Engine power
 

So, why do we all like powerful engines in our cars?

It never used to mean much to me, but when I got to Australia (home of the 'rev heads), I went native and bought a OTT 4.0 litre Turbo-charged rear-wheel beast.

Wierd, when you consider I only commute about 12km to work, across city traffic, once or twice a week.

So, what powered engine did you spend your money on?


Mr Mephisto

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.

2003 quadcab Hemi ram. I havent dynoed it but they claim 345hp and 375tq. Either way, it gets my 6,000 brick moving right quick.

95 camaro z, 285 stock, got some mods on it so its over 310 easy...dont really know what it is for sure

02 Accord Coupe V6 - 200hp
04 Accura TL - 270hp

300 hp - 1958 Ford Fairlane 500 Skyliner
Quite the beast.

Just under 200 HP in my SLK. It's not that I wouldn't like more, but that's enough to make the car plenty fun.

'88 T-Bird Turbo Coupe - 190hp stock, probably around 210-ish after opening up the intake and cranking up the boost a bit.

'93 Lincoln Mark VIII - 280hp

What is the most underpowered car you've ever owned/drove?

Mine would be a friend's '90 Taurus with the 3.0 V6. I think something might have been wrong with it. I know they're not exactly Ferraris, but this particular one was dumbfoundingly slow. I'll never forget taking off from a stoplight up a hill with the pedal almost floored, only to be outrun by a Pinto towing a small trailer. That's just sad.

2003 Daewoo Matiz

3 cylinder making a massive 40Kw

Damn that thing flies!

Massive 150Hp 1999 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 3.0L ... heh, but I still love it. :)

This baby sounds beautiful.

Please tell me you have some pics?!


Mr Mephisto

Sheesh... That's kinda funny and sad at the same time.

My XR6-Turbo puts out 200kw MORE than that Daewoo; ie, 240Kw in total.

Not that I use it though...

Boys and their toys, eh?



Mr Mephisto

Even know my Shelby-Z has a somewhat blowin engine it still must be up over 100hp...but I think stock power was 175hp....hoping after I getting the new engine to put some mods on it and get it up over 200hp!

if its not already there!


and my 82 Chevy G20 Van w/ a 89 5.7l 350, probably like 80hp's right now, the motor isn't running on all 8 cylinders I think I got a dead plug!

My new motor for the bird did 687.1 FWHP and 522.0 FWTQ. You got to love a SBC that will rev to 7k :D

Jeep is quoted at 195hp, 215lb/ft i believe.. Nothing impressive, but in a car just under 3000lbs, it gets it moving pretty quick.

Must under powered.....hmmm, we breifly owned a 88 Ranger with a crappy tiny 4 banger that supposedly had 82hp, or something tiny like that. Prolly made like 40 at the wheel. It was horribly underpowered.

1987 Cadillac Deville 4.1L V8 a very sad 130hp
1984 Mustang...hoping I can push at least 350hp out of a 302..

you should slap a Supercharger on the Deville :D

99 Grand Am GT coupe, 175 hp. It gets the job done.

93 ford explorer
160hp at 4200 rpm
4.0L 6 cyl

i wish it had a bit more power... the whole thing about not being able to hold highway speeds up a hill kinda blows....

My 89 that I just sold had about ~270 ish to the wheels (based on similar combos)

My new 96 Ford contour has 140 Hp at the flywheel.

435rwhp/455rwtq on my barely modified '95 Supra which is normal for turning up the boost on this turbo car. Factoring in about 16% drive line losses, that makes 517 bhp compared to original factory rated 320 bhp. Not bad for hardly any modification cost.

Spyder_Venon,
That's damn serious power you have there. I can understand that with all the front drive around now you could get confused. Unless yours is strangely modified, Firebirds never had FWHP front wheel hp or fwtq since they are rear wheel drive, so you have rwhp and rwtq. Maybe just an abbreviation or terminology misunderstanding.

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

Flywheel HP -sorry I should have clairied a little better

FWD= front wheel drive

but wait!

FWHP= front wheel horse power or in my case, fly wheel hp....

:crazy: acronyms suck....

Well weight matters just as much, but I don't think its any engineering failure. We in the US don't have true POS cars like europe does (I don't know about Oz), so we have higher standards on what's fast and what isn't.

Poorly programmed auto trannies are also a lot more common here (and most people don't know that you can and should shift them manually).

Anyway, I have a Corvette with ~300 hp. The slowest car I've ever driven was a 1978 Mercedes 240D - 70 hp and over 3200 lbs. 0-60 in >25 seconds!

Europe doesn't have POS cars, they're just more practical and economical for their environment than some other cars out there. Realistically, to maintain highway speeds, a car of moderate weight shouldn't need much more than 40 hp with a properly geared transmission.
These cars are also small, which is convenient in European towns. If any of you have ever been to Rome, you know how much a pain in the ass it is to create room to let an suv down a narrow cobblestone road. The opposing lanes have to pull over to let the suv through.
Plus, gas prices in North America are only now reaching the levels Europe has had for a long time. Suddenly, a displacement of under a litre producing close to 50 miles per gallon doesn't seem like such a bad idea after all.
The SMart car is ideal for Europe for all of these reasons.

i probably have the slowest vehicles here. 305 hp dodge ram 3500 4x4
and a 81 mercedes 240 D lol

I know that there are good reasons that Europe has cars like that, but it still stands that they offer a very poor driving experience by american standards (on american-style roads). That's what I meant by "POS" :).

New budget roller motor, conservatively about 525 horse before spray.

I enjoy driving fast. But 300 HP seems to be just about enough I guess.

`04 Audi A8L - 330 HP
`98 Audi A8 - 300 HP
`99 Lexus GS400 - 300 HP

I want to upgrade the brakes, and maybe the engines on the old A8, but I just don't have the time.

On the low end, I've got a `90 Miata and a `something MG Midget (that I'm storing for someone).

2004 TL- 270
2003 EL- 127

'97 Buick Century - 165 when it's running right. Weighs damn near two tons with me in it, and the transmission sucks, so I don't get a huge amount of enjoyment out of it. Being 6'8" sucks when you're looking for a fast car.

My current truck ('94 F-350 with a 460) is listed at 245 HP. I beleive my old '86 F-350 with a 460 had more than that, since you could drop the hammer and make all 4 rear tires break loose on a 7000 pound truck. :)

MrselfDestruct- You need a truck. I'm 6'6", and I look real silly trying to drive a car. :p

I find this amusing. Let me simply list the following EUROPEAN car manufacturers.

BMW
Mercedes
Audi
VolksWagon
Maserati
Ferrari
Lambourghini
Lotus
Briton
Jaguar
Rolls Royce
Bentley
Porche
Aston Martin


all this just off the top of my head.


In the US you have... erm... let's see... what about?... no.... erm.. Ford?



Mr Mephisto

Heh, all i know is i just got my baby. I found a 98' 3000GT VR4, stock and it pulls 300bhp stock. And with the little mods i did i think i pull around 345bhp, that area.

Mr. Mephisto, I much prefer the European cars you mention over american (or japanese) ones. I wasn't saying Europeans can't make good cars. I meant that if you go to Europe, dinky little crap cars that would never be sold in the US are very common. Those are the things I'm talking about. Your average person doesn't own the cars you mention in most European countries.

damn it must be hard to find a car you fit in!

210 Horse Power for my turbocharged 98 Jetta 2.0.

200hp 1996 ford windstar mini van...Big, great low end pickup and can I cruise all day doing 80mph on the highway in my captain chair...and so can my other passanger...the thing has 4 of those lovely seats.

My car
 

100HP Toyota Corolla (4k-c 1290cc engine)

It has a 42/88 cam (wheeee)
32/36 Downdraft weber
2.25" exhuast system

Not the fastest car in the world :P

http://www.rollaclub.com/gallery/mem...t/Dscn2817.jpg

Will end up as a rally car in the next 12 months... Daily driver for now

175hp is great in something like a VW Golf. In a large American car, it sucks.

Hmmmm.... I have a 2.3 turbo Thunderbird that I don't drive much anymore. My dad has a little Triumph TR7 with a dead engine. Now that could be a fun combo! :D

Don't kill yourself:D

thats a lot of power in a small car!

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

(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.

2004 subaru wrx sti at 300hp :)

Good ole stock Honda Civic... 115 hp. Ill see what I can do to up that soon though.

If my dad ever finishes his 67 Camaro RS/SS with the 327, it'll be pulling over 300 hp. He says he will let me drive it...

We shall see whT he says after its all shiny sittin there in the garage and I wanna take it for a rip.

That is going to be one nice car, just needs a 396 or a 454!:D

Yes they can. I just did.

I meant no offence to you when I say that, based upon my previous statement, US automotive engineering must be "shit" (in my opinion) if it can't get decent performance out of 175 HP.

No I wasn't, and I don't believe the other poster was.

If you reread my comment, I go on to say that "that BHP is not the measure of all things" and "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
".

I suggest you reread my comments before jumping to assumptions.

Mostly Australian cars, followed by Asian. Now you know.

Actually reading and understanding my comments means more than perception. I suggest you do that, before "bashing" me...

...the irony here being that you are NOT bashing me, but making a polite enough (if misguided) comment.

I was NOT bashing an entire culture's engineering skills. That's just silly. I also think you're showing a slight sensitivity to the issue. Who knows?


Mr Mephisto

American engineers are encumbered by the same laws of physics the rest of the world faces. Our cars tend to be big and heavy, therefore 175 hp isn't all that great.

If we all liked to drive around in the sardine cans that the rest of the world seems to be happy with, then our 175 horses would be just as fun as Europe's or Asia's.

My old '91 Corsica was rated at 135 horsepower. Factor in the 18 percent power loss that a naturally aspirated engine experiences at mile high altitude and you are down to 111 horsepower. Factor in 200,000 miles of wear and tear, and I bet there isn't more than 95 horsepower at the flexplate now.

340hp; picture at left. Catalytic converter deleted, performance chips added.

Just curious....have any of you actually dyno'ed your cars? Or are you just spouting factory ratings and guesses.....

Excellent point. I love all the speculations of power. I on the other hand am no stranger to the dyno.

Who's got the time for a dyno? Either you believe the manufacturer or you don't. When my cars are screaming, I want them to be going very fast, and I don't particularly want to extend either the six or the twelve without great gobs of air cooling the engines...Or do they take care of that somehow?

I know what you mean man. My friend derrick and I are trying to get him to modify the engine, suspension etc... But being as its an RS/SS hes gunna leave the 327 (which I dont actually think was orig, because the range on the tach wud indicate a big block) and modify it how someone in the 60/70s would.

Still going to be fun.

They put blower fans in front of the car, and the load isn't quite so great as on the street so the car won't get as hot.

Dynos are for people to tune/modify their engines...if you haven't done anything to your car, then there is no need.

~ 190+ HP A4 Manual Quattro with mods - looking into a blower

just a 200 2.8l V6 Jetta GLI

Volvo S60 AWD with 208HP. Really, it's all the power I would know what to do with in a car. I love it: solid, safe, and fast.

1991 Nissan 300zx Twinturbo. I put in new turbos among other things to get it up to about 440HP, with minimal turbo lag.

94 Camry with 130 hp (according to Edmunds)
No surprises here. Not terrible, but pretty pathetic next to my friends' WRX's, Camaro's, etc.

That would have to be my friends `97 Geo Metro. All it's 0.9L 55hp glory. God that thing is slow. She would always just goof around and try to race me in my car, which at the time was my 89 BMW 325. 167hp. Over 3 times the power. Was always fun.

EDIT: BTW, current car is a 2003 VW GTI 1.8L 180hp

Cool car..A friend of mine has an '01 GTI 1.8t. He installed an aftermarket boost controller with a control knob mounted on the dash. It's fun to turn it down to the stock level, floor it, and crank it back up. Very effective demonstration of what a few extra psi can do. :)

346 hp out of a real car, 67 Chevy Nova SS, 327ci, 700r4 Trans, very fast in a straight line.

'67 Camaro RS 327 = 340 hp on new rebuild of original engine
'65 Fleetside Chevy = 445 hp on a 400 sbc
'65 Stepside Chevy = 220 hp on original inline 6
'66 Fleetside Custom = 250 hp on original 283
'04 Chrysler 300c = 345 hp & 390 lb/ft torque
'03 Chevy Silverado = 310 on Vortec 5300
'01 Honda Accord = 150 hp on stock 4-cylinder
'02 Nissan Xterra = 170 hp on stock 6-cylinder

Well, that covers all of my cars. I am lucky enough to have such a wide diversity of cars with all types of power. It's hard enough to decide which one to drive in the morning! (Note* All the 60's cars listed are restored and are not just sitting, rotting away.) If only I had a bigger garage...

How do insurure(sp) all those cars at the same time?

The more cars you insure, the cheaper it gets per car. The isnurance company knows you can't exactly drive all those cars at once. Chances are they'll only have to pay for one damaged car whether you own one or a dozen (unless yor garage blows up or something), and they take that into consideration.

CamaroRS-- how do you like your 300C? I just got back from looking at one, but it was the last one on the lot and had been sold so I couldn't drive it. It looked very nice though. The one I saw had a dishwater gray interior which I thought was a bit spartan for that type of car, but the quality was very good.

Pain, the 60's cars I have I only pay $20-90 a YEAR for full coverage. Also, same as irseg said for the others.

To answer your question, the 300C is amazing. I have never loved a sports/sedan/luxury car more in my life. This car has smooth styling, awesome power, and luxury features. This car sticks down to the road very well. (Though it is a little noisy in the back seats on the highway) I got the Mercedes silver color(Bright Silver Metallic Clearcoat) with the dark slate interior. If you are interested in one, I would definately look into getting one. It is worth it.

I had 302 AWHP in my eclipse before the engine died... now I've got a stroker kit that upped my engine from 2L to 2.37L, so however much more power that gives me... I dunno. Haven't had a chance to dyno it yet.