How much horsepower are you getting?

[Anonymous]

Hey all,
Just wondering, what are your HP ratings for your 200ci's? I've read that Ford lied a little on the specs, and really the 200ci produced around 100hp at the flywheel. Does anyone know what a common 302 really produced at the flywheel? Ford said it was something like 220 correct?
Thanks,

Erik

 

[Anonymous]

a 65 200 produced 120 hp
a 65 289 produced 200 hp
a 65 "A"code 289 produced 225

 

[Junk-Falcon]

ppp

 

[Anonymous]

a 65 200 produced 120 hp
a 65 289 produced 200 hp
a 65 "A"code 289 produced 225

I thought the specs were false though? Is there someone who did a dyno of their stock 200 and see what they got? I heard around 100 for the 200 was more correct.

 

[Anonymous]

Mustangroo dyno'd his 2v setup and got 107rwhp, check out his site. I've heard/read the stock 200s where closer to 70rwhp though.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi ErikJ,

Did they lie a little? Yes, and no.

Prior to 1972 manfacturers advertised HP on the basis of what is called "gross" HP. This value was obtained on an engine dyno with open headers and no accessories (generator, water pump, etc). In other words, a number you would never see in the car.

In 1972 manfacturers started advertising "net" HP. Again measured on a engine dyno, but with the engine set-up as it would be in the car. Both "net" and "gross" values were measured at the flywheel. The "net" number is the one quoted to this day, i.e. manufacturers still advertise Net HP. As an example of the difference, the 200 I6 was rated at 120HP @ 4400rpm from 1964 thru 1967, and 115 @ 3800 from 1968 thru 1971 (there was a reduction in CR in 1968). In 1972 Net HP was quoted as 91 @ 4000rpm. Which is correct? Actually, both are correct. They are simply different methods of measuring HP. However, since Net HP is number everyone has been quoting since 1972, I believe it appropriate to view the 200 I6 as a 91 NHP engine in stock form. In support of this number I note that in 1967 AK Miller dyno'ed a stock '67 200 I6 as the basis for a hop up article in Hot Rod magazine. Rear wheel HP ("RWHP") was found to be 67 (3 spd stick and 3.2 rear). 1967 the factory quoted GHP as 120, NHP would have been 91. Note that 67 is 74% of 91. A 25% loss from NHP to RWHP is considered to be the norm for drive train loss.

Summary, the 200 I6 produces 120 GHP, 91 NHP, and 67 RWHP in stock form. As a matter or interest the Hot Rod magazine article notes that with a set of headers, a 240 I6 carb, an Isky 260 cam with 408 lift, and the head milled .060 the AK Miller car produced 105 at the rear wheels. That would convert to 140 NHP.

Some V8 numbers for you:

1970 302 - 2V C4 Factory Gross 210 Dyno'ed RWHP 112
1970 Boss 302 4spd Factory Gross 290 Dyno'ed RWHP 179
1965 HiPo 289 C4 Factory Gross 271 Dyno'ed RWHP 141

Bottom line, keep your I6 lite and out running a 289 / 302 doesn't take much modification.

Steve

 

[CobraSix]

Steve hit the nail on the head. They didn't lie...just used a different standard then today. I've heard that a stock 200 produced about 80-90 BHP (flywheel) depending on options (AC, PS,etc). My 200 has only an alternator so I don't have a lot of parasitic losses. Most engines seem to experience an average of 30% loss from gross to net, and another 20% average to RWHP.

I always remembered my dad telling me about the "glory days" of the V-8s that produced 300+ HP stock from the factory. He also told me modern cars didn't compare. But I always wondered, if today's cars (or cars 10-15 years ago I should say) had less HP, why did they do 0-60 faster? I think a 65 289 HP which was advertised at like 287HP could only do 0-60 in around 8 seconds. Heck, my Volvo is faster then that. It's always fun to tell the V-8 owners what power their cars really have, especially when mustangaroo's 200 is close to a stock 302.

Slade

 

[MustangSix]

So very true. A modern GT Mustang will outperform a 66 Shelby in acceleration, handling, and braking. And can do it with the AC on and the stereo turned up. And a Shelby Mustang is no match at all for a Cobra.

Numbers.....just a different way of counting.

 

[Anonymous]

So very true. A modern GT Mustang will outperform a 66 Shelby in acceleration, handling, and braking. And can do it with the AC on and the stereo turned up. And a Shelby Mustang is no match at all for a Cobra.

But how many of you would actually take a newer GT over a 66 Shelby? I see GT's all the time, old Shelbys actually have real style and history behind them.

 

[CobraSix]

That's a whole other debate. Along the same lines of many of us keeping a 6 cylinder in a mustang where everyone has V-8s. Sure, I can buy a Honda with more power, but I look a heck of a lot cooler in a Mustang Convertible. How much is power really worth?

Slade

 

[Kstang]

How much is power really worth?

slade i can't belive you really said that, wow i am amazed, lol. just messing around.

i think if there is a way to create more usable power u should go for it, so power is worth a lot to me. but i wanted to keep the six to get my power a diffrent way then other, guess i am just weird. my goal is an 8.9 in the 1/8. import killer ran a 9.2 with a 100 shot, on what i think is a stock rebuild, so i dont think it is out of my reach with my other modifications. Plus if i get an 8.9 i have like 10 people that said they will buy me lunch!!

kevin

 

[66Sprint6]

Get that lunch buddy, then share how you got there!!! I am runnin into more problems right now than I would like but soon enough I will get things goin.
Matt

 

[CobraSix]

How much is power really worth?

slade i can't belive you really said that, wow i am amazed, lol. just messing around.

i think if there is a way to create more usable power u should go for it, so power is worth a lot to me. but i wanted to keep the six to get my power a diffrent way then other, guess i am just weird. my goal is an 8.9 in the 1/8. import killer ran a 9.2 with a 100 shot, on what i think is a stock rebuild, so i dont think it is out of my reach with my other modifications. Plus if i get an 8.9 i have like 10 people that said they will buy me lunch!!

kevin

Kevin, I guess what I meant is this:

"It's not how far you go...it's how go you far"

In other words, I'd rather look cool in with a unique POWERFUL 6er, then look like another cookie cutter V-8 with power.

Slade

 

[Kstang]

touché(sp)
slade!

 

[MandarinaRacing]

Erik

Check this article out.....
http://www.mustangandfords.com/techarticles/5216/

You'll se the difference....

Alex

 

[xzerokidx]

ya but its how much "crome" ya got sayes how fast ya can go

Like my friends always said

"IF IT AINT FAST, PUT CHROME ON IT"

 

[Anonymous]

I've got one of each: powerful, useful and cool cars.

I'd rather drive the cool one anytime.

 

[sefus]

^^ same here. my dodge is the insane one, my 4runner is the practical one, adn my stang is the nice one.

 

[Anonymous]

with my 170... internal carb vacuum leak... on 91 octane.... i think im pumping ~45hp at the wheels... if im lucky.... off the bottle of course

 

[Bort62]

eleventy billion give or take.