In some more responsible groups of enthusiasts, it is more fun to drive a slow car fast...than to have to drive a fast car slow.
why do cars have so much horsepower?
- Thread starter edwardh1
- Start date
- Status
My guess is that every manufacturer could offer a 200hp V6 engine, but if you drive it in the same fashion as the 300hp version, your fuel economy would essentially be the same. And if given choice, how many customers would choose the 200hp version if they could have the 300hp version for the same money?
Careful what you wish for. There are plenty of small cars available today that just barely scrape 100hp, but does anybody commenting on too much HP have one?
OP seem to be ignorant that the car he has, had one of the more powerful engines at the time in the segment, and had more HP than a lot of V8s from the 80s.
By some replies, it seems like "too much HP" really means "more than what my current ride has" because we all know we make the best decisions and it is others that are foolish.
OP seem to be ignorant that the car he has, had one of the more powerful engines at the time in the segment, and had more HP than a lot of V8s from the 80s.
By some replies, it seems like "too much HP" really means "more than what my current ride has" because we all know we make the best decisions and it is others that are foolish.
+1 KrisZ
Why dont cars have enough HP should be the real question.
I only read the first 20 or so posts in this thread. The answer is actually pretty simple. Horsepower has been selling new cars for over 100 years. Doesn't matter the reason why. More horsepower means more sales which means more $$$$$$ for the automaker.
Don
Don
I like my underpowered cars pretty good. I dream of owning a Mercedes 240D and riding down the interstate at the legal minimum of 45 MPH, puffing out giant clouds of black smoke. No radio. Just listening to that engine. Actually, my truck does a prettt good job at that.
Most people are in such a hurry and drive like homicidal maniacs in their overpowered egomobiles.
Most people are in such a hurry and drive like homicidal maniacs in their overpowered egomobiles.
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
In some more responsible groups of enthusiasts, it is more fun to drive a slow car fast...than to have to drive a fast car slow.
Know what's better than both? Driving a fast car fast.
In some more responsible groups of enthusiasts, it is more fun to drive a slow car fast...than to have to drive a fast car slow.
Know what's better than both? Driving a fast car fast.
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
In some more responsible groups of enthusiasts, it is more fun to drive a slow car fast...than to have to drive a fast car slow.
Know what's better than both? Driving a fast car fast.
Know what's better than that? Riding a fast Motorcycle fast.
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
In some more responsible groups of enthusiasts, it is more fun to drive a slow car fast...than to have to drive a fast car slow.
Know what's better than both? Driving a fast car fast.
Know what's better than that? Riding a fast Motorcycle fast.
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
In some more responsible groups of enthusiasts, it is more fun to drive a slow car fast...than to have to drive a fast car slow.
Know what's better than both? Driving a fast car fast.
Know what's better than that? Riding a fast Motorcycle fast.
But why do bikes have so much horsepower?
:screwy:
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
In some more responsible groups of enthusiasts, it is more fun to drive a slow car fast...than to have to drive a fast car slow.
Know what's better than both? Driving a fast car fast.
Know what's better than that? Riding a fast Motorcycle fast.
But why do bikes have so much horsepower?
:screwy:
I can say that my Club Sport made me a better driver in that with a low powered car simply you can't afford to make any mistakes on the track. Blow a corner and it will cost you for the rest of the lap- at least. Horsepower covers a multitude of sins.
Why not? The cars of today are much more efficient than those old boats. I was watching Motorweek Retro reviews on Youtube today and oddly was watching some old wagon reviews from the 80's. Roughly comparable to today's smaller CUV's. Somehow the Colt Wagon and K wagon came to mind. Right around 100 hp and 23-27 MPG on the highway. 0-60 in 10-12 second, 1/4 mile in 18 secs.
I just did a little under a week in a 17 Escape 1.5, AWD. Safer, more creature comforts, 179 hp and got 26 MPG on a long highway cruise, 23 in mixed driving. Not sure about 0-60 but it felt adequate.
I'll take the more power for the same economy any day.
I just did a little under a week in a 17 Escape 1.5, AWD. Safer, more creature comforts, 179 hp and got 26 MPG on a long highway cruise, 23 in mixed driving. Not sure about 0-60 but it felt adequate.
I'll take the more power for the same economy any day.
Originally Posted By: 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:
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...
The old "real" SBC 350 made some Kick Butte Montana bottem end - I never felt that on the new engines. I know, Ive built more than a few flavours of SBC in the late seventies and early eighties.
AFAIC SBC is dead.
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:
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...
The old "real" SBC 350 made some Kick Butte Montana bottem end - I never felt that on the new engines. I know, Ive built more than a few flavours of SBC in the late seventies and early eighties.
AFAIC SBC is dead.
Last edited:
I see you slow dolts on the road - 99% of you.
I'm the guy blowing past you with my wholly inadequate 170 HP 3700LB vehicle.
105MPH on the interstate middle lane today and 35 mph exit at 90MPH.
Brakes seemed a bit toasty when I pulled into my space at work
Yeah you need more HP. And you will do WHAT with it? Nothing.
I'm the guy blowing past you with my wholly inadequate 170 HP 3700LB vehicle.
105MPH on the interstate middle lane today and 35 mph exit at 90MPH.
Brakes seemed a bit toasty when I pulled into my space at work
Yeah you need more HP. And you will do WHAT with it? Nothing.
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I see you slow dolts on the road - 99% of you.
I'm the guy blowing past you with my wholly inadequate 170 HP 3700LB vehicle.
105MPH on the interstate middle lane today and 35 mph exit at 90MPH.
Brakes seemed a bit toasty when I pulled into my space at work
Yeah you need more HP. And you will do WHAT with it? Nothing.
I was wondering why all those Rogues and Crosstreks were blowing by me at HPDEs.
Good to know!
I see you slow dolts on the road - 99% of you.
I'm the guy blowing past you with my wholly inadequate 170 HP 3700LB vehicle.
105MPH on the interstate middle lane today and 35 mph exit at 90MPH.
Brakes seemed a bit toasty when I pulled into my space at work
Yeah you need more HP. And you will do WHAT with it? Nothing.
I was wondering why all those Rogues and Crosstreks were blowing by me at HPDEs.
Good to know!
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.
AGREED to most of the above.
But, what did the 'sacred' S62 weigh fully 'dressed' vs. the same for an LSx (not to mention the effect of that valve train on CoG
)?
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.
AGREED to most of the above.
But, what did the 'sacred' S62 weigh fully 'dressed' vs. the same for an LSx (not to mention the effect of that valve train on CoG
Originally Posted By: eyeofthetiger
I like my underpowered cars pretty good. I dream of owning a Mercedes 240D and riding down the interstate at the legal minimum of 45 MPH, puffing out giant clouds of black smoke. No radio. Just listening to that engine. Actually, my truck does a prettt good job at that.
Most people are in such a hurry and drive like homicidal maniacs in their overpowered egomobiles.
I had a 1980 59 HP 200D that would and did do 135 kmh (80 mph) all day long. No black smoke and all the way on the floor for 600km each way every weekend and on 0w30 A3/B4 to boot.
I like my underpowered cars pretty good. I dream of owning a Mercedes 240D and riding down the interstate at the legal minimum of 45 MPH, puffing out giant clouds of black smoke. No radio. Just listening to that engine. Actually, my truck does a prettt good job at that.
Most people are in such a hurry and drive like homicidal maniacs in their overpowered egomobiles.
I had a 1980 59 HP 200D that would and did do 135 kmh (80 mph) all day long. No black smoke and all the way on the floor for 600km each way every weekend and on 0w30 A3/B4 to boot.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
AGREED to most of the above.
But, what did the 'sacred' S62 weigh fully 'dressed' vs. the same for an LSx (not to mention the effect of that valve train on CoG
)?
It was mostly aluminum so I imagine the weight penalty wasn't as bad as it looked, like with a Modular, LOL, but yeah, I'm sure it was heavier, and it also took up a lot more space!
AGREED to most of the above.
But, what did the 'sacred' S62 weigh fully 'dressed' vs. the same for an LSx (not to mention the effect of that valve train on CoG
It was mostly aluminum so I imagine the weight penalty wasn't as bad as it looked, like with a Modular, LOL, but yeah, I'm sure it was heavier, and it also took up a lot more space!
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: eyeofthetiger
I like my underpowered cars pretty good. I dream of owning a Mercedes 240D and riding down the interstate at the legal minimum of 45 MPH, puffing out giant clouds of black smoke. No radio. Just listening to that engine. Actually, my truck does a prettt good job at that.
Most people are in such a hurry and drive like homicidal maniacs in their overpowered egomobiles.
I had a 1980 59 HP 200D that would and did do 135 kmh (80 mph) all day long. No black smoke and all the way on the floor for 600km each way every weekend and on 0w30 A3/B4 to boot.
Yeah, I've done 90 in a 240D automatic before. I just took a while.
I guess I want one that is worn out and runs too rich.
Originally Posted By: eyeofthetiger
I like my underpowered cars pretty good. I dream of owning a Mercedes 240D and riding down the interstate at the legal minimum of 45 MPH, puffing out giant clouds of black smoke. No radio. Just listening to that engine. Actually, my truck does a prettt good job at that.
Most people are in such a hurry and drive like homicidal maniacs in their overpowered egomobiles.
I had a 1980 59 HP 200D that would and did do 135 kmh (80 mph) all day long. No black smoke and all the way on the floor for 600km each way every weekend and on 0w30 A3/B4 to boot.
Yeah, I've done 90 in a 240D automatic before. I just took a while.
I guess I want one that is worn out and runs too rich.
Originally Posted By: edwardh1
My 99 maxima around 200 HP, new maxima 300. why is that? no weight increase that needs extra 100 hp.
I would rather have old size engine and better mileage. what next 350 HP in the same car?
crazy
Because...its fun.
My 99 maxima around 200 HP, new maxima 300. why is that? no weight increase that needs extra 100 hp.
I would rather have old size engine and better mileage. what next 350 HP in the same car?
crazy
Because...its fun.
- Status
Similar threads
