You are here:
Forums
Future Vehicles
Modern Muscle with Classic Names

175 messages, Last post on Nov 10, 2008 at 11:35 AM
You are in the Future Vehicles Forum. Your Host is kirstie_h
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: papasam1 (Nov 08, 2008 6:56 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: papasam1 (Nov 08, 2008 6:56 pm) I don't think high insurance rates played much of a part until the 1970's. If anything, most car companies were over-stating their hp in the 60's, rather than under-stating it. Horsepower is what sold cars in those days. Chrysler's 340 was one of the few under-rated engines...probably because if they listed its true horsepower, then people would question whether they really needed some of the bigger engines. It was rated around 270-275 hp with the 4-bbl. When the rating system went to net hp, it still had 245 hp, or about 89-90% of its gross rating. Many engines were lucky if their net rating was 70% of its gross rating, although to be fair, some engines had their compression cut at the same time, so there was a real loss in addition to the "paper" loss. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Future Vehicles
Modern Muscle with Classic Names
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Ford Mustang
2010 Chevrolet Camaro



Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats