Horsepower/Torque/Cubic Inches/Compression Ratios

["Richard McFarland" <estatewagons@xxxx>]

Bill - before you trade in your fleet - make sure you put some perspective 
into the
relationship between the cubic inches of an engine - and the torque 
(grunt) - and the
horsepower.

Todays smaller engines are extremely efficient in certain ranges - compared 
to years ago
but - a 460 will always be a 460...

An interesting comparison to make is the drop in horsepower etc. that 
occured in the
big blocks starting in about 1972. The cubic inches stayed the same for 
years...
but horsepower dropped for various reasons - some due to environmental - and 
some
due in part to the fact that in trying to make the engines more 
conscientious - the technology
was not necessarily up to the job....as it has become today.

For instance - look at the GM 350 over the years - which is also known as 
the 5.7 -

Then look at the current GM 6.0 - which basically translates to about a 360.

From what I read in reports from people who own the 6.0 V-8's they do a 
great job
over a much more adaptible range of duties than the older 5.7's - due from 
what I
believe is a different design. Nearly the same size...but two different 
results.

You mention your '77 Lincoln only has 208 HP. That would make it a 460 V-8 
with
a compression ratio of 8 to 1.

If you go back to 1971 - the Lincoln 460 V-8 put out 365 HP (yikes...!) and 
it was due
in part to it running a compression ratio of 10.2 to 1.

Ah the good old days.

I"ve got a 1969 Ford Country Squire with a 429 that was one of two 429's 
available in the wagon
that year - and it has the simpler 2 barrel carb on it. Even then it is 
rated at 320 HP at 10.5 to 1
compressions. If it had the other version with a 4 barrel and 11.0 to 1 
compression (yikes!) it would
be rated at 360 HP.

I"ve also got a 1975 and a 1977 Mercury Colony Squire wagon - both with 460 
4 barrels.

So...I'm a dedicated dinosaur preservationist!

Best Wishes - RL