic... a 1974 vett 454 boasted a miserable 220hp...
Don't forget about the gas crises too there veno. 2 things that killed the horsepower.....
CdnL79 Registry
12th-February-2009, 11:48 PM
1972 was the end of the 1st muscle car era. Manufacturers were mandated to report horsepower in 'net' figures instead of 'gross' as previous. Smog standards were being increased and engines were being detuned in preparation for unleaded gas. Insurance was hard to get for muscle cars and when you did get it, you almost needed a bank loan to pay for it. It was not a good time.
Bob
71SS454
13th-February-2009, 12:22 AM
The gross HP ratings like the 70 engine is an engine running on a dyno with nothing on it but what's needed to run. This was the gross rating. In 71 they started using net ratings that were the engine on the dyno with the alternator and smog equipment on the engine.Also in 71 compression ratio's took a dive.
67ss&99ss
13th-February-2009, 12:44 AM
My 72 is 100% stock except for a flowmaster muffer in place of the stock muffler that had blown out. It is very suprising to me. Lots of get up and go for a 350 two barrel.
micahmayhem
13th-February-2009, 02:10 AM
oh, no complaints here just quite shocking history that was new to me. my 72 is great, but my block is also not from 72 haha. although i don't have any idea what horsepower i'm putting out. :D
Bluesman
13th-February-2009, 10:18 PM
71SS has a lot of the answer. It was in the way they measured HP back then. My '71 came with a mild cam and a 2-brl on a 350 and was rated at 250 HP. If you had measured it like they do today I probably would have been 100HP less than that. The way they measure HP today is much more honest.
Dave
Nova_Guy
13th-February-2009, 10:35 PM
I think 1972 was the first year you could tell what engine was in the car by the VIN. Isn't that the reason you can tell a SS Nova in 72? A K in the serial number denotes the SS V-8 car.
CdnL79 Registry
14th-February-2009, 03:30 PM
My '71 came with a mild cam and a 2-brl on a 350 and was rated at 250 HP. If you had measured it like they do today I probably would have been 100HP less than that. The way they measure HP today is much more honest.
Dave
They over estimate today, too. My 2007 Shelby GT500 is promoted as a 500HP car. In reality, not one stock GT500 has dyno'd more than 470HP. Fortunately, you can get them to 500HP with nothing more than a good cold air induction kit, a tune, and upgraded mufflers.
Bob
veno
14th-February-2009, 08:26 PM
71SS has a lot of the answer. It was in the way they measured HP back then. My '71 came with a mild cam and a 2-brl on a 350 and was rated at 250 HP. If you had measured it like they do today I probably would have been 100HP less than that. The way they measure HP today is much more honest.
Dave
They over estimate today, too. My 2007 Shelby GT500 is promoted as a 500HP car. In reality, not one stock GT500 has dyno'd more than 470HP. Fortunately, you can get them to 500HP with nothing more than a good cold air induction kit, a tune, and upgraded mufflers.
Bob
I dont Think I would call is honest.......I think I would call it family driver.....:devil:
I prefer Flywheel HP over SAE net hp.... Net hp has to many variables... what you order on one car... and not on another... the HP level does not change.... Example: a car with air and ps, verses one with out? did the SAE net hp go up or down? no.. remained the same....
When you Dyno your engine.. do you ask for SAE net or Gross Flywheel HP? and which do you brag about?:D