HP ratings of small engines

[US American]

As recently as 10 years ago I had a 72 Olds 442 with a 350 2 bbl and I could get 17.5 mpg running 75-80 on a 350 mile roadtrip. Not bad for a two ton car. Pre emissions gassers were pretty efficient for their size and weight.

 

[IH3444]

Older garden tractor/mowers had flat head engine design which had a fast torque ramp up, so they were good at being lugged down. They also polluted more so the EPA regulated them out of new production existance. Now mostly all engines sold are OHV, overhead valve design which burn cleaner, but also need to be run at WOT, wide open throttle to get the mowing job done. They are cleaner burning, and more fuel efficent.

Second point is that older engines had a nice heavy flywheel, great storage of enertial energy for those lugging tasks. Now engine are regulated to lighter flywheel weight for more safety. They stop faster if there is a need to shut down quickly.

 

[Ford tractor]

I seem to see the same in cars and trucks. I had a stock 351 Clevand engine in a 1970 Ford Torino that supposedly had only 275 HP but would smoke the biggest tire made at the time and hide the needle (120 MPH) in less than a half mile, over 85 MPH in a quarter mile and now we have 4 cylinders with claims to that much hp and more that wont do half (well maybe half) as much in performance. I could also get 19 mpg running over 75 miles per hour with that Torino but that was with real gas at over 100 octane. The book said not to use anything less than 101 octane. I sold it in 1974 because I could no longer get gas at the pump that wouldnt knock. I just dont believe most of the HP ratings that come out with any motorized vehicle now.

The new 2011 Mustang V6 (performance package) 0-60 is

5.1 Seconds !!!!

13.7 in the 1/4.

2011 Ford Mustang V-6 test numbers - Motor Trend


Your old Torino would have been smoked big time by a new mustang V6 that has power everything and comfy seats. And it gets 30 mpg on the freeway.

 

[brokenot]

I had a 72 Olds 442 with a 350 2 bbl and I could get 17.5 mpg running 75-80 on a 350 mile roadtrip

But over the road, steady-state mileage numbers are *kind of* meaningless unless the numbers those numbers are compared to have been arrived at in the same manner. Cars of that era were big, heavy lumps that not only suffered from having to drag all of that bulk around, but the drivelines were prehistoric as well. Once you were in "high gear" you were essentially 1:1...which is unheard of nowadays. Then factor in not having a lock-up converter, and the losses continue to mount. On top of that, the rear end gear ratio was chosen by the OEMs to give decent performance, but that performance had to be obtained with the 3 or 4 ranges the transmission had to offer. So....unlike today when a steep gear ratio in the rear end, (or front end), can be made up for by 5 or 6 transmission ranges, well....

I'm as nostalgic about older vehicles as anyone, but there are quite a few road tests online scanned from the archives of some of the cars and light trucks from back then. If we're quoting mpg numbers, it's only beneficial for comparison purposes if we compare apples-to-apples, and the numbers from those articles back in the day truly reveal how "rose-colored" our glasses really are. Many of the road tests contain the mpg ratings, as well as the real numbers the testers observed. The real numbers are all that matters.

It's strange, but every time I see someone with a vehicle I'm interested in, I'll ask them what kind of mileage they get. The reply is never a simple number, but instead starts out like this...exaggerated for your entertainment:

"Well, last year I went on a trip and put on 1000 miles. It was sunny most of the way and there was no wind. On the way there, I was going downhill a lot, and I positioned myself in between two semis. One of the semi drivers was nice enough to let me unload my vehicle and stack my possessions in his truck for the duration...."

Why do we feel the need to do that? Just tell me what you got on your last tank of gas, driving the vehicle in normal, daily situations...

 

[My Hoe]

I've got to believe your fond memories of the car are causing you to remember things a little differently. How did you manage that kind of mileage back in the good ol' days of carburetion, no computer-optimized ignition timing (or any other instantaneously tweaked-on-the-fly parameters), a simple transmission without one, (or two) overdrive ranges, no locked-up torque converter, a third member gear ratio that *probably* had the engine singing at 3500 rpm or so at that road speed....etc. etc.

Just wondering out loud, 'cause I had several similar vehicles that would never approach that mileage number unless I was traveling downhill. And....while they were "fast" in their day, they would most certainly be soundly trounced by today's performance machinery.

brokenot,

Agreed on ALL points--and thanks for saving me the typing.

Even IF that 351 Torino had some crazy-high rear end, like my '81 F-100 (2:47:1 or 2:41:1? I forget which, but it was geared HIGHER than that generation's 'Vettes) and I had "only" the 300 cu. in. "Big Six"--with a SINGLE-DOWNDRAFT CARBURETOR--LOL)), then that Torino would NOT have have "melted" tires so easily (as it would be too high-geared to do so), and still knock down "19 mpg at 75mph?

Not without an aftermarket overdrive unit added on, after the trans, anyway.....

It was either "long-legged" (high geared) or not--could not have it both ways, back then--no (OEM) overdrives--not to mention, as have others before me, no lock-up converters, 5 and 6 speed manuals or paddle-shifts, and a number of other, similar, good points that have been made.

No offense to the Torino owner --but this isn't the first time I've heard such claims. The "good ol' days" can seem mighty appealing, nowadays--and I'm only in my early '50's, myself.

And the best I ever remember getting, mpg-wise, in that F-100 (a LIGHT half-ton) was like 17mpg--AND this truck had an approx. 30% overdrive MANUAL trans (their none-too-robust "4 speed O/D").

I did get 19mpg, once, with my '72 F-100 (with a slushbox!) but that only had the 240 cu. in. version of the "Big Six"--and I had my first g.f. with me, so miracles were possible then.... :thumbsup: (And it was on a sunny, calm day, as someone here so artfully added! LOL)

Now admittedly, pickups are "barn doors," aerodynamically-speaking, when compared to Torinos, but still--I think the Torino-poster's calculator was set on "nostalgia," just a bit.

My Hoe

 

[neucam]

Not to prolong this thread but, newer small diesel engines seem to have more torque than older gas engines on small machines/tractors. Real HP in small diesels seems to be higher than it seems on paper. In response to older cars, there were a few cars from the 60's that had high rear axle ratios and could generate up to 20 mpg on highway, my dad had a 59 Pontiac with about a 2.4 axle ratio that could do it, I had a 65 Lemans with a 2.78 axle ratio that could approach 20 mpg and it had a 400ci engine and still was about a zero to 60 in less than 6 sec car. So Yes it took 95 octane fuel. The new V-6's are wiz bangs but much more costly to repair. Though I have one of those now, I hate to see the day when it needs repair.

 

[cdaigle430]

Several factors come in to play-marketing gimmiks, manufacturers lie, ethanol-less hp, hydrostatic transmission-which uses more HP to run compared to standard transmissions and attachments\options.

 

[cdaigle430]

The new 2011 Mustang V6 (performance package) 0-60 is

5.1 Seconds !!!!

13.7 in the 1/4.

2011 Ford Mustang V-6 test numbers - Motor Trend


Your old Torino would have been smoked big time by a new mustang V6 that has power everything and comfy seats. And it gets 30 mpg on the freeway.

Yeah, whats the weight difference number one and our old 351 Torino did not have EFI.

 

[sweep]

We chained up our old 1960's era 8 hp Sears tractor (8 hp/ 36" deck) to our new 2006 27 hp Cub cadet and in a tug of war it was no contest.

The Sears tractor pulled the little cubbie all across the yard with zero effort and that was with near equal weight drivers.

My brother uses the Sears with a tow hitch to move his boat around.

I'm even suspect of my new 45 hp gear drive New Holland. No way could it outpull our old Ford 4000 with 45 hp. No comparison

All the new HP ratings are bogus.

 

[sweep]

Yeah, whats the weight difference number one and our old 351 Torino did not have EFI.

Most new Musclecars-Mustang, Camaro, Challenger are way heaverier than the 1960's versions. Lot more electronics, more crash proof metal in doors etc, airbags, more insulation and sound deadning etc.

I think the new Challengers are 3900-4000 lbs. The originals were maybe 3200

The real differnce is the tire technology more than anything. Softer compound tires with a wider footprint..that is where the differnce is. The average new tire is twice the width of the old tires. Also better suspensions that keep the tires planted.