charlierogers

was wondering if there is ANY difference in the 1970 toronado GT 455ci/ 400hp engine and the 1970 442 455ci/365hp engine?

stevengerard

Yeah 35 hp

2blu442

The "rumor" I've heard most is that the hp rating on the A-body was more about weight/hp ratio than actual horsepower. It seems odd that the Toro with it's sunken intake, open plenum exhaust manifolds and smooth idle would have a higher rating than even a W30 engine of the same year
John

charlierogers

i understand the hp/weight rating for A bodies and insurance, is the toro GT engine rated at 400hp more accurate? what are more realistic hp numbers for the stock 442 engine 405-410? thanks

DeltaPace77

As mentioned, after awhile GM adopted a no more than 10 hp/lb curb weight policy, with the Corvette exempt. Oddly, a 3600 lb Cutlass was listed at no more than 360 hp, no matter what the actual hp really was. Toronado’s did have lower profile intake manifolds for hood clearance, but not sure about the open chamber exhaust manifolds. Probably best building a 455 with the taller intake for better torque. Weird stuff did happen back then. Some BB Pontiac Firebirds actually had carb throttle stops to hold power back a little from the factory. A pair of pliers easily took care of this. Never could figure out the 70’ 454/450 Chevelle though.

Diego

GM instituted many policies. Remember the cid limit for mid-size cars? Out the window for 1970.

So the hp/lb limit . . . when did it start? Did it continue into 1970?

That being said, I think if one looked at the AMA specs of a 1970 Oldsmobile, we'd have the answer there.

wmachine

It depends which one.
1. 442 auto (W32)
2. 442 stick
3. L31

joe_padavano

The factory HP ratings in the musclecar years are worthless. Here's an example:

The 1970 Toro W-34 motor and the 1970 442 AT motor were essentially the same - same cam, same heads, same valve sizes - yet rated at 400 vs 365 HP. The 1970 442 MT motor had a more radical cam (294/296 duration vs. 285/287) yet carried the same 365 HP rating. And then there's my personal favorite, the W-30 motors, where the MT version had a MUCH more radical cam than the AT version, yet both got a 370 HP rating.

I'm sure that the 370 HP rating had NOTHING to do with it being exactly 10 lbs/HP on a 3700 lb curb weight...

BlackGold

Ditto what Joe said. These two engines were identical other than minor tuning differences in the carb and distributor and, of course, the intake and exhaust manifolds -- both of which you would think would hurt the Toronado.

wmachine

Actually, the distributors were the same. Surprisingly, the Toro intake flows at least as good. Small points, but we are making comparisons here.

charlierogers

this is exactly the info i was looking for! very interesting the standard 442 engine had two diff cams between auto vs stick. thanks Joe and everbody else for chiming in.
charlie,,,

rustyroger

I understood the automatic versions had a cam more suitable to producing low end torque to suit the tranmission.
Like either engine didn't have an abundance in the first place.

British cars of the same period would have their HP figures exaggerated, maybe a press demonstrator would make the advertised power, but the regular factory engines probably didn't. When the E Type Jaguar was launched the demonstrators had blueprinted engines and racing tires, they could reach the magic 150 mph, production cars couldn't, but the speedometers were very optimistic, 150 mph on the speedo meant around 130 in reality.
Dont forget 1.5 liter engines were the average size for the UK market back then.

Roger.

stevengerard

That's interesting, never heard it was the other way on that side of the pond, love those e-type though, gorgeous cars

Aceshigh

365hp in 1970 is SAE GROSS hp
So that's probably closer to 315hp SAE Net or less from 1972 to the present.

http://ateupwithmotor.com/automotive...orsepower.html

This is also why there was such a large drop in horsepower on paper between 1970 and 1972.
GM finally started rating their output by what a fully accessorized engine put out.
Not one on a stand in perfect conditions with no accessories on them.

On the flipside,
GM was often conservative in their ratings......so the only way to REALLY KNOW ??? Get a dyno.

rustyroger

The tiny engines produced tiny amounts of power (although hp per inch figures would embarass some US cars of the time), overpowered cars didn't really happen and makers wanted to impress customers with performance figures, normally quoting figures from the most powerful versions in their advertising.
There were no direct equivalents to American muscle cars in the '60s until Ford marketed the 3 litre Capri in 1969 (0-60 8.5 seconds, 130 mph top speed, fell off the road if it had a curve), most cars were offered with a GT version having a higher tuned engine, maybe slightly lower & stiffer suspension and disc brakes.
A popular example would be the Ford Cortina GT, 1600 cc, weber 2bbl carb, mild cam & headers and lowered suspension with wider wheels.
This 75 bhp firebreather would get to 60 in 12 seconds and max out around 97 mph. The standard Cortina had a 65 bhp version and would make 60 eventually, struggling on to 90 mph on a good day.
Cornering and handling were much more important on our narrow twisting roads, small nimble cars would always beat big engined large cars on back roads unless you went upmarket with a Jaguar or Rover 2000, both popular as police cars.

Roger.