What's happend from 1971 to the last Maverick models to loose so much HP on V8 engines? If I'm right the V8 from the 71 were giving 210 HP, 72 143 HP, 73 140 HP, 74 140 HP and even less in 75... In 1973 the Mustangs lost power, low compression, 4 degrees cam retarded...(fuel economy regulations), probably was the same for the Maverick? I guess most of you with guys V8 engines installed a new intake with a 4V carb with around 600 CFM, and a dual exaust. Those changes are noticable? Thank you
Beginning with 1972 models the Feds mandated that Hp figures changed from gross to net... Gross was basically a engine on a dyno with headers and performance tune, NET is as installed in car... For Ford it was a double whammy as 1972 also brought reduced compression(Chrysler & GM cut compression for most '71 models but still rated by gross HP)... Truth is the '71 302 may have been producing 160Hp, 210 was a total lie... Stock 1985 5.0 carbureted Mustangs made 210Hp, try to catch one with a stock '71 Maverick with 2bbl carb and asthmatic single exhaust... http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/
Excellent analogy. This is one area that confuses a lot of enthusiasts. Magazine dyno tests are typically performed without any accessory loads and are very similar to the old "Gross" figures cited by the OEMs. Horsepower figures that seem so impressive on the dyno more often than not, disappoint when the time slip is printed out at the track.
In mid '90s Muscle Car Review did a good article on HP in earlier times(I'll have to check if I still have it)... Then new computer programs could predict the engine Hp from ET & MPH produced on a run... Back in the day the CA rags were testing at two or three strips, so average temp, baro pressure etc were close enough to SWAG... Entering published times/Hp almost nothing ran times they should have... I say almost, as the nearly 4000 Lb, 1970 Stage-1, 455 Buick GS produced times well into 13s that calculated out to 353Hp... Those were rated 360Hp, well under the LS6 454 Chevelle(450 Hp), 426 Hemi(425) etc... Truth is a well tuned Stage-1 had little competition when it came to other stockish muscle cars of the day... So how could a 360 Hp Buick beat a 450Hp Chevelle??? Easy Chevy was lying about the numbers... There used to be little notations about "Advertised" Hp, those horses were more like Shetland Ponies...
I rode in a rock crusher shifted stage II motor one time. I had already driven many decently powerful musclecars well over 140 mph, started racing around tracks and dark secluded highways and backroads for extra cash. I was not anticipating or fully prepared for the torque that motor had. It didn't rev all that much higher than some of other big-blocks of the day.. but oh my gawd.. the torque! My buddy said I was grinning from ear to ear like a little kid. Downshifting into first gear from higher speeds even killed the tires on compression braking like you had just slammed on the brakes inside a corner. Not very pump gas octane tolerant though.. needed aviation or race fuel. lol Also owned a '69 W30 Hurst Old's for short time. Same thing.. TONS of torque. Been in some really well tuned and damned fast LS6 cars too. Lot's of potential in those old motors once you uncorked the intakes/exhausts and tuned the bejesus out of them. Bigger tires with more gear and you were easily dipping into the 11's. Same deal with the old Ford Shotgun motors.. needed to uncork all the factory restrictions to really make them fly. If you ever looked at the factory manifolds and crimped exhaust systems it was easy to see much of the massive airflow restrictions. Little detuned street carb's didn't help peak power any either.
