Bill, you crack me up. Where in my post did I say that the horsepower
ratings from back in the 50s and 60s were higher than actual? All I said was
that comparing the ratings of the engines in the 50 and 60s is a different
rating system than what they use today. In fact, most of the automakers were
boasting numbers less than the actual horsepower of the engines back then,
both for insurance reasons and because of the class system for the Stock and
Super Stock drag racing classes. The 426 Hemi, Boss 429 and the W30 Olds 455
were perfect examples of this.

And of course, you had to pull something totally out of the blue about the
Ford side oiler. I can see how anyone would have read that in to what I
said. Sheesh.

Chris

"L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" > wrote in message
...
> For those whom believe we really didn't have the horsepower, back in
> the old days: http://www.cobranet.com/roadtest.htm You probably think
> there was no reason for a side oiler, too.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> http://www.billhughes.com/
>
> c wrote:
> >
> > Just remember that for quite a while engines have been rated in terms of
net
> > HP, not flywheel like they were back in the 50s and 60s. There is quite
a
> > difference in the ratings. I believe they changed the ratings around
1972.
> > Also any street engine is fine with a 2 bolt block. there are a lot of
> > engines out there that never had 4 bolt caps, and some can't even be
> > converted, yet they seem to live under some very severe high horsepower
> > conditions. It is also a known fact that the best stock small block
Chevy
> > block to use for racing is one that originally had 2 bolt mains, and
then
> > convert it to 4 bolt mains with the splayed outer bolts. I've seen
several
> > small and big block Chevy engines making some serious power, and still
> > having the 2 bolt main caps without a problem.
> >
> > Chris