'69 Chevelle SS 396
06-09-2009, 06:42 PM
#11
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DTLA, CA
Posts: 4,897
SAE gross horsepower
Prior to the 1972 model year, American automakers rated and advertised their engines in brake horsepower (bhp), frequently referred to as SAE gross horsepower, because it was measured in accord with the protocols defined in SAE standards J245 and J1995. As with other brake horsepower test protocols, SAE gross hp was measured using a stock test engine, generally running with few belt-driven accessories and sometimes fitted with long tube (test headers) in lieu of the OEM exhaust manifolds. The atmospheric correction standards for barometric pressure, humidity and temperature for testing were relatively idealistic.
SAE net horsepower
In the United States the term "bhp" fell into disuse in 1971-72, as automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower in accord with SAE standard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brake horsepower protocols, SAE Net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft, and so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net hp testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold. The change to net hp effectively deflated power ratings to assuage the auto insurance industry and environmental and safety lobbies.
Prior to the 1972 model year, American automakers rated and advertised their engines in brake horsepower (bhp), frequently referred to as SAE gross horsepower, because it was measured in accord with the protocols defined in SAE standards J245 and J1995. As with other brake horsepower test protocols, SAE gross hp was measured using a stock test engine, generally running with few belt-driven accessories and sometimes fitted with long tube (test headers) in lieu of the OEM exhaust manifolds. The atmospheric correction standards for barometric pressure, humidity and temperature for testing were relatively idealistic.
SAE net horsepower
In the United States the term "bhp" fell into disuse in 1971-72, as automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower in accord with SAE standard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brake horsepower protocols, SAE Net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft, and so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net hp testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold. The change to net hp effectively deflated power ratings to assuage the auto insurance industry and environmental and safety lobbies.
06-09-2009, 07:08 PM
#12
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: TX
Posts: 4,897
Yeah, not that quick of a car in the quarter but DAMN the first time I rode in one and my buddy Dwayne dropped the muncie into 2nd gear at 30 mph lighting up the hides for 15 solid feet it felt good! Torque monster.
06-09-2009, 07:58 PM
#13
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,788
A stock 396 Chevelle SS is slow. My dad has a Chevelle SS as well with "396" badges(used to be a 396). It is actually a 454 stroked to a 496. Power? It puts down 408rwhp & 518rwtq@1200rpm. It's a torque monster. It's too bad my Mustang easily beats it at the track. BTW, you will win!
06-10-2009, 01:18 PM
#14
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 1,278
A stock 396 Chevelle SS is slow. My dad has a Chevelle SS as well with "396" badges(used to be a 396). It is actually a 454 stroked to a 496. Power? It puts down 408rwhp & 518rwtq@1200rpm. It's a torque monster. It's too bad my Mustang easily beats it at the track. BTW, you will win!
the only engines i've worked on that made that kind of torque that low in the rpm band have been 8L+ diesels. not claiming BS on the numbers, just on where they happened at.
06-10-2009, 04:10 PM
#15
4th Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,648
BS on those numbers (at least at that RPM). if he really made 518@1200, he'd only be making 118rwhp. my Duramax doesn't even put down that much tq at 1200rpm, and that a friggen diesel. the only engines i've worked on that made that kind of torque that low in the rpm band have been 8L+ diesels. not claiming BS on the numbers, just on where they happened at.
the only engines i've worked on that made that kind of torque that low in the rpm band have been 8L+ diesels. not claiming BS on the numbers, just on where they happened at.
06-10-2009, 06:39 PM
#17
4th Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,648
06-10-2009, 07:32 PM
#18
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,788
BS on those numbers (at least at that RPM). if he really made 518@1200, he'd only be making 118rwhp. my Duramax doesn't even put down that much tq at 1200rpm, and that a friggen diesel. the only engines i've worked on that made that kind of torque that low in the rpm band have been 8L+ diesels. not claiming BS on the numbers, just on where they happened at.
the only engines i've worked on that made that kind of torque that low in the rpm band have been 8L+ diesels. not claiming BS on the numbers, just on where they happened at.
06-10-2009, 09:38 PM
#19
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DTLA, CA
Posts: 4,897
06-10-2009, 10:01 PM
#20
Mach I Section Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: round abouts these parts
Posts: 7,140