why do cars have so much horsepower?

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Horsepower and efficiecy are the same thing.

Cars weigh more than ever.

Who doesn't want more power?
Because you aren't revving to 6000+ rpm all the time. That's the ONLY place that big horsepower is - right next to redline.

BITOG members in general are afraid of hurting their engines or having a bad UOA

 

[deven]

Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Originally Posted By: zzyzzx
Originally Posted By: Snagglefoot
It’s impossible to have too much horsepower!

Obligatory:

Gotta pay to play.

Have gotten tickets in 6 countries and 3 continents.

How do you pay tickets in other countries and what happens if you don't since you don't live there to begin with??

 

[RooflessVW]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Horsepower and efficiecy are the same thing.

Cars weigh more than ever.

Who doesn't want more power?

Because you aren't revving to 6000+ rpm all the time. That's the ONLY place that big horsepower is - right next to redline.

BITOG members in general are afraid of hurting their engines or having a bad UOA

Who isn't redlining all the time?

And FWIW, modern engines have more low-end torque than ever, which you most certainly do feel.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
People don't want more power. they want more usable torque.


Which is exactly why I'd take a 20 year old C5 Corvette over today's Coyote Mustangs. The Mustangs make more HP, but the Corvette's LS1 will kick it's but in low and mid RPM torque, which makes it more fun to drive (well that, and the fact that the Corvette is actually a sports car)...there's no replacement for displacement when it comes to low end torque...

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Horsepower and efficiecy are the same thing.

Cars weigh more than ever.

Who doesn't want more power?

Because you aren't revving to 6000+ rpm all the time. That's the ONLY place that big horsepower is - right next to redline.

BITOG members in general are afraid of hurting their engines or having a bad UOA

Who isn't redlining all the time?

And FWIW, modern engines have more low-end torque than ever, which you most certainly do feel.


Depends. You aren't going to get massive low end grunt from a 4 or 6 banger, no matter what you do to it. For that you need cubic inches...

 

[RooflessVW]

Volvo T6 Drive-E Is a 2.0 making 400nm at 2000rpm.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
People don't want more power. they want more usable torque.


Which is exactly why I'd take a 20 year old C5 Corvette over today's Coyote Mustangs. The Mustangs make more HP, but the Corvette's LS1 will kick it's but in low and mid RPM torque, which makes it more fun to drive (well that, and the fact that the Corvette is actually a sports car)...there's no replacement for displacement when it comes to low end torque...


Actually, with variable camshaft timing, you can provide an incredibly flat torque "curve". My E39 M5 made something like 380lb-ft of torque from just off idle until the 5250 crossover. It was ridiculous, and this was out of a 5.0L 400HP engine.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
People don't want more power. they want more usable torque.


Which is exactly why I'd take a 20 year old C5 Corvette over today's Coyote Mustangs. The Mustangs make more HP, but the Corvette's LS1 will kick it's but in low and mid RPM torque, which makes it more fun to drive (well that, and the fact that the Corvette is actually a sports car)...there's no replacement for displacement when it comes to low end torque...


Actually, with variable camshaft timing, you can provide an incredibly flat torque "curve". My E39 M5 made something like 380lb-ft of torque from just off idle until the 5250 crossover. It was ridiculous, and this was out of a 5.0L 400HP engine.


VVT will make up for some of it, but not all of it...big displacement is still the best way to achieve low end torque...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
People don't want more power. they want more usable torque.


Which is exactly why I'd take a 20 year old C5 Corvette over today's Coyote Mustangs. The Mustangs make more HP, but the Corvette's LS1 will kick it's but in low and mid RPM torque, which makes it more fun to drive (well that, and the fact that the Corvette is actually a sports car)...there's no replacement for displacement when it comes to low end torque...


Actually, with variable camshaft timing, you can provide an incredibly flat torque "curve". My E39 M5 made something like 380lb-ft of torque from just off idle until the 5250 crossover. It was ridiculous, and this was out of a 5.0L 400HP engine.


VVT will make up for some of it, but not all of it...big displacement is still the best way to achieve low end torque...


It's the easiest way, sure. But per your C5 example:

- the 5.7L LS1 made 345HP @ 5,600RPM and 350lb-ft of torque at 4,400RPM.
- the 5.0L S62 made 394HP @ 6,600RPM and 369lb-ft of torque at 3,800RPM.

So not only did the S62 make more torque, it made it at a lower RPM.

Some dyno images (poached from the web) to illustrate:

Stock LS1 with lid and catback:

Stock BMW S62:

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
But there is an emotional attribute that is used as an objective comparator ("this number is bigger than this one), that sells.


The reason it's an emotional issue is that a fast and responsive car is flat out fun. Take a Tesla Model S, P100d for a good drive and tell me you don't love that 0-60 in under 3 seconds thrill ride.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
It's the easiest way, sure. But per your C5 example:

- the 5.7L LS1 made 345HP @ 5,600RPM and 350lb-ft of torque at 4,400RPM.
- the 5.0L S62 made 394HP @ 6,600RPM and 369lb-ft of torque at 3,800RPM.

So not only did the S62 make more torque, it made it at a lower RPM.

Some dyno images (poached from the web) to illustrate:

Stock LS1 with lid and catback:

Stock BMW S62:

Those numbers are for the pre-'01 LS1. The '01 and later made a max torque of 375 ft lbs, and 300 ft lbs at just 1000 rpm...and the car only weighed 3200 lbs, which made for some fun driving...

 

[Snagglefoot]

One of the most obvious ways they achieved the horsepower numbers was to design the engine to be able to hit 6,000 rpm without blowing up. However, in most cases you can get along fine without winding it up that high, meaning you're probably dealing with only 1/2 to 2/3 of the rated power.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Kira
... Shoehorning a V6 or V8 into small cars = FOOLISHNESS.


So you're saying I should not do the LS7 conversion on my Solstice?

Dang.

 

[PeterPolyol]

Originally Posted By: Cujet

The reason it's an emotional issue is that a fast and responsive car is flat out fun.


High sales-brochure peak HP figures not always = to fast and responsive. Plenty of HP queens (see: marketing dept. comments above) out there that are sluggish and unresponsive until 4-5K RPM- mostly the NA V6's. eg. a Toyota Highlander 2GR-FE is only making about 165HP@3600RPM. It's a '270HP' engine@6500RPM. Consider the shifting/gear ratios and the engine can only put out 270HP for a very brief period of time before it's back down to 165HP and climbing again

The new Turbo engines are MUCH better to drive, as well as some of the nicely tuned hueg cube NA V8s out there.

 

[02SE]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

It's the easiest way, sure. But per your C5 example:

- the 5.7L LS1 made 345HP @ 5,600RPM and 350lb-ft of torque at 4,400RPM.
- the 5.0L S62 made 394HP @ 6,600RPM and 369lb-ft of torque at 3,800RPM.

So not only did the S62 make more torque, it made it at a lower RPM.

Some dyno images (poached from the web) to illustrate:

Stock LS1 with lid and catback:

Stock BMW S62:

Those graphs don't really tell us much. They are using different correction factors, no doubt different Dyno's, and different Dyno operators. And we have no idea if either of the Dyno operators had an agenda, which could also affect the results.


Anyway, back to the OP's question: In a still somewhat Free Country, you are free to choose the vehicle and the HP amount you want.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: grampi

Those numbers are for the pre-'01 LS1. The '01 and later made a max torque of 375 ft lbs, and 300 ft lbs at just 1000 rpm...and the car only weighed 3200 lbs, which made for some fun driving...


I'm not seeing those numbers. I see 350HP and 365lb-ft for the post '01 engine

The S62 made north of 300lb-ft just off idle IIRC, BMW used to have a nice dyno graph that showed that but I can't seem to find it.

Regardless, the point is that the DOHC VCT 400HP S62 provided more power than the LS1 stock-for-stock, and did so over a broader power band. Now of course nothing is stopping those technologies from being put on bigger engines either, and reaping the same benefits. My 6.4L has VCT, despite being a pushrod engine.

VCT allows one to move the power band around, fattening the middle so you have a more generous area where performance is near peak. This creates a better driving experience, as it prevents the engine from feeling "peaky" and you always feel like there's tons on tap.

Of course there are limits, you aren't going to make a 1L perform like a 7L, but technology can improve a smaller engine so that it behaves as good or better than one that's lower tech but a bit larger in displacement.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 02SE



Those graphs don't really tell us much. They are using different correction factors, no doubt different Dyno's, and different Dyno operators. And we have no idea if either of the Dyno operators had an agenda, which could also affect the results.


Anyway, back to the OP's question: In a still somewhat Free Country, you are free to choose the vehicle and the HP amount you want.


The graphs were provided only to show what the torque curves looked like, you can safely ignore the numbers on them. The factory-spec numbers were provided earlier in the post.

 

[andrewp1998]

worse mpg with more hp !! they need to make more diesles and hybrids!

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: grampi

Those numbers are for the pre-'01 LS1. The '01 and later made a max torque of 375 ft lbs, and 300 ft lbs at just 1000 rpm...and the car only weighed 3200 lbs, which made for some fun driving...


I'm not seeing those numbers. I see 350HP and 365lb-ft for the post '01 engine

The S62 made north of 300lb-ft just off idle IIRC, BMW used to have a nice dyno graph that showed that but I can't seem to find it.

Regardless, the point is that the DOHC VCT 400HP S62 provided more power than the LS1 stock-for-stock, and did so over a broader power band. Now of course nothing is stopping those technologies from being put on bigger engines either, and reaping the same benefits. My 6.4L has VCT, despite being a pushrod engine.

VCT allows one to move the power band around, fattening the middle so you have a more generous area where performance is near peak. This creates a better driving experience, as it prevents the engine from feeling "peaky" and you always feel like there's tons on tap.

Of course there are limits, you aren't going to make a 1L perform like a 7L, but technology can improve a smaller engine so that it behaves as good or better than one that's lower tech but a bit larger in displacement.


365 ft lbs was for the automatic, the M6 was good for 375...anyway, I get your point...

 

[redbone3]

I think the engineers figure: If we're going to turbocharge, lets really turbocharge!!!