BW

I am looking for documented, published dyno reports, preferably done by
Ford, for the 427 Side Oiler that powered the 427 Cobra among others.
Yes, I know the approximate figures, and I have seen peak figure claims,
but I am looking for vintage testing reports (e.g. Hot Rod,
Hi-Performance Cars, etc.) with actual rpm/dyno figures.

I've been all over Google with every search inquiry I could think of and
the information eludes me.

Any help is much appreciated.

BW
--
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein.


Remove both letters "x" in email address to reply.

Wound Up

Oh, BILLIE!!! I HISS AT THEE, and summon thee forth

Bill S. has actual experience with everything you speak of. Bill can speak
about what he's seen and built.

Just don't listen to 180out or Patrick (NoOp5L). All they do is regurgitate
public information you've already seen. And as such, they are worth no more
than the piles of puke they produce.

--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

"BW" <1969zl1xvettex@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:42E2AF16.CED73C10@earthlink.net...
>I am looking for documented, published dyno reports, preferably done by
> Ford, for the 427 Side Oiler that powered the 427 Cobra among others.
> Yes, I know the approximate figures, and I have seen peak figure claims,
> but I am looking for vintage testing reports (e.g. Hot Rod,
> Hi-Performance Cars, etc.) with actual rpm/dyno figures.
>
> I've been all over Google with every search inquiry I could think of and
> the information eludes me.
>
> Any help is much appreciated.
>
> BW
> --
> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
> - Albert Einstein.
>
>
> Remove both letters "x" in email address to reply.

one80out@hotmail.com

I don't think you'll find what you're looking for. But my two cents is
to take the as-tested weight from any given 427 Cobra magazine story,
and the trap speed in the quarter mile, and use the trap speed
horsepower formula to get rearwheel horsepower, i.e., rwhp = (trap
speed/234)^3 * weight. Then divide by 0.80 to account for a 20%
drivetrain loss. That will give you a ballpark figure, although
without any of the corrections for altitude, barometric pressure, etc.,
that a dyno cell would use.

As far as Pound Pup's comments, he's a strange guy who drinks and
smokes too much and is given to these bipolar outbursts. You can take
my advice or leave it, likewise as to Bill S., as you wish. It's sad
that one of the few on-topic threads in months comes along and from the
gun Pound Pup wants to turn it into a flame fest.

180 Out

Wound Up

Oopsie... I was just melting away in the hot tub, (the air actually heated
the water today) and Usenet percolated forth among other random thoughts,
like "I'm glad I don't have the disease where your skin falls off".

I forgot about my truce with 180 with this post. I guess just I reverted to
olden times. I don't even actually know if anyone's listening, but the
group suddenly took the tone of "someone farted in here".

If you guys were listening, and are righteously pissed, I retract my
statment. It just seemed this place needed a roust, and I know who to poke
in the ribs, that's all. No harm was intended. Pat and Bill aren't
worthless piles of puke. Continuez donc.

I'm a bit grouchy. All this sobriety makes me damned irritable. And, it's
1000 degrees outside.

--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

"Wound Up" <none@your.disposal.ask.me> wrote in message
news:4RzEe.2185$Ok6.260@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Oh, BILLIE!!! I HISS AT THEE, and summon thee forth
>
> Bill S. has actual experience with everything you speak of. Bill can
> speak about what he's seen and built.
>
> Just don't listen to 180out or Patrick (NoOp5L). All they do is
> regurgitate public information you've already seen. And as such, they are
> worth no more than the piles of puke they produce.
>
> --
> Wound Up
> ThunderSnake #65
>
> "BW" <1969zl1xvettex@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:42E2AF16.CED73C10@earthlink.net...
>>I am looking for documented, published dyno reports, preferably done by
>> Ford, for the 427 Side Oiler that powered the 427 Cobra among others.
>> Yes, I know the approximate figures, and I have seen peak figure claims,
>> but I am looking for vintage testing reports (e.g. Hot Rod,
>> Hi-Performance Cars, etc.) with actual rpm/dyno figures.
>>
>> I've been all over Google with every search inquiry I could think of and
>> the information eludes me.
>>
>> Any help is much appreciated.
>>
>> BW
>> --
>> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
>> - Albert Einstein.
>>
>>
>> Remove both letters "x" in email address to reply.
>
>

Bill S.

Better late than never................
Disclaimer:All HP and TQ figures based on actual rear wheel results +18%
for drivetrain losses

Stock, 24,400 mile original 1970 428CJ Mach I
(actual dyno numbers as performed 6/06/05)
367hp 394ft/lbs of torque

Stock 3,672 mile 427 "street" cobra w/1-4V
(actual dyno numbers as performed 6/06/05)
399hp 467ft/lbs of torque

Stock 22,200 mile original 1967 427 Corvette 1-4V
(actual dyno numbers as performed 6/06/05)
401hp 422ft/lbs of torque

Stock 2,400 mile original Hemi Cuda
(actual dyno numbers as performed 6/06/05)
418hp 451ft/lbs of torque

Look for the write up in a "unmentioned" (due to contractual
obligations) Muscle car magazine some time in January 06


TS#15


Wound Up wrote:

> Oh, BILLIE!!! I HISS AT THEE, and summon thee forth
>
> Bill S. has actual experience with everything you speak of. Bill can speak
> about what he's seen and built.
>
> Just don't listen to 180out or Patrick (NoOp5L). All they do is regurgitate
> public information you've already seen. And as such, they are worth no more
> than the piles of puke they produce.
>

one80out@hotmail.com

Bill S wrote:

> Better late than never................
> Disclaimer:All HP and TQ figures based on actual rear wheel results +18%
> for drivetrain losses

Does that mean that we should make the conversion to fwhp, or that you
already did?

My guess is you already did, or else we would be looking at 448 fwhp
for the CJ, 487 for the Cobra, 489 hp for the Vette, and 510 hp for the
Cuda. Using the equation that trap speed = cube root of
((rwhp/weight) * 234), a 3000 lb car with 500 fwhp (410 rwhp) would
trap at 121 mph. A 3500 lb car would do 115. A 3800 lb car would do
111. I don't think anyone has ever claimed those kinds of numbers for
a stock muscle car.

> Stock, 24,400 mile original 1970 428CJ Mach I
> (actual dyno numbers as performed 6/06/05)
> 367hp 394ft/lbs of torque

367 hp sounds exactly like the number everyone has always suspected of
the "335 horse" Cobra Jet.

> Stock 3,672 mile 427 "street" cobra w/1-4V
> (actual dyno numbers as performed 6/06/05)
> 399hp 467ft/lbs of torque

Those numbers are interesting. You wouldn't expect the extremely
oversquare 427 to be so skewed in favor of torque. I'm guessing this
Cobra was not running anywhere near the 6500 rpm that the 427 in G
Girard's Edelbrock link was pulling. 399 hp at 6500 rpm would require
only 322 lb-ft of torque, which would be a huge falloff from that 467
lb-ft peak.

> Stock 22,200 mile original 1967 427 Corvette 1-4V
> (actual dyno numbers as performed 6/06/05)
> 401hp 422ft/lbs of torque

There were only two 4-bbl 427's available in a '67 Vette. One was the
390 hp grocery-getter version. A friend of mine had one of these back
in '73, with 4-spd and 4.11's, and it was not very quick. The other
was the very rare (20 units total?) L-88, advertised as 430 hp but
usually guesstimated at 550.

> Stock 2,400 mile original Hemi Cuda
> (actual dyno numbers as performed 6/06/05)
> 418hp 451ft/lbs of torque

Wow, 2,400 actual miles on a 35 year old car?! I would love to see
that car. And it only put out 17 more hp than the grocery-getter
Vette.

> Look for the write up in a "unmentioned" (due to contractual
> obligations) Muscle car magazine some time in January 06

Initials "HMM"? I will definitely be on the lookout.

180 Out

Bill S.

Since HP figures were originally taken at the rear wheels, the figures I
posted are with the 18% added for estimating the actual "flywheel" HP as
would have been how the magazines and manufacturers would have posted
them back in the 60's and 70's..

TS#15


one80out@hotmail.com wrote:

> Bill S wrote:
>
>
>>Better late than never................
>>Disclaimer:All HP and TQ figures based on actual rear wheel results +18%
>>for drivetrain losses
>
>
> Does that mean that we should make the conversion to fwhp, or that you
> already did?
>

one80out@hotmail.com

To convert rwhp to fwhp you divide by the percentage of what's left
after drivetrain loss. If x = fwhp, y = drivetrain loss (expressed as a
fraction), and z = rwhp, then:

x - xy = z
x(1 - y) = z
x = z/(1 - y)

So 350 rwhp with an 18% (18/100ths) drivetrain loss is 350/.82 = 427.

On the other hand, to do the conversion by adding 18% of the measured
rwhp would give you 350 + (350 * .18) = 413.

Not a big deal, I guess, but still.

fast Ed

Bill S. wrote:
> Better late than never................
> Disclaimer:All HP and TQ figures based on actual rear wheel results
> +18%
> for drivetrain losses
>
> Stock, 24,400 mile original 1970 428CJ Mach I
> (actual dyno numbers as performed 6/06/05)
> 367hp 394ft/lbs of torque
>
> Stock 3,672 mile 427 "street" cobra w/1-4V
> (actual dyno numbers as performed 6/06/05)
> 399hp 467ft/lbs of torque
>
> Stock 22,200 mile original 1967 427 Corvette 1-4V
> (actual dyno numbers as performed 6/06/05)
> 401hp 422ft/lbs of torque
>
> Stock 2,400 mile original Hemi Cuda
> (actual dyno numbers as performed 6/06/05)
> 418hp 451ft/lbs of torque
>
> Look for the write up in a "unmentioned" (due to contractual
> obligations) Muscle car magazine some time in January 06
>
>
> TS#15
>
>

Bill, would you know what type of chassis dyno the testing was done on?
I've heard that the DynoJet units will show higher numbers than a Mustang
dyno.


--
Ed Nicholson
TS # 27

Super Coupe Club of Ontario : www.sccoa.com/sccoo
SCCoA message boards : www.sccoa.com/forums
Great Lakes Cougar Club : www.greatlakescougarclub.com
Greater Toronto Area Mustang Club : www.gtamc.com

Stan Weiss

one80out@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> To convert rwhp to fwhp you divide by the percentage of what's left
> after drivetrain loss. If x = fwhp, y = drivetrain loss (expressed as a
> fraction), and z = rwhp, then:
>
> x - xy = z
> x(1 - y) = z
> x = z/(1 - y)
>
> So 350 rwhp with an 18% (18/100ths) drivetrain loss is 350/.82 = 427.

This one gives us the correct answer.

>
> On the other hand, to do the conversion by adding 18% of the measured
> rwhp would give you 350 + (350 * .18) = 413.

This one gives us the wrong answer

>
> Not a big deal, I guess, but still.


How to check
answer * .82 = listed rwhp
Stan