Just find out something amazing

[83countrysquire]

ok so if i get my donor engine a 1960s or early 70s blolck with all stock or performance stuff stock rated at 295FTLBS of Toque and 210 horsepower with a 2bbl carb i cant wiat

[jasonh]

Thats probably a gross figure. I can't remember exactly, but around 73 74 they switched to net horsepower ratings. At the wheels is what the rating should be but...

[mrltd]

What he said....It's not that much by today's testing methods. It should still be a bit better than the stock lopo.

[grandpaslincoln]

You might as well just go pull an explorer motor

[83countrysquire]

i m getting that motor practiacaly free so i m gunna stick with it

[N A]

Those earlier motors had gross hp ratings. Just like mrltd said, it'll probably be a little better than the lopo numbers. Find out what your numbers are now. Dyno your CS "before and after" the engine swap. That way you can compare "apples to apples", somewhat.

[88Vic]

After only driving my dad's minivan(before the Vic, or BV), the stock lopo is good enough for me.

[Tiggie]

1972 was the first year of Net horsepower ratings on Fords and also the year they lowered compression to use the cruddy gas we use today!

The following figures are for the Truck engines:

1970-1971 302 (Gross)
Compression Horsepower Torque (ft-lbs) Induction
8.6 205 @ 4600 300 @ 2600 2-bbl
9.0 210 @ 4600 296 @ 2600 2-bbl

1972 302 (Net)
Compression Horsepower Torque (ft-lbs) Induction
8.2 143 @ 4200 242 @ 2000 2-bbl
8.5 154 @ 4000 246 @ 2400 2-bbl

1973 302 (Net)
Compression Horsepower Torque (ft-lbs) Induction
8.0 137 @ 4200 230 @ 2200 2-bbl
8.2 139 @ 3800 232 @ 2600 2-bbl

After 1973, Ford changed to using only one compression ratio and the ratings hovered around the 1973 figures until 1977, as far as my manual for trucks goes.

You can compare these figures to your current ones. Taken from the Car section:
1983 302 (Net)
Compression Horsepower Torque (ft-lbs) Induction
8.4 130 @ 3200 240 @ 2000 CFI

Remember, this is what these engines were capable of when they were new. With some mileage on them, they will probably do a little worse. Most typical stock early Mustangs (non-HiPo or Boss) with 289’s or 302’s generally put down between 120-135 horsepower. Even the big blocks don’t do that well either. Stock 390 HP’s (ha) in the early Mustangs only put down about 190ish horsepower. The CJ’s usually put down about 230-250 horsepower, with the 385-Series usually running slightly higher than the FE’s. These are net ratings over the original gross system. Gross horsepower was obtained using highly tuned engines without any accessories and sometimes used aftermarket parts not available on the actual production car such as long-tube headers.

I have a formula somewhere for converting net ratings to gross…

[Blaze86Vic]

I don't have a problem at all with 87 octane on my 9.1 compression engine.