308 Horsepower Confusion

'76 and '77 were pre emission and also had a peppier cam with a bit more upper end HP. '78&79 carbs had some emission and the cams had a better torque range but less up top. '80-82 introduced the FI to the 2v motor and the HP is the lowest of the series with heavy emissions. However, they probably have better around town drive ability than the early carbed models because of a better torque band. The 4v in '83 regained the higher HP while keeping the better torque as well.

 

The catalyst carbureted 308s and the 2-valve injected 308s were both rated at 205 hp in the United States.

 

Yeah, and they're all dog slow. Any modern Lexus or Audi is going to beat a stock 308 (of any variant) in a straight line, and probably at least keep up if not pass it in the twisties too...

20hp doesn't make much of a difference - a QV is still not a very fast car. What does make a meaningful difference between the models is reliability and maintenance costs. Personally, I'm thinking that the basic 2v is quite a reliable, tractable and liveable 308. The QV is going to be a more expensive valve job for example.

Sorry for the thread drift!

 

Birdman is correct. The 78 up carb US model cars have the same doggy cams as the later injected cars, and the same pathetic 205 HP. The early US version carb cars made 240 HP, had the highest gearing, and were the lightest of the 308's save the true euro cars. All the change to CSI injection did for the later 2V cars was make them able to meet the EPA requirement of meeting emissions for 5 years or 50K miles without maintainance. So there is no real change in HP or torque from 78 thru 82. Most of the confusion comes from people quoting the HP of euro cars during that period.

While the QV did gain back most of the lost power to 235 HP, and they do have greater low end torque, they are also heavier and still have the lower gearing shortening their top speed in sacrifice for better driveability on downtown city streets.

 

Dog slow???

I beg to differ!

Only the M3 / (R)S4 / 335i can stay ahead of me. Anything up to and including non-turbocharged 3 liter is Ferrari fodder against my little Dino. 330i / Z4 3.0/ A4 3.0. Eat my dust! Beaten them on a straight line many times in that 35 year old marvel.

On the twisties, it's the brakes that are your major handicap. But still, you'll need a pretty good driver to keep up with a well-prepped 308.

And other than a K&N air filter, X-OST muffler and electronic ignition, my engine is bone stock...

Hans

 

Interesting...but what modern car isn't quicker in some respect than a 20+ year old sports car? The joy of a Ferrari, any Ferrari, is the overall experience...and carving through the twisties in a modern Lexus just don't do it for me.

Dog slow? Funny, as I never felt that way driving my 246, 330GT, 308QV, 328...or 365bb. In the same breath, I recently sold my M3, as I found it boring in comparison to the Ferrari. But...the AC did work better!

Best,
David

 

One thing I have to say about the early carb engines that really makes them a winner is the available torque. A good carb engine will have far more torque at 3500 rpm than any of the 308 series which really makes the car more driveable. QVs have less torque and it is available at a couple thousand more rpm higher.

 

There is a 195 number that gets kicked around for the 2v CIS cars too and I think that might be closer to the truth for those cars.

 

Yes, the difference is noticeable, as all four variants have different personalities!

In terms of fun factor, here's how I'd rate them (although somewhat subjective)

-1: 328
-2: 308 carb (in a great state of tune)
-3: 308 QV

and a distant fourth
308 2-valve injected

David

 

+1 Hans!!!!!!!!
I'm going to address that 'brake issue' this year. Then WATCH OUT!

JIM

 

Lets see: (US version)

1980 cal corvette - 180hp, 1981 M1 BMW - 200hp, BMW 320 turbo - 180hp, V8 mustang - 119hp, Camero 115hp etc etc etc..........sorry couldn't find 1980 Lexux didn't look up audi........same old redundant comparatives.......when will it stop?

 

You tell 'em, Jim!!!

 

It is actually about 180 hp. Just forget the 205 completely. Not even close.

 

Below 100mph and top speed, the 2V and 4V injected cars are nearly exactly the same.

 

I'm a huge advocate of the 2v models, as they're by far the least expensive and the lowest maintenance - and if you're going to be driving it on the street, it's by far the most resilient in real-world situations: Often, my weekend drives must include some city street stop-and-go as well as spirited canyon twisties.

I understand that many Ferrari owners want their cars for a different purpose than I do. But for me, my 2v GTBi gets my blood pumping every time. 205 hp is hardly pathetic for a 1982 model car, and I've found nothing, even among today's sports cars that will out-handle it.

Many of the 2v owners I know have all but "solved" the emission control's drain on horsepower by switching to "straight" pipes. Instead of doing this, I simply removed the air pump belt, and had Hyper-Flow cats installed. This is something I recommend that you consider doing if you do buy that 2v.

I love my GTBi. Even the "least" among Ferraris is still a delightful car.

 

Besides extra cam seals to replace, is there any substantiated difference in 2V vs 4V maintenance? I don't believe any 4Vs have the sodium valve issue.

and +1 on the indignant replies to the 'dog slow' comment.
Yeah 200ish hp in a 3200ish car is middle of the pack today (still a better power to weight ratio than I bet 90% of new cars), but the sensation of speed in a howling, windy, buzzing 308 is light years ahead of just about anything short of my '85 CRX Si
Just avoid stop-light races and there is nothing at all to be dissapointed about with a 308's performance.

 

I always take umbrage when people keep calling these cars slow. I was about to post the same thing. Yes these cars are down in hp compared to many of today's cars but how fun to drive is a 300hp, 4000lb sedan that has a suspension that floats over the road?

As someone who came to own a 308 through a progression of ownership of '70s and '80s European cars I guess I can appreciate the performance attributes of these cars a bit more than somebody who is used to driving these brand new high powered, road boats, that drive themselves that are around these days.

Now regarding the hp question posed by the original poster. There are two things to keep in mind, 'quoted' hp ratings by the factory and 'actual' hp. From all the dyno results I have seen it seems that the early cars with the early cams make somewhere around 235hp at the crank. The later carbed cars were somewhere around 215-220hp sans emission equipment and a proper tuning. I don't believe I have ever seen any quoted dyno results of an 'i' but I believe that is around this time that Ferrari started being a little bit more accurate, or should I say honest, with their quoted hp ratings. The QVs seem to be about dead on with the 235hp quoted figure.

 

Let us not forget the tru 308 GTSI-the Euro models., stock exhaust twin CATS, DOt and Bar certified for emissions-no smog pump, just the pulse system
My 308 gtsi Euro engine with 56,000 miles dynos at 211 rear wheel Hp and is as quick as the QV but mainley because of it gearing.
It is not a rice rocket but the performance is quite good
This should not be overlooked in quoting 308 issues.


just my opinion and first hand knowledge of the 308's

 

Good point about ratios, I lost track of how many different ratios Ferrari had depending on market, im talking individual gear ratios more than final drive ratios.

Bottom line is they were all slow back then and still are today....unless it has a V12 or forced induction. The engine is just too small to produce impressive torque. Beautiful to look at and fun to drive though I just wished they had more get-up-and-go like most people.

 

Well if I were the original poster...I would go for a 328..

 

I think we may be confusing things if we dont specify the way this power is being measured. The 240 HP of the early carbs, the 205 HP of the later carbs and early 2V injected cars, as well as the 235 HP of the QV, are all crankshaft rated figures. The 180 to 190 HP bespoke of, is obviously wheel rated from one of the models.

And honestly, so many cars have been modified over the years, that whats inside a 30 year old engine, what cams it has, pistons and compression is totally impossible to judge. The performance of these cars can no longer be considered merely by its model year or induction type. A 2V injected engine can, and have been massaged into making good power, with higher compression, porting, bigger valves, fatter cams, and better exhaust, to the point where today, each individual car has to stand on its own.

And why is it that after 30 years, either no one knows, and no one has ever posted the part numbers for the supposed "euro" cams, or if they did truly have different compression? That the 240 HP figure Ferrari stated for the early US cars has held up in dyno tests, as well as for the later 2V's and QV's, proves, to me at least, that Ferrari was pretty honest in their HP claims. The stickler is the 255 HP quoted for early euro 308's. It would be nice to know once and for all if the early euros were really any different than a US motor. Norwoods once told me a dry sump system was worth 15 to 20 HP. Is it possible an early euro dry sump motor could muster 255 HP (crankshaft) with the same heads cams and pistons of the US model?

 

Tate at Corobu says no, absolutely not. The P6 configured dry sump Euro engine Carobu shows on their website gets 277bhp. They set up another that is not shown. A wet sump US carb engine configured the exactly same way made 279bhp. So no, I dont see any additional power, but the track benefit is nice