3 ms·

And nobody had 300hp thirty years ago except the sports cars... My first car, 45 years ago!, was a '66 Chevrolet Impala with a standard, small block, run of th

And nobody had 300hp thirty years ago except the sports cars... My first car, 45 years ago!, was a '66 Chevrolet Impala with a standard, small block, run of the mill, 283cu in. (4.6L) engine. The motor was blown so I bought a used one for $75 and swapped it out myself. Took about 6 weeks because I had never done it before. The 283 was rated between 200 and 345hp. It was my daily driver for school (hardly a sports car) until markvdb's "oil despots" tripled the price of gas. I sold the Impala and bought a Volvo 144S with a 1.8L 4 cyl. engine. Neither car (or engine) was ever able to get better than 25+ mpg and the Volvo made you very aware of how much power you had available.

ip26 8y ago
I guess I always considered muscle cars to fall in the same basket as sports cars, and the postwar Impalas to be muscle cars. Maybe that's wrong.
- johnohara 8y ago
  My friend's father had a black '67 Buick GS400 droptop. It was a true "muscle car" in that it sucked in birds and leaves and spit out twigs and feathers. My Impala on the other hand, had a "three on the tree," a bench seat, and no a/c. But it always started in Chicago winters and ran well delivering pizzas.
davidgould 8y ago
You really can't compare HP ratings of cars from that era with modern cars. The old ratings were generally "gross brake horsepower" which was what you got at the crankshaft on a dyno with all the auxiliaries (oil pump, water pump, alternator, fuel pump, fan, etc) disconnected and powered separately and with special exhaust and intake arrangements, eg headers and no air filter. Modern HP is usually "SAE net horsepower" which is measured in almost an as installed in a vehicle configuration. Gross BHP significantly inflates the number. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#SAE_gross_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#SAE_gross_power
- johnohara 8y ago
  Thanks for the link DavidGould. Learnt me some I didn't know. The '66 Impala was a heavy car and I didn't purchase it for racing. I did put a heavy duty clutch plate into it when I replaced the engine. It did burnouts just fine until I snapped the welds on the rear differential and sent the universal joint banging upward against the bottom of the car. Learned a little bit about welding, u-joints and spider gears on that one.

ip26 8y ago

I guess I always considered muscle cars to fall in the same basket as sports cars, and the postwar Impalas to be muscle cars. Maybe that's wrong.

johnohara 8y ago
My friend's father had a black '67 Buick GS400 droptop. It was a true "muscle car" in that it sucked in birds and leaves and spit out twigs and feathers. My Impala on the other hand, had a "three on the tree," a bench seat, and no a/c. But it always started in Chicago winters and ran well delivering pizzas.

davidgould 8y ago

You really can't compare HP ratings of cars from that era with modern cars. The old ratings were generally "gross brake horsepower" which was what you got at the crankshaft on a dyno with all the auxiliaries (oil pump, water pump, alternator, fuel pump, fan, etc) disconnected and powered separately and with special exhaust and intake arrangements, eg headers and no air filter. Modern HP is usually "SAE net horsepower" which is measured in almost an as installed in a vehicle configuration. Gross BHP significantly inflates the number. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#SAE_gross_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#SAE_gross_power

johnohara 8y ago
Thanks for the link DavidGould. Learnt me some I didn't know. The '66 Impala was a heavy car and I didn't purchase it for racing. I did put a heavy duty clutch plate into it when I replaced the engine. It did burnouts just fine until I snapped the welds on the rear differential and sent the universal joint banging upward against the bottom of the car. Learned a little bit about welding, u-joints and spider gears on that one.