It's all about power to weight ratio and mechanical advantage...

I've had a lot of people call me out for telling stories about "slower" cars beating "faster" ones in a drag race. These people are often abusive and insulting in their language, and it's kind of funny, because they don't realize how ignorant they sound. Most of them are only going on factory hp ratings and nothing else. Any experienced racer knows that the real formula is power to weight ratio. All other things being equal-a 3,000 lb car with a 300 hp engine will run just as fast as a 4,000 lb car with a 400 hp engine. The "all other things being equal" is important too. What about mechanical advantage? What if the 3,000 lb car had a 4-speed and 4.11:1 gears and the 4,000 lb car had an automatic and 3.23:1 gears?  Or vice-versa?  Remember when I talked about the L79 327 '66 Nova beating the W30 455 1970 442?  That's a perfect example. Here's a couple about mechanical advantage. One of these geniuses said I was lying when I said my dad's 1965 376 hp Tri-Power 421 Catalina 2+2 beat a friends 1967 390 hp 427 Impala SS in a drag race, both from a light and from a 20 mph roll. Why would I lie? 1st off-the power was totally equal-( 14 hp won't make any difference in real-world conditions ) 421 cubes vs 427 completely equal. Weight? Both cars weighed about 4,400 lbs. However-the Impala had 3.31:1 gears and the 2+2 had 3.90:1 gears. Both cars had TH400 automatics. However-the 2+2 had a TransGo shift kit. Not only would it shift automatically at 5,600 rpm under full-throttle acceleration, it would automatically kick down to low gear if you floored it under 15-20 mph. This made a huge difference if you were coming up to a red light, preparing to stop,and the light suddenly turns green and you punch it. Most other cars with stock automatics will drop from 3rd to 2nd under these conditions. It's simple-the 2+2, being in low gear is going to accelerate harder than the Impala which is still in 2nd. That's exactly how the race from a 20 mph roll went. When we tried again from a dead stop, I jumped him a car length and a half off the line. At the top of second gear-by now both the 421 and the 427 were pulling like locomotives on the mountain of torque they both posessed and he made up about half of that. And that was it. I held on to that half a car length lead until well over 100 mph when we both let off. That's the 3.90:1 gears advantage over the 3.31:1s. People don't realize it-but gears give you a boost all through the range, not just off the line. I learned this when I swapped the 3.23:1 gears in my Hurst / Olds for some 4.10:1s. I honestly didn't notice a difference in low gear. The 455 had enough torque to launch the car regardless of gearing. However-the difference was HUGE in 2nd and 3rd!!  So hopefully-anyone with common sense can see how the 2+2 could beat the Impala. The other one was probably the same idiot who said there was no way My Ram Air III 400 1969 GTO Judge could beat my buddy's 1969 440 Six-Pack Super Bee. The GTO was rated at 366 hp, the Super Bee at 390. Again-not enough to make a difference. Both cars weighed about 3,700 lbs. However-my GTO had a 4-speed and 4.33:1 gears. The Super Bee had a Torqueflite and 3.23:1 gears. Any racer would say that right there gives me the win. But wait-I also had N50X15 Mickey Thompson "Hot-n-Sticky" tires on the back of my car, and I had Lakewood coil-spring traction bars. The Super Bee had stock suspension, and GR70-15 Sears Radials. Stiffer gears,larger, stickier tires,and a drag-race oriented suspension would give me a substantial advantage. But wait-my engine wasn't stock. I had a larger than stock Crane Cam, Hooker headers,and an Offenhauser dual-quad intake with two Carter AFBs. So yeah,buddy-I'm lying. There's no way my hopped up,traction barred,4.33:1 geared, 4-speed GTO could beat a bone-stock, automatic, 3.23:1 geared Super Bee!!  As Ditka said- "Come on Man!!"  Some Ford guys I know had a drag race and I had to laugh at the loser. He had a nice 1972 Mustang Mach 1 with a 351CJ, rated at 266 hp, an automatic and 3.00:1 gears. He talked trash incessantly to his buddy-who had a nice 1966 Mustang GT with the 225 hp 289, a C4 and unkown gearing.       They finally raced, and the '66 beat him by about two car lengths. How? Power to weight ratio. The '66 Mustang weighed about 2,900 lbs. The '72 weighed about 3,700. 41 rated hp wasn't enough to overcome 800 extra pounds!!! Further-the '66 launched with very little wheelspin. The '72 lit up the tires off the line which also hurt. Any way-the owner of the '72 was fixated on two things-351 cubes vs 289, and 266 hp vs 225. He didn't think of anything else while he was trash-talking. Like a weight difference of 800 lbs, and traction!!  So think of the total packages before you start trash talking based only on hp ratings! You might be surprised and embarrased.  Mastermind