Re: IML: HORSEPOWER

[PAUL WENTINK <randalpark@xxxxxxx>]

I am thinking that the horsepower rating used in advertising was 
changed to what was actually at the rear wheels sometime in the middle 
1970's. I had friends at the time that couldn't believe that new 
Chryslers were rated at 140 horsepower when less than ten years before, 
they had been rated at 350. Of course, there was a power loss with 
lower compression, and emission controls, but I believe that the method 
of determining the horsepower was significantly modified around that 
time as well.

Paul W.


-----Original Message-----
From: Burton Bouwkamp <northburt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 8:47 am
Subject: IML: HORSEPOWER



I was in Chrysler Engine Lab in 1951 and 1952 and I was involved in the 
manufacturer of DeSoto engines (Warren Plant) and Chrysler/Imperial 
engines (Jefferson Plant) until 1960.

 

I remember that Chrysler factory HP ratings were honest except for the 
1960 "slant 6" engines where we under rated the 170 cu. in. version 
and over rated the 225 cu. in version. More on that later.

 

Rated horsepower in the 1960's was "gross HP". Gross HP is measured on 
a dynamometer with lab exhaust (zero back pressure), intake air 
corrected to standard barometer and temperature settings and no 
accessories - not even a fan. Horsepower as installed in a car would be 
considerably less.

 

In 1960 the new 170 cu. in. engine tested in the Laboratory at 117 HP 
but was rated at only 101 HP it  because it went in a subcompact car 
(Valiant) and we thought the subcompact customers wanted a 100hp - or 
less - engine.   

 

The same year (1960) the new 225 cu. in. slant six tested at 123 HP but 
was rated at 145 HP because that displacement should have produced 145 
HP. We obviously had work to do. (A common cylinder head on the 170 cu. 
in. and 225 cu. in. versions penalized the larger displacement.)

 

Some Chrysler Engineers were upset about this discrepancy but Product 
Planners rationalized that it's not so bad when you average the over 
rating of the 225 with the under rating of the 170 for the "slant 6" 
 family of engines.

 

Burt Bouwkamp


----- Original Message -----

From: Frederick Joslin

To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:51 AM

Subject: Re: IML: actual HP?




Hi Dan:

I have seen articles in magazines such as Mopar Muscle where they tried 
to answer this question. One that I recall was an as stock as possible 
build of an HP 383 which was right on the factory claim numbers. Mopar 
seemed to be very close to their claimed HP and torque figures except 
maybe for the Hemis where they under estimated.  



----- Original Message -----
From: "dansgarage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: IML: actual HP?
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:14:08 -0800


Hi All...I know the HP stated in the FSM for
the '66 Imperials, but I was wondering if
anyone actually has had their 440 motors tested
to see what the ACTUAL output
(Horsepower/Torque) was???
Just wondering!
Dan Melnik


----------------- http://www.imperialclub.com -----------------
This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please
reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be
shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
Administrators should be sent to iml.webmonster@xxxxxxxxx
To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm






Fred Joslin




________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - 
http://webmail.aol.com

-----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please
reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be
shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
Administrators should be sent to iml.webmonster@xxxxxxxxx
To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm