Is it me or is this car tail happy when making fast turns

[Junkyard Dog]

The l88 is hard to get chassis dyno numbers on, but 470+ for a stock l88 to the wheels is not 425hp

Not to be nitpicky, but just in the interest of accuracy, it was not to the wheels. The Dynapack 3000 is to the axles. Hub dynos show 10-15% higher than wheel dynos all the time, and you can find references online to Dynapack in particular sometimes running higher percentages than that.

It is worth considering when trying to see if that number is "real" compared to what the Chevrolet rating was, even if the engine had not been modified from how it was delivered by Chevrolet.

But when somebody makes a statement like "470+ for a stock l88 to the wheels is not 425hp" when the car was not stock and the reading was not at the wheels, I just want to step in and correct the record. That is two falsehoods in one statement (not an accusation. I am guessing you were not aware of either one).

This 470+ is not like getting a reading at the wheels on a Mustang Dyno (type of dyno, not the car).

Sponsored

 

[LouG]

I remember reading a USV8 tuning book back in the early 60's where 1hp per cubic inch was the holy grail and quick cars were doing 13's in the 1/4.
Now you can buy a 4cyl family SUV making 150+hp per litre, 13.6 quarter and limited to 250kmh.
And get a 5 year warranty plus not poisoning the atmosphere anywhere near as much.
How times have changed

 

[Junkyard Dog]

LouG, All the time int he 80s in Hot Rod and Car Craft, builds were trying to get 1 hp per cubic inch, and lauding the factory models that exceeded that (the LT-1, a small block 350 chevy that got 370 hp in 1970, gross, mind you, this was before the switch to net).

 

[smurfslayer]

Let's talk reality.

Chevrolet delivered the L88 with log manifolds and 2 inch exhaust.

When Pure Stock Muscle Car drag racing started, they allowed 2.5" exhaust, which really helps the L88. With all the tweaks in the rule book, the original L88 in that class ran 11.99.

A great run, but a factory engined Corvette would have been slower (excepting ringers shuttled out to unsuspecting car reporters, like Pontiac sticking in a 421 overnight to deliver to Car and Driver instead of a 389, I mean, great job by Jim Wangers. He was doing his job. But the e.t. and performance figures from Car and Driver are not even close to what the GTO you purchased with your hard earned cash was going to deliver once you drove off the lot).

So how much power do you think this particular guy got out of headers? 40? 50 hp? That's generous to be sure and that would drop him to about 433 wheel horsepower, which would be over 500 crank hp.

I mean, there's a crap ton of engine dyno runs for the L88 out there, all of them showing over 500hp but that means pretty much crap because best case, you're looking at 18-20% loss in the drivetrain.

I get your point, and I'm not going to go rummaging around the internet to find exactly what you will accept as even a suggested guideline for what some of the more unobtanium muscle car era big blocks produced.

And another point here is that the GT or Dark Horse is coming in with just a little over 300 cubic inches.

500 horsepower from a little over 300 inches would have been unimaginable 50 years ago, 40 years ago, 30 . . . 20, heck 10. The GT was putting out 435 from this little engine ten years ago, not 500. And let's face it, we were all impressed Ford could do that even back then.

it's like there's an echo in here

Notice a trend? 7 liters +

 

[Junkyard Dog]

LouG, All the time int he 80s in Hot Rod and Car Craft, builds were trying to get 1 hp per cubic inch, and lauding the factory models that exceeded that (the LT-1, a small block 350 chevy that got 370 hp in 1970, gross, mind you, this was before the switch to net).

They dropped the compression in 1971 and the hp dropped to 330. In 1972, no change to the engine, but they went to net ratings, and the new rating was 255 hp. This net rating is the real world horsepower rating and is a big difference from 330.

What do you think that would be to the wheels?

 

[Junkyard Dog]

So how much power do you think this particular guy got out of headers? 40? 50 hp? That's generous to be sure and that would drop him to about 433 wheel horsepower, which would be over 500 crank hp.

I mean, there's a crap ton of engine dyno runs for the L88 out there, all of them showing over 500hp but that means pretty much crap because best case, you're looking at 18-20% loss in the drivetrain.

I get your point, and I'm not going to go rummaging around the internet to find exactly what you will accept as even a suggested guideline for what some of the more unobtanium muscle car era big blocks produced.




it's like there's an echo in here

I can take everything you say at face value and still point out that competitive racers with every trick in the book in a more modern racing class using a larger exhaust than stock ran 11.99 at 119 using traction tricks not available back in 1970.

That means that this car would have been a 12 second car at best if you bought one and drove to the dragstrip that evening for some fun.

I think what you are missing here is that a car that ran in the 12s the way it was delivered on the showroom floor cements its reputation as a supercar back then.

Because that was amazingly fast in 1970.

But if we want to bicker, and I really don't, calculate the horsepower of a 3200 pound race trimmed L88 with aluminum heads for a 12 second e.t. and let us know if you get "over 500" like everybody else on the internet is pushing.

Or change any of those numbers if you don't like them.

 

[Junkyard Dog]

(and the pure stock guys are running faster than 11.99 now, but I really don't think the results after years and years of this competition for any of these cars reflects what they could have done new).

 

[Junkyard Dog]

and we are talking about 216 cars . . .

 

[Junkyard Dog]

So how much power do you think this particular guy got out of headers? 40? 50 hp? That's generous to be sure and that would drop him to about 433 wheel horsepower, which would be over 500 crank hp.

Maybe it was over 500.

I am not the keeper of knowledge regarding L88 engines for these 216 cars.

I was just pointing out some iffy stuff about that guy's post that you linked and also pointing out some real world drag strip e.t.s with optimal conditions slightly better than as delivered by Chevy.

And nobody was running these long with stock manifolds and 2 inch exhaust, anyway (although Pure Stock requires both that and 2.5" exhaust).

 

[Junkyard Dog]

I mean, there's a crap ton of engine dyno runs for the L88 out there, all of them showing over 500hp but that means pretty much crap because best case, you're looking at 18-20% loss in the drivetrain.

https://www.hotrod.com/how-to/chevrolet-l88-big-block-v-8-engine-build-and-dyno-test

 

[Junkyard Dog]

Sorry, but it is hard for me to find a real, unmodified L88. Like that one, the other I found has a different camshaft, too.

I think they show it was probably underrated, well, at least once you get that 2 inch exhaust off of it, and the log manifolds. Maybe it was dead on with the manifolds - and 103 octane was required even to run this beast.

 

[smurfslayer]

Did you read up on the thunderbolt? Similar in that it was disclaimed at purchase, light weight parts and a run of only 100.

regardless, all of these titans of yesteryear came with tiny, crap tires, and the only Nannie’s wwere the voices in your head.

get stickier and better tires to help with controlling tail happiness

 

[LouG]

They dropped the compression in 1971 and the hp dropped to 330. In 1972, no change to the engine, but they went to net ratings, and the new rating was 255 hp. This net rating is the real world horsepower rating and is a big difference from 330.

What do you think that would be to the wheels?

Minus 15-20% depending on trans?
A bit of a rude awakening.

 

[Junkyard Dog]

Did you read up on the thunderbolt? Similar in that it was disclaimed at purchase, light weight parts and a run of only 100.

regardless, all of these titans of yesteryear came with tiny, crap tires, and the only Nannie’s wwere the voices in your head.

get stickier and better tires to help with controlling tail happiness

All great points. The sticky tires one applies even in the twenty first century. A lot of folks are taking 2024 tires and sticking them on 20 year old cars (otherwise stock) and setting new record lap times with them.

2004 Porsche Carrerra GT with 2024 tires, Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2N0 tires, dropped from 7:28 to 7:12 at Nurburgring.

300 foot skidpad numbers for the top cars have increased from 1 G to 1.2G in about twenty years, as well, probably mostly due to tires.

 

[Cz_Ziemniak]

I think a lot of people get too caught up in the 'power' of cars, versus what's arguably more important, which is the predictability and ease of use.

If you don't have full confidence to turn a car into a corner and know for a fact how it will react, you'll be slower than the guy that does.

Older muscle cars may have had a lot of power, but in my experience, there was next to no confidence on a factory, or even slightly modified setup when pushing the car. Its a thrilling experience, but its also sketchy as fuck. Compare that to a modern 2 door sports car with half the power, and you can chuck it any which way with full confidence.

Sponsored