Quote:
Originally posted by Stare At The Sun
Uh...i have like 80 horsepower...and realistically, i probably put 55 to the ground, if that. I swear to god, when you floor it, in 3rd gear, the car doesn't noticably move faster. Its insane.
1982 reliant K w/ a 2.2l 4 cylinder.
|
The Ks bowed for 1981 as the Dodge Aries and Plymouth Reliant [and, in Mexico, the Dart]. A 2 door coupe, 4 door sedan, and 5 door wagon were available. Base power was a 2.2 (135 cid) in-line-four fed by a 2 barrel electronic feedback carburetor with a progressive opening (like 4-barrels of yore, opening first the primary bore and then, as the pedal was depressed further, the secondary bore) churning out 82 hp. Transaxles were a 4-speed floorshift manual or a 3-speed automatic. The car did 0-60 in the 13 second range [not bad for the times]. A 2.6 Mitsubishi motor was optional, and cars bearing this motor - for 1981 at least - were adorned with the badge "2.6 HEMI." (Yes, they were hemi-heads!)
from:
(an interesting Chrysler site, if you're interested)
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/3.html
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr Mephisto
I'm astounded at the numbers of cars here with 175+ BHP that posters are describing as "not bad" or "ok" etc...
No offense meant, but American motor engineering must be pretty shit if you can't get excellent performance out of a car with that power. Just goes to show you that BHP is not the measure of all things.
I guess it's kinda like comparing clock speed on CPUs!
You have to take into account the whole package. The quality of the breaks, the torque (Nm or lbs you Americans) and the actual weight of the car.
All very interesting (in a minor male kind of way). To the amusement of my wife, I think I'm slowly turning into a rev head myself...
Mr Mephisto
|
(C'mon, no one can reasonably say "no offense" and then call "shit.")
Well now, at least two of you are turning this into a US vs European car bashing fest.
Shame on yall.
Mr. Mephisto, I am adressing you, simply because yours is the first post that assumes American engineering is at fault for the differences in perception over horsepower.
I will set aside the issue of weather or not American engineering is done well.
Instead I suggest you look at the wide gap in perception Americans have about power in thier cars, and others; that will solve why we think 175hp is just "okay."
I don't know if Austrailians drive more Euorpean/Asian cars, or American. I will refuse to assume I know.
To wit:
Americans, rightly or wrongly, tend to drive big, heavy, pig like vehicles. In such vehicles 175hp is barely passable. Especaially when it's hauling 4000lbs around. The base engine in a Ford Explorer, one of our best selling SUVs is a V-6. It puts out 210hp, but weighs 4300+lbs depending on options.
I drive a Mitsubishi Lancer, it's got a 2.0L four putting out 120hp. I understand that in other countries it's percieved as a much larger car than it is here.
Here, in the US, it's an enconobox. A small, underpowered, toy car. Pehaps elsewhere it's a mid size, powerful sedan.
Perception makes a huge difference. I suggest you consider that before bashing a culture's engineering skills.