Crank vs. rear wheel

There is also two methods of ratng crank HP, gross and net. Prior to 72 or so the engines were rated gross at the crank, that is, they were tested without alternators, water pumps, air cleaners, exhaust. Then the government step in and made they use a uniform rating system that was net at the crank where the engine was tested with all the accessories that would be on the engine in the car and with stock exhaust. The big drop you saw in rated HP for the same engine in the 72 time frame was mostly due to this testing method change not the often blamed reducion in compression for emissions.

So, if you are looking at factory ratings prior to 72 and then measuring actual rear wheel HP you could see a difference approaching 40%. The net number rating to rear wheel is in the range that has been mentioned.
in 1972 compression ration went down to 8:1 for most engines. thats a BIG hit from 9.5:1/ 10:1 engines. the difference in HP on a 1970 340 compared to a 1973 for example is 16%. how much of that is becouse of the lower cr. then the difference would be from parasitic loss from the engine accessories.. that would be what? 5% at most. so i don't see how prior to 72 you'd get a 40% drop to the rear wheels. 5% difference at most prior to 1972. ie: instead of they typical 18% drivetrain loss factor in the 5% NET hp loss and it would be a 23% total hp loss.