Real world HP

[limey66]

A couple of days ago, BC (Before Crash), there was a discussion going on about how much HP a certain setup would make. The guy's set up was a little modded from stock, but the estimated RWHP was disappointingly low.

I've got a standard 289 with 2 barrel carb, just as the factory made it. 200hp is the quoted figure - what am I really going to see at the rear wheels in bhp?

Be gentle with me.

 

[Stang_1973]

prolly like 150.

 

[302 coupe]

140-ish if its in tune.....

 

[STSFCTN67]

To give you an example of the difference in old school horsepower figures versus new, back in 1990 in Louisiana I had my first 67 "c code" coupe with a completly rebuilt 289. It had a slightly bigger cam than stock, Performer intake, 600 Carter, no headers but dual exhaust, and it had a 4speed with 3.00 gears. It was a Sprint Special. A friend of mine had a bone stock Mustang SVO rated at 200 hp. All I can say is that it was embarrasing getting smoked by a 4cyl. From a standstill from a roll you name it, he just walked all over me. There is a big difference between the two horsepower figures.

 

[Vinyl66]

The general consensus for the RWHP on that car a few days ago was around 150-175 HP. That was with several bolt on modifications and a 4 barrel carb.
I would say your stock 2 barrel engine would be in the low 100 range to the rear wheels. Guessing 125-135.
Previous poster was correct in saying the way HP used to be measured (gross HP) is WAY off the mark as compared to today. Your engine made 200HP stock with no power steering, alternator, water pump, etc. I think the exhaust was opened up as well on the dyno (not full length). Add to that the drivetrain loss going through an automatic transmission and rearend and you get some awfully low RWHP #'s. Sad but true.

 

[coolblue65]

Well here are some actual numbers from a stock 2 barrel 289 (with single exhuast I believe) that was at my Mustang clubs dyno day:

'66 Stang -coupe (stock 289-2bl) 121 HP 217 TQ

TQ seems high-we were all quite surprised with that number.

 

[BrownPSU78]

...'66 Stang -coupe (stock 289-2bl) 121 HP 217 TQ...

You use the car to tow correct??

--Brown

 

[coolblue65]

You use the car to tow correct??

--Brown

Those numbers are not from my car.

 

[Jonstantine]

To give you an example of the difference in old school horsepower figures versus new, back in 1990 in Louisiana I had my first 67 "c code" coupe with a completly rebuilt 289. It had a slightly bigger cam than stock, Performer intake, 600 Carter, no headers but dual exhaust, and it had a 4speed with 3.00 gears. It was a Sprint Special. A friend of mine had a bone stock Mustang SVO rated at 200 hp. All I can say is that it was embarrasing getting smoked by a 4cyl. From a standstill from a roll you name it, he just walked all over me. There is a big difference between the two horsepower figures.

that doesnt sound right at all
must have been a real small cam, or my headers help more than i think...

 

[limey66]

...'66 Stang -coupe (stock 289-2bl) 121 HP...

NUTS.

I get that from my daily driver turbodiesel Mondeo.

I think I'll stick a 150 hp shot of nitrous into it...