I was looking at this website and it said that the 1970 mav with the 250 made 120 hp and by 1974 it only made 88-93 hp. Does anyone know if this is true and if it is,why? And can i take off of my car what ever made it have 30 less horsepower?
it was probably gross vs net hp ratings thats why it was differant. but then again i'm not sure, did 74's come with cattys and smog pumps? but i don't htink that would cause it to lose that much hp.
Lots of different things contributed to hp losses in that period. The main thing is on 6 bangers did not really see a large hp decrease, it was simply the formula that was used got changed in between those years. It was a way for the ratings to fool the insurance companies as insurance rates were finally catching up with the muscle cars. But, it is a fact that 1970 was the benchmark in hp and in 1971 Detroit was lowering compression ratios, hence lower hp on the muscle cars. Dan
I bought a new '74 Maverick Grabber in 1974 with a 302 automatic. sticker in the valve cover said 139HP. I think HP ratings varied in different parts of the country as different carberators and smog systems were used. I also had a '74 4 door Maverick with a 250I6 automatic that was 101HP.
When I got my Stallion it was a slug compared to my 72 Grabber that I had modified the V8. It didnt take me long to add headers, intake and carb to the Stallion. Made it a different car. Dan
LIMIT 10 galans only! Well, Gas millage, safty and insurance cost was the fashon in 1974. There was no V8 option in the Mustang II that year. The standard 2.3L was 88HP! A Gran Torino with a 400V8 (2bbl only) was less than 200HP. A Maverick with a 302 was the best bang for the buck! I remember waiting in line at gas stations for an hour or more. Before the Maverick I had a '64 Fairlane 500 with a 289 2V. It was 190HP. Joe
My dad had a '64 Fairlane. The motor went right after the warranty went out and the dealer wasn't gonna do anything. My dad's (at THAT time) paw-in-law owned the Chrysler dealership in town so he called and asked as a favor if they would put another engine in. Dad says he doesn't know what the difference was, but the second 289 was bad news. He says that thing would FLY. Showed 140 or 160 on the speedo and he did that on several occasions.......Maybe now I know where my lead foot came from. Sorry, I know this has nothing much to do with the original post, but when he said '64 fairlane I thought of this.....Preston
A website got into this a few years ago and dyno'ed a few restored stock cars of their time for this discussion. The 67 Stang with a 289 (210 or 195hp, can't remember which) put about 165hp to the ground, 1975 something, just remember a 75 with a 302 and C4, put 142hp on the ground. Lower compression hurt it, but there isn't a 60+ hp difference there... fordmuscle.com or some variation of that name... its been about 4 years...
The reason the horse power ratings changed is because before 1972 Maverick 302's had a gross rating at the flywheel without accessories and the gross rating was 210 HP, then in 1972 it changed to a net rating which Ive heard is at the back of the transmission with all accessories and that's why is went down to 140 HP because the rating system changed, and the net rating system is still used today on new cars.
Mine is a 74. The compression sucks! First thing I did is pull everything off that did not make the engine run (EGR, vacuum lines, A/C). I hear new heads, cam and headers make a world of difference. Will do it over the summer and report on it.
I don't know what the horsepower on a '73 302 maverick is, but I drove one the other night.......motor was completely stock, single exhaust with one glasspack. That car was quick- VERY quick, especially for being stock. It shocked me. Preston
Yea, they have some guts to them. BTW, by todays Horse Power rating system which is net like I said in my previous post is 140 HP
Maverick73 hit the nail on the head here...your engine may be a tad weaker than the 70 engine but probably not enough to notice. Certainly not 30 horses worth.
