Since when is 370 HP more than 390 HP???

Since never I suppose.

When it’s 370HP to the ground vs. 390HP at the crank?

If they were negative numbers?

When the 370HP engine is underrated and/or the 390HP engine is overrated.

Ed Zachary, 370 HP net, and 390HP gross.

Unless the horses are Clydesdale’s and Shetland Pony’s. :biggrin2:

That makes sense, gross is always higher than net

The question was a sarcastic comment in reference to the description of the 429 CJ being the highest HP rating in a Cougar.

As the few who answered generally agreed, that 390 is certainly MORE than 370, perhaps the writer was being just a tad too enthusiastic or biased towards that model, stranger yet, is why no one else caught the mistake.

Maybe they were fudging the horsepower ratings down even more dramatically by the time the 429CJ came out, meaning it actually had more real horsepower, regardless of whatever made up numbers Ford was reporting?

What difference does that make? Were not discussing what “might have happened” were discussing the advertised HP.

Whether the 370 was really 410, makes no difference, it was advertised as 370, which is LESS than 390.

By the way, a 427 R code is rated at 425, but in reality it was 465, it was never advertised at that, but if you bought it thru the parts counter, that was the rating.

So does that mean that the 390 HP really is 430 HP ?

People tend to forget about the GT-E getting the 427. Particularly Mustang people. I think that the way that 370 is the biggest thing came about was in reference to the Mustang, and of course people think that the Mustang and Cougar were “the same”.

This is the original statement or question, it can be anything up to this point.

I (we) have surmised that the original point of this thread was the fact that the 1968 GT-E with 427-4V had a rating of 390Hp. The 1971 429CJ Cougar has a rating of 370Hp. Good so far?

Unless were are talking about complete RUBES, I don’t believe many people think Mustangs and Cougars are the same, at least not in my circle, perhaps yours? As for confusing the HP rating melting the Mustang into the Cougar, well once again, that doesn’t hold water.

The Boss 429 was rated at 375, which is HIGHER than 370. My impression is that you misrepresented the HP rating for that particular Model Cougar, because of a bias, since you are well aware of the GT-E.

Be it Mustang or Cougar fans, or any other brand of fans, not many know the GT-E, you can thank Ford and L/M for the lack of advertising back when. As for the still unkown malady, you can thank the paranoid owners of the cars, don’t let my name out, or where I live, or anything about the car, that might gain it some recognition. Gee, someone might try to fake my car, when the best way to protect the car and your investment, is to publish the info, just like SAAC has done for 30 years.

Listing a complete history of the car leaves a paper trail that can’t be faked.

You are correct, as I pointed out in an earlier post, I was being sarcastic about the statement for the 429 CJ Cougar
since the poster of the description in my opinion, knew full well that the GT-E is the Cougar with the highest HP rating.

All this HP talk, a quote from Carroll Shelby comes to mind…
Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.

Yes torque is very important:

1968 427, 390 HP, 460 lbs. @ 3200 RPM

1971 429 CJ, 370 HP, 450 lbs. @ 3400 RPM

1966 427 R Code 425 HP, 480 LBS @ 3,700 RPM

With those figures, it still appears as the 427 is better than the 429 C J. 10 more ft.lbs. at an earlier RPM

So when can we expect the correction of the description of the 71 Cougar 429 CJ be made??

Ok, I’m fairly sure I’m not the only one, but…from where is all this debate stemming? Have I missed a thread somewhere? Link??

The misinformation is in the description for the 1971 429 CJ Cougar Registry.

I observed the error, and posed “it” as a question, to get feedback from other members, or not. It appears as though not many people actually read the description in it’s entirety . I also posted it since this misinformation is a falsehood, and it should be corrected, so as not to perpetuate a lie, on not only members, but visitors to this site also.

The trouble with the “printed” word, be it in a newspaper or the internet, once there, it is there forever, and no matter if it’s true or not, it becomes the Holy Grail, if it’s written, it must be true. The problem with most people is that they forget about one of the rules of determining the printed truth, does the author have an ax to grind.

If he does, then what he writes, and if it’s printed, it becomes a fact, no different than the “spin” that politicians but out, just look at Bengazzi!! (sp)

Who really cares (other than you?) :slight_smile: