71 Delta 88 455 ci h.p./torque

[seasand77]

What was the horsepower and torque ratings for the 455 ci, 2 barrel in the 88 Royale convert. according to the sales literature fed to the public?

[Guest]

Here's a site to find out what it really was! I didn't see a torque figure, but everything else is there.

www.nhra.com/tech_specs/engine

[Sgt Art]

I was looking at the specs for 1971 vs. 1976 455 Olds engines. The 71's show 350 hp and the 76's show 190 and 215. The specs look pretty much the same. Did they use different standards in those years?

1971:

350 455 9.16 1-4 Roch 4MV-7041251,3,7/ALL 406115,Note a 1.6 H 69.75 E

350 455 9.16 1-4 Roch 4MC-7041252/AUTO ONLY 404522,Note b 1.6 H 69.75 1,

1976:

190 455 9.16 1-4 Roch 17056251,5,6,7,551,556 412753 1.60 H 69.75 F

215 455 9.16 1-4 Roch 17056252,552 412493 1.60 H 69.75 F

[rocketraider]

Yes. 1976 horsepower ratings were NET ratings measured at trans output shaft with all engine driven accessories installed and operating. The 1971 specs were GROSS horsepower measured at the flywheel off pretty much a bare engine.

[Sgt Art]

Aha, the old corporate monkey-shines at The General. I figured it was either at the tranny or wheel HP figures. Thanks for the great site and answer.

[Guest]

Art, nice pic "What, me worry?" haha gotta love it! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

[86 2dr.ltd]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was looking at the specs for 1971 vs. 1976 455 Olds engines. The 71's show 350 hp and the 76's show 190 and 215. The specs look pretty much the same. Did they use different standards in those years?

1971:

350 455 9.16 1-4 Roch 4MV-7041251,3,7/ALL 406115,Note a 1.6 H 69.75 E

350 455 9.16 1-4 Roch 4MC-7041252/AUTO ONLY 404522,Note b 1.6 H 69.75 1,

1976:

190 455 9.16 1-4 Roch 17056251,5,6,7,551,556 412753 1.60 H 69.75 F

215 455 9.16 1-4 Roch 17056252,552 412493 1.60 H 69.75 F

</div></div>

Edit: Since I posted this I went and looked again and realized that the above specs dispute what I wrote below. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> I'm also wondering if these pages are very acurate theres a few things there that dont add up to what I had originally understood. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Yes but compression was down and, and head chamber CC up as well as less port flow and egr + catalic converter.Camshafts I'm not sure. So although overall power wasnt down as much as the charts show it was down.

[Guest]

As Rocket pointed out earlier, in 1971 the gross horsepower was used, in 1976 it was net. Combine that with reduced cam lift, single valve springs, restrictive manifolds and the cat, you're right on the money. It would be like me running the 100 yd dash with a shop towel stuffed in my mouth,lol. My '76 doesn't have an air pump at least, just a passive cat, but it flows from 2 into one at the cat then splits back out at 2. More like a 'dummy dual' than a true one. The differences in the numbers are startling, but with all the above considered, now at least a bit more rational. The specs quoted are from the NHRA engine blueprinting site, and are based on specs from the relevant manufacturers, according to them.

[Guest tommyu]

That's incorrect info., '71's were both gross & SAE net rated as well. Later-printed brochures had the actual SAE rear-wheel rated torque & horsepower listings.

[joe_padavano]

That's incorrect info., '71's were both gross & SAE net rated as well. Later-printed brochures had the actual SAE rear-wheel rated torque & horsepower listings.

Dredging up a more than ten year old thread has got to be a record...