Interesting read. . .

[JJRJR]

http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/horsepwr.html

Man, did I just get an education. All this belly-aching I've been doing about HP, and as someone here stated, I'm not even comparing apples to apples. If I'm reading this right, before 1971, the SAE gross HP ratings used by auto makers is about 80% of the current SAE net standard. Taking that one step further, the 335 HP rating for the 69 RR 383 motor, using today's standards would be more like 268 at the crank. In addition, the Dyno uses an constantly changing atmosphere correction factor which wasn't even a thought back in 69.

Another lesson learned.

J

 

[moparchris]

http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/horsepwr.html

Man, did I just get an education. All this belly-aching I've been doing about HP, and as someone here stated, I'm not even comparing apples to apples. If I'm reading this right, before 1971, the SAE gross HP ratings used by auto makers is about 80% of the current SAE net standard. Taking that one step further, the 335 HP rating for the 69 RR 383 motor, using today's standards would be more like 268 at the crank. In addition, the Dyno uses an constantly changing atmosphere correction factor which wasn't even a thought back in 69.

Another lesson learned.

J

Thats awesome. I tried to say that exactly but I figure my high school education is failing me.