I thought about this when I was driving to work today. I was driving my '79 Catalina on a wet road, and I spun my tires a fair amount on the pavement when I was pulling away from a stop sign. It surprised me a bit, as I wasn't really giving it gas, and my tires are good. Having a 2.41:1 rear end, and given that the car weighs almost 2 tons, I wouldn't have expected the tires to break free like they did. 5 of the 7 cars I've owned have all been rear wheel drive, including all of my vehicles I currently own, so I handled it like any other RWD vehicle that's spinning its tires. Let off the gas and try again.
My Pontiac 301 V8 produced around 130 horsepower and 244 pound-feet of torque with the 2-barrel V8 when it was new, and a 1st generation 4.6L Ford Modular V8 generated around 260 pound-feet of torque with 190 horspower. Why does a carbureted V8 produce significantly less horsepower than fuel injected V8s, but they can produce similar torque? I know the Modular V8 differs in having overhead cams, compared to the in-block camshaft, pushrods and rocker arms in the Pontiac V8, so it's not exactly apples to apples, but the engine size is similar.
I handled it like any other RWD vehicle that's spinning its tires. Let off the gas and try again.
That's interesting.
My brother used to have a Firebird that I played around with a bit. 2000ish, RWD and oodles of power. That thing was VERY squirrely. It would brake traction and fishtail just making a left turn without even trying to make it go. If you let of the gas it would just spin out. "Give it some more throttle" my bro said. Sure enough, when you punched the accelerator, the car would straighten itself out, stabilize, and charge ahead.
The Challenger wasn't as bad.
Why does a carbureted V8 produce significantly less horsepower than fuel injected V8s, but they can produce similar torque?
I have a feeling this will depend on the engine and head design etc. It would be interesting to compare some performance curves for various engines. For the numbers you quotes, it's important to take note of the RPM at which the measurements were taken. (every engine has a different peak)
But I think it has todo a lot to do with fuel mixture.
Carburettors cannot (1) mix the fuel and air as EVENLY as fuel injection can. (2) nail the 14.7 A/F ratio as precisely as fuel injection can. Better efficiency = more power. And too much fuel can actually rob the combustion of energy.
It's possible that these differences are simply more significant at higher RPM where fuel flow rates are higher.
I've heard that about those late-model Firebird/ Trans-Ams. I wanted one when I was a kid and they were new. I never liked GM, but I do have a weak spot for Pontiac. My Mustang is like that. Maybe because the rear end of those cars is so lightweight, and turning, if one tire catches before the other, it will fishtail/ spin out if the grip imbalance is bad enough. I wasn't moving in my Catalina, so there was no risk of spinning out.
I thought about the fuel vs RPM thing. Torque usually peaks before horsepower, and the torque band is relatively low with the Pontiac V8 vs fuel injected engines. I think it's like 1800-2000. Peak horsepower is around 3k RPM. The 4.6L Ford engine has its peak around 3200 RPM, couldn't find the peak horsepower, but I only browsed for a second. This would be an interesting Scotty documentary.