Still doesn't seem enough trap speed for me, but the 3.08:1 rear axle may be the factor as you say. If a 3.08 HK GTS327 is capable of 89mph, a 3.36 can do 92mph and a McKinnon engined HG GTS350 with 3.08 rear axle does 95mph I'd expect the 3.08:1 HT GTS350 in proper tune to do closer to the HG than the HK, i'm talking like 93mph. We know HK is 250hp, HT is 300hp and HG is maybe 10hp more and they all weigh approx. the same and from what I understand the mph figure is a good indication of power to weight in the cars you are comparing.
What would have been very cool to see though is the low mile Survivor HG GTS350 that AMC tested, if they'd done a rear axle change out to a 3.36 and then tested it over the quarter to see what trap speed it managed.

Very interesting read this one.
Just to add to some of what has been posted so far.
I will use these specs as a example
7434871 specs are:
Excluding Ramps: inlet 27/63-270, exhaust 71/19-270, 46 overlap.
Including Ramps: inlet 43/91-314, exhaust 87/47-314, 90 overlap.
The specs are taken at the valve not the cam and as such are highly unreliable.
The true measurement of a cam is done at 50" tappet lift anything other than that can be hugely inaccurate.
Further to this Advertised that you see with most cam specs is normally done at around .004" tappet lift (but not by all brands ,so you end up with different advertised duration's).
For a more accurate comparison of cams you have to graph them.


I also see that feel is used as a measurement of power and speed in this topic.
From past drag racing experience more often than not the pass that felt good or the best was the slowest.
Ones that felt bad ended up with faster ET,s and speeds.

In my opinion to use any figures from old road tests etc as a accurate comparison is fraught with way to many variances.
Cheers Paul.

Edited by user Friday, 19 February 2016 9:18:34 PM(UTC)  | Reason: To add to post

The relationship between torque and power has no feel at all!

Since I know you don't want to use Kilowatts and Newton-metres, for horsepower and ft-lbs,

HP= (torquexRPM)/5252.

Fact.


If you'd like to consider power developed throughout the rev range, that's the place for a torque vs RPM graph, and the area under that curve will represent instantaneous power at individual points, or total work done for the whole curve.

If it weren't for the issues associated with battery technology, a properly controlled electric motor would eat any internal combustion engine for breakfast, since it develops constant torque from rest up to the RPM at which it throws itself to pieces.

On the contrary, old test data is the only data that is available to go on. It is very rare today to find an untouched car to test, AMC were very lucky to have Paul Kelly's HG GTS350 McKinnon engined car to test. To date no-one with a Ford or Chrysler has come forward to do similar tests as there are no longer original cars left to test, and those that have been rebuilt are not standard.

The road testers from back then used consistent methods and reasonable equipment to do their tests, they are the best information available. The only thing i'd question is the rpm shown - obviously either the tacho was wrong or the graduations at speed are hard to read correctly. These guys calibrated their speedos on specially marked stretches of road, and used fairly accurate timing equipment. Rob Luck and Dave Bennett's car's tests are proof of what has long been known - that the performance of the GTS327 was deliberately hidden. Mel Nichol's report on the Tonawanda engined HT GTS350, backed up by Robbo's report on the McKinnon engined HG 350 both show with absolute clarity that the original press test HT's also had their performance deliberately obscured. AMC's test on Paul Kelly's car shows the same thing. Furthermore the large amount of press test data on HQ's show the manual cars have also been played with - there is no way a TH400 HQ GTS350 is near to 4 seconds faster to 100mph than a manual car, both in the same state of tune.

I found a HJ 308 auto with 2.78 ratio test
0- KM/H in 40 3.0 sec and held it was 2.9 sec
0- 60 4.4 4.4
0- 80 6.9 6.6
0- 100 10.4 10.5
0- 110 11.5 11.6
0- 120 13.3 12.9
0- 130 15.2 sec 14.1 sec
400m in 18.1 sec best was 17.9 sec
Stoping distance was 100KM/H 33.7m

I agree with you completely. Perhaps you should reread the post, which specifies MPH.
It also quotes the GMH numbers, which are RPM per MPH.

I would believe you are correct about that.

If yours had a trimatic she would perform better as well, than with the big T400 sucking all the power out of it.
The T400 and T350 sure do rob a lot of power to the back wheels compared to the little trimatic.

I don't think you believe that a bigger box uses more power to turn them from what you mentioned in another post, but also putting a bigger size diff like a ford 9 inch to a banjo in something uses more power to turn as well.
I had a bloke wanting to put a 9 inch behind his 2.0L Escort, I said he was mad because he would use up to much power in turning it, maybe he could use a FMX OR C6 auto behind the 2.0L as well, he sure would not brake anything that's one thing.

After all that has gone before, does that mean the HJ really is the best of the pre-Commodore 308s?

In some way one can see how much power you gain when looking at the VB commodore figures with the twin exhaust on the 4.2L and 5.0L this is reality at it's best DIN power figures and Net can not work such out as per the HJ with twin or single exhaust, we know their is a difference in the power. that is why I like to talk min DIN or ECE figures, so I know what is truly going on.

So some dude comes up to me and says what was the best thing to do to get the best performance out of a 253, well I would say you have two options on exhaust, one is a 2 1/4 single with a free flowing muffler and with this it will be louder or you could go twin exhaust and she will be quiet.

That's just a start without doing into more but the best value for most people to do and the 308 you need at least a 2 1/2 single exhaust free flowing or go the twin exhaust, because the stock single exhaust kills power on the 253 and on a 308 it just can't perform at all, it's a joke ! total rubbish ! a truly gutless shit box that a good 202 could give it a good go at.

The WB and VB single exhaust on the 6 and V8's was bigger than the hopeless rubbish before, that Holden used and the HT-G was the most restrictive of all.

I find the Gross HP as just nonsense and the drop in power was not recorded in the 308 from HX 9.7 to HZ 9.4 they did not bother, there is a rule one uses in Gross figures, that works out the power as to compression. you can find it on the net and work it from there.
Gross power has nothing to do with reality.
Was it the 5.0L HX or the HZ that first got twin exhaust standard, but the ute and p van only got single crappy exhaust.
All the Holden 253 and 308 V8 engines were the same as for the year type apart from a few and the rest know it's not the std engine.
If Holden or any company wanted to rate the power in Gross nowadays they would think one was mad, it was chicken shit ! just look at any thing before 1970 in the USA it was madness not to mention just bullshit, nothing made sense.

I know what you are on about with the Holdens with the chev engines, as you are trying to relate what is what.

But we know what the Holden engines is and stating Gross power is crap because it does not tell the true story, if they were showing Net HP we could of at the time worked out that the 308 Torana was some how different at the time with the cam being retarded and the same for the stock L34 eng and also for the big cam option as well, but we had no way of knowing that in the day now did we.

The car company did not have to prove the facts in them days, we only got the true thing from the VB commodore on.

The only problem I have seen in the Holden DIN figures were in 1999 that some how Holden got away with the true power figures of the 179 KW Sequential 5.0L in the ute that only had the crappy single exhaust.

But they did show the 5.0L ute just before that at 168HP as she has 3 more KW then the one just before that due to the big air snorkel sitting up their gulping in all that air and she had more torque as well 395NM @3600 to the 385NM @3200 before, so you see the VS did get a more powerful 5.0L in the end but, how would we know that if it was only in Gross power figures.

So in the days of Gross power figures Johnny walks in to buy a new car and Jack the dealer says, we have this 308 HQ she has 240HP good buddy, Oh good Johnny says I get that one, but what Johnny does not understand is that there is an E10 option of a twin exhaust that makes this 308 performs like he thinks it will.
Now Johnny is being ripped off and taken for a fool for reasons he or even the car sales man do not know why totally, but come the Net or DIN figures both are more the wiser.
See where I am coming from.

Now to both you and me if we were selling Johnny a car we could point him in the correct position because we both know that the twin exhaust 308 is the only way to go.

You know I have had people claim that because a car has a twin exhaust system on it, that such will make it louder, I have pointed such is total bullshit, but some mainly old people will not believe it at all, so maybe that's why they feared the twin exhaust or thought only hoons have such.

I remember some of the bullshit old people would claim back in the 70's and 80's like that and some insisted that with a car with a 4sp box that 1st was low low and 2ed was low for taking off with and 3ed was intermediate and 4th was top and they would lug the hell out of an engine coming around a corner in 2ed gear and never use 1st and I would say don't do that you are trying to destroy the engine you fool ! and it was funny how they would never rev a engine over 2000 RPM, I suppose driving the old 138 grey motors and rubbish like that is what they grew up with.

Edited by user Tuesday, 23 February 2016 10:22:04 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified