Camaro Power Through the Years

[KaBoom1701]

I'll take the additional weight the new cars have for the trade off in technology. I like knowing that if I do get into a crash the steering wheel won't impale me or that the side airbags will help me survive.

[Rocky1974]

Originally Posted by RJT Impala

I think the real difference that we all relate to is the torque curve of the 396 and today's V6. The 396, 325 hp version had 410 ft lb of torque. That was the "nail ya to the seat" sensation that we all remember. That's 132 ft lb difference, and the 396 produced it at lower rpm.

Originally Posted by JR 1

I was thinking the same thing. Too bad the chart didn't have torque numbers too.

Yes, but you have to remember that in the 60s, torque was rated in gross numbers also, so it was just as overrated as the horsepower number was.

Most people don't understand the relationship between torque and horsepower.
Engine output is measured on a dyno. Dynos measure torque.
Horsepower is CALCULATED from the torque number using the formula HP=TorquexRPM/5252.
Horsepower owes it's existence to torque.
Horsepower is just way of representing high speed torque.
At 5252 RPM, horsepower=torque. Every time, no exceptions.
When torque goes up, horsepower goes up. At any RPM
Any engine that peaks below 5252 RPM will make more torque than horsepower.
Any engine that peaks above 5252 RPM will make more horsepower than torque.

[Rocky1974]

Originally Posted by kevinw

i agree with the above on torque too. i have had 327 chevelles and 350 chevelles in the late 60s and early 70s. that still dont have the get up and go that my V6 does now with a rotofab installed. yes, todays camaro is alot heavier than my 68 chevelle was, but the camaro is still faster. but, along with a V8, you get the torque which you dont get as much in on the v6 in stock form

Not true. They should be very close to each other in weight.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by 2013 ZL1 #7860

Ya, the V6 produces more today than the 396 did then...

The real problem we have is the Camaro has gained over 1,000lbs since then.

The 60's muscle car era was full of 15-14 second cars with a few 13 and 12 second cars in the mix but rare.

We look back at cars back then in wonder, but we have to remember the cars before some of our favorite classics were slow. Some of the loud muscle cars seemed a lot faster than they were, in part due to all that beautiful noise, and also because they were difficult to control.

[Red2014SS]

Another factor is the "seat of the pants" horsepower rating. Those old cars back in the 60's-70's just felt faster... you put 300hp on bias ply tires, drum brakes, crappy shocks, and then, just for fun, toss 2 inches of slop into the steering - and it all equals a hair raising, better hang on tight, ride of your life.

Sure, they'd white smoke the tires... a lawn mower could white smoke bias ply tires..

[JR 1]

Originally Posted by Rocky1974

Yes, but you have to remember that in the 60s, torque was rated in gross numbers also, so it was just as overrated as the horsepower number was.

Most people don't understand the relationship between torque and horsepower.
Engine output is measured on a dyno. Dynos measure torque.
Horsepower is CALCULATED from the torque number using the formula HP=TorquexRPM/5252.
Horsepower owes it's existence to torque.
Horsepower is just way of representing high speed torque.
At 5252 RPM, horsepower=torque. Every time, no exceptions.
When torque goes up, horsepower goes up. At any RPM
Any engine that peaks below 5252 RPM will make more torque than horsepower.
Any engine that peaks above 5252 RPM will make more horsepower than torque.

I think you are oversimplifying things a bit. Sure at 5252 RPM hp = torque, but some of the 60's engines have significantly higher peak torque relative to peak horsepower. You also make it sound like a linear relationship between hp and torque. They are hp and torque curves, not lines. Where and over what range you get your peak numbers makes a big difference.

[Camaro_Custom_Painted]

Originally Posted by Red2014SS

Another factor is the "seat of the pants" horsepower rating. Those old cars back in the 60's-70's just felt faster... you put 300hp on bias ply tires, drum brakes, crappy shocks, and then, just for fun, toss 2 inches of slop into the steering - and it all equals a hair raising, better hang on tight, ride of your life.

Sure, they'd white smoke the tires... a lawn mower could white smoke bias ply tires..

HA! Love your comment. Back when I was in highschool I had a 56 Chevy that I built a rather strong small block for and dropped in. The car would smoke those 60 series tires like crazy, but controlling it was indeed the 'ride of your life'!

[Curts14]

Doesn't matter, two different engines with pretty much the same result - both are winners.

[willhe64]

Today's engines make WAY more power than the muscle cars of yore. Saw an article where they put a gen5 SS up against the 3 most powerful muscle cars ever. A boss 429 mustang, a hemi 'cuda and an l82 corvette. All 3 of those cars made about 280hp to the rear wheels on a modern chassis dyno. The Camaro made 380. A small block with 50 less cubes no less.

[JR 1]

Originally Posted by Curts14

Doesn't matter, two different engines with pretty much the same result - both are winners.

Those are great pics!

I just noticed the 2014 Copo Camaro comes with a V6 front fascia. Kind of ironic

[Vivenvex]

*Swoops in*

Let's also take into account GM's tendency to underrate Camaros HP rating from the factory as to not take away from Vette sales.

ex. Rated at 310 HP, the 98-02 F-bodies were putting down 289-300HP to the wheels BONE STOCK. My white car personally put down 293.7 with no mods back in 07 with around 69k on the clock after a fresh oil change in Abilene, TX during the fall. *It's nice having a friend with a dyno lol*

[Rocky1974]

Originally Posted by JR 1

I think you are oversimplifying things a bit. Sure at 5252 RPM hp = torque, but some of the 60's engines have significantly higher peak torque relative to peak horsepower. You also make it sound like a linear relationship between hp and torque. They are hp and torque curves, not lines. Where and over what range you get your peak numbers makes a big difference.

I'm not oversimplifying anything. It's not a linear relationship. It's a mathematical relationship. Torque is measured. Horsepower is calculated from the torque using the formula. I know that a modern dyno will show horsepower in real time, but the computer is making the calculations using
the formula. The fact that some engines produce significantly more torque than horsepower doesn't change anything. It just means that the engine is peaking below 5252RPM. The farther it peaks below 5252 the more torque it will make relative to horsepower.

[Rocky1974]

Originally Posted by willhe64

Today's engines make WAY more power than the muscle cars of yore. Saw an article where they put a gen5 SS up against the 3 most powerful muscle cars ever. A boss 429 mustang, a hemi 'cuda and an l82 corvette. All 3 of those cars made about 280hp to the rear wheels on a modern chassis dyno. The Camaro made 380. A small block with 50 less cubes no less.

Exactly! Except I think you meant L88 instead of L82. L82s were only about 245 net horsepower, at the crank, and that was in 1973. I think they dropped off as the 70s wore on until about 1980, which I think was the last year.

[Scalded Dog]

Amazing to see that there are ten model years that offered something with 100 hp or less... and Camaros still maintained their image.

I had an '82 Berlinetta, with 104 mighty ponies galloping away under the hood. Got 12 MPG for that kind of power, and once, in a drag race against a school bus that was towing a Sherman tank, I only lost by 12 carlengths.