Everything being equal , compression , cam , carb( s) exhaust , which would produce more horsepower/ torque , a 283 Chevy or a 273 hemi , 303 ?? Buick , ford , olds ,caddy ?
Since engines are basically air pumps, I'd say the best air pump. My vote would be the small Hemi. It gets air in and out the best.
You should just look up the factory specifications for each. You didn't mention the cubic inches of the last three or any model years. I think ya need to be more specific. This is like opening a box of see's candy and asking which piece is the sweetest.
Hmmmmm, not sure I can go along with that hypothetical, not sure you could ever get everything equal; and if you could I'm not sure each engine would respond the same way to the same parameters. Differences in bore/stroke ratios, intake/exhaust flow capacities, etc probably make the different engines better at producing strong torque number over big horsepower ratings, or vice versa. I think an Olds 303 will likely produce bigger torque, and a 283 higher rpm horsepower. I can say the 283 produced 1 hp per cu in from the factory, at a time when the others were producing mush less power, and nowhere close to the 1 to 1 ratio. And it did it from a smaller, lighter package that fit more easily into an early Ford chassis.
This is an interesting question. There are a lot of variables to consider. Are we talking stock components? These engines all have different bore to stroke ratios. Different abilities to handle valve lift and durations. Not all the same carburetor cfm, cam characteristics and valve sizes, etc. may be fair to each engine to do a good comparison? Also, do we take into consideration at what RPM the power band will occur in, in each engine? This can make a big difference particularly where torque is concerned. I guess the quick answer is that power is made in the heads.
A few from the 50s. The better engines. From an old Chiltons book. Last number is rated HP/CI Chrysler: 2x4, 1955 331, 300 hp 0.91 Chevy, 2x4, 1956, 283, 225 hp 0.80 Olds, 3x2, 1958, 371, 312 hp 0.84 Caddy, 3x2, 1958, 365, 335 hp 0.92 Since we can't really tell what cams they have, and they're factory ratings, it's kind of a toss up, eh?
Year is important. The hp wars heated up in the mid 50s But weight and power per inch would go to the 283.
yup, but how much it weighs has some bearing on how much power it needs to make to move the car faster than the other car
You also need a fast, efficient combustion. I'm not sure, but some faint memory says those old hemis need a lot of ignition advance, implying a slow combustion.
Instead of saying "all things being equal", let's change the question a little and just say equal money spent building your best version of each one. For instance, you can't spend any more building that Olds, or baby hemi, or Y-block Ford than you do building a 283. Or put it the other way, you can spend as much on the 283 as you do on any of the others. Now, which one will produce the best power?
You mean like the one that all the brilliant scholars back in the 1500's worried over? The question was "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?". If you don't specify which pin you're talking about, how fat or skinny the angels are or the width of their wings, you'll never know.
Sitting on the floor of the shop is a 292, 331, a couple 283s, an FE and a pile of 235s. all are the correct answer
I would guess the hemi makes greater lower torque where the difference in motor weight might not make much difference, as torque gets the car moving. .
The question was,,,,all things being equal. He listed all the parameters,,,,,compression,,,cam,,,carb,,,,etc . Equal,,,means equal,,,,,. And besides,,,,,this test comparison was done for real ,,,back in the 40’s I believe,,,,by a defense equipment manufacturer . And the winner was,,,,,,,,,(drum roll please),,,,,the Hemi ! Because of the unobstructed flame travel,,,,,,I think that was the best explanation back then . They were trying everything they could come up with to win the war . One of my old time sayings is : When the wolf is at the door,,,,,there is no tomorrow,,,,,,there’s just right now ! Make it work ! Tommy
The airflow into and out of the cylinder with a Hemi is pretty darn good, also...no valve shrouding at all.
I'm pretty sure that a lot of what has happened over the years with these cars we like got done because someone asked hypothetical questions that started, "Hey, I wonder what would happen if we did this"?
The one with a long rod & a long stroke, coupled with efficient ports & chambers would make the most torque. A nail head might be up there...
1960; however, a lot of factory horsepower ratings were just "paper ponies" by then. I recall a late '50s HOT ROD magazine article that involved progressively modifying a 352 in order to see what they could get out of it. It was factory rated at 300 hp, but the best that it could muster on their dyno for a baseline, even after making sure that it was in tune, was 227.
The one with the supercharger. It would depend on what size 'equal carbs, cams, etc.'. Some are more capable of utilizing the increased flow these components can offer.
Whichever one has the best set of heads. If you take engine layout and design of the heads of the equation - "all things equal" then your just comparing a few cubic inches.
Link or it didn't happen..... I've read several times over the years that the reason Chrysler ended production of the early hemi engines was because the shape of the combustion chamber caused problems when raising compression because the large bumps on the piston tops impeded flame propagation. Another problem was the lack of squish resulted in detonation. Chrysler engineers thought the future for their engines layed with the wedge combustion chambers, which eliminated those problems. They did bring the hemi back later, but it was obviously a different design.
The Jalopy Journal
