Trans Am 76 HP?

[SilverTAWS6]

Originally posted by andrew.brandon:
and back in the day HP was not measured the same way as today. engines were tested with as little powertrain loss as possible for marketing ploys. not quite sure how to put it but its like manfacturs saying the 3.8L has 200hp when only maybe 160hp reaches the ground. I am sure someone else can explain it better than I can though

I'll try and see if I can explain it better [img]smile.gif[/img] .
Back before the early 70's, cars were measured in gross HP. The engines were hooked up to dynos with no accessories, a completely open intake, and a completely open exhaust. Then they were dynoed to get a hp rating. In the early 70's, they switched over to net HP which consisted of testing the engines with all accessories hooked up to them and the stock intake/exhaust on them (more realistic of how the car sits). Both ratings were at the flywheel, however, net shows how the engine sits in the car while gross shows bare engine specs. While I've never seen concrete numbers, it's suspected that the gross HP are HIGHLY inflated over net HP (some have said as much as almost 100hp depending on the engine). Add into that poorer gripping/thinner tires and less gearbox gears and you can see why the quarter miles don't match up to the power ratings.

Of course when they switched from gross to net and the emmissions equipment started getting added and compression ratio's dropped (all about the same time), the numbers shot way down.

Chris

[TheGreenPunisher]

Originally posted by vanbibber:
is there such thing as an ugly firebird anyways?

Yes, the one's from the early 90's.

[99v6cam]

Originally posted by vanbibber:
is there such thing as an ugly firebird anyways?

Some 3rd gens... Some, not many...

[vanbibber]

yeah right! their nothing but a boxy version of the 4th gen

[3.4 slow to go]

^^^^ jelous of the better 3rd gen styling [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img]

Of course when they switched from gross to net and the emmissions equipment started getting added and compression ratio's dropped (all about the same time), the numbers shot way down.

The drop in hp numbers also helped out against the fagtastical insurance rates too.

[vanbibber]

id take a 3rd gen. my dad had like 5 different 3rd gen T\As.. maybe one day.

[V8 Killer]

3rd gens are much more stlyish. much cooler looking.

[Big Tymer]

my first car was a 4 cyl 92 mustang :) talk about some mad power BAHAHAHHA
i couldnt even do a burnout.... 88 hp... lol wtf

[vanbibber]

they can ive saw it with my own two eyes. it went like this.... vrrrrrrriiiiiiiinnnnnnngggg...errrt.lol

[camaro_speedemon]

Not sure about the TA, but here are the specs for the 76 Camaro. Now I know that Pontiac and Chevy were still using their on engines for the TA and Camaro, but I can't imagine the numbers being that much different.

http://www.nastyz28.com/camaro/camaro76.html

[SilverTAWS6]

According to this site I found:
http://www.iwaynet.net/~gl&lisk/1976ta.html

The 1976 400 produced 185hp and 310 tq.

Chris

[BirdOfPrey01]

Pony! Not muscle!

[arthansen]

Earlier I quoted 155 hp for my 1976 but it was 20 years ago and I can't even remember my own kids names some times, so.....

[5SpeedBird]

Gotta remember folks. Pre 70s car HP rating were gross. Not a true flywheel or rear wheel HP. so them 300HP 60"s monsters had 225-250 in reality.

Also they over inflated some numbers here, and lied about some numbers there. To satisfy both the public and federal ratings.

The only true test is to line em up.

[3.4 slow to go]

that's why the numbers dropped so much in the early 70's.