106 hp Yaris have over 100hp/tonnes, so it's in a same league as basic Accord or Focus.
Economy cars and horsepower.
- Thread starter OneEyeJack
- Start date
- Status
Cars need more power and torque so they can go faster that way they are put under extreme oci situations and can change oil more often. Then they can post the oci on bitog.com
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Does your 4Runner really need a V8 in it?
Well, maybe but remember it's not a high horsepower motor, only 285hp with 325 ft-lbs of torque. I tow a utility trailer weighing from 2K to 5K off road, up and down some steep hills and on soft and rutted roads in the desert, plus a horse trailer and a travel trailer. About 20-40% of the driving time is towing something or other. The 4Runner works hard for its living unlike some other sport utility vehicles and pickups.
My daily driver Honda has 76 horse power and I get around just fine. The cruising speed on the freeway is the flow of traffic which around here is anything from 70-80mph and the Honda keeps up with no trouble at all.
Try doing that in the Rocky Mountains "no trouble at all". So if I want to be able to tow a small trailer with an "econobox" does it mean I can't have a larger engine option because you say so?
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Does your 4Runner really need a V8 in it?
Well, maybe but remember it's not a high horsepower motor, only 285hp with 325 ft-lbs of torque. I tow a utility trailer weighing from 2K to 5K off road, up and down some steep hills and on soft and rutted roads in the desert, plus a horse trailer and a travel trailer. About 20-40% of the driving time is towing something or other. The 4Runner works hard for its living unlike some other sport utility vehicles and pickups.
My daily driver Honda has 76 horse power and I get around just fine. The cruising speed on the freeway is the flow of traffic which around here is anything from 70-80mph and the Honda keeps up with no trouble at all.
Try doing that in the Rocky Mountains "no trouble at all". So if I want to be able to tow a small trailer with an "econobox" does it mean I can't have a larger engine option because you say so?
I used to drive a 1999 4 banger (2.2l) Camry with an engine that produced a whopping 133 hp when it was new. To make matters worse it had an automatic transmission and it weighed 3100 pounds.
As a result I took the car to redline every single day I drove it. It was painfully slow, especially loaded with passengers. I ended up getting marginal fuel economy since I almost always had my foot through the floor. Where I live I deal with short highway on ramps and have to perform quick maneuvers on a daily basis.
When I got my Sonata turbo that all changed, I hardly go full throttle. With 269 lb-ft of torque at 1800 RPM I have no problem getting onto fast paced roads. Not to mention my Sonata only weighs around 200 pounds more than my Camry did and I get better fuel economy.
I guess the point I'm getting at is having a larger engine/more powerful allows you to use less throttle to achieve the same result.
As a result I took the car to redline every single day I drove it. It was painfully slow, especially loaded with passengers. I ended up getting marginal fuel economy since I almost always had my foot through the floor. Where I live I deal with short highway on ramps and have to perform quick maneuvers on a daily basis.
When I got my Sonata turbo that all changed, I hardly go full throttle. With 269 lb-ft of torque at 1800 RPM I have no problem getting onto fast paced roads. Not to mention my Sonata only weighs around 200 pounds more than my Camry did and I get better fuel economy.
I guess the point I'm getting at is having a larger engine/more powerful allows you to use less throttle to achieve the same result.
Originally Posted By: Swift101
I used to drive a 1999 4 banger (2.2l) Camry with an engine that produced a whopping 133 hp when it was new. To make matters worse it had an automatic transmission and it weighed 3100 pounds.
As a result I took the car to redline every single day I drove it. It was painfully slow, especially loaded with passengers. I ended up getting marginal fuel economy since I almost always had my foot through the floor. Where I live I deal with short highway on ramps and have to perform quick maneuvers on a daily basis.
When I got my Sonata turbo that all changed, I hardly go full throttle. With 269 lb-ft of torque at 1800 RPM I have no problem getting onto fast paced roads. Not to mention my Sonata only weighs around 200 pounds more than my Camry did and I get better fuel economy.
I guess the point I'm getting at is having a larger engine/more powerful allows you to use less throttle to achieve the same result.
Ever drive a Gen 4 Camry V6? Oh what a relief.
I used to drive a 1999 4 banger (2.2l) Camry with an engine that produced a whopping 133 hp when it was new. To make matters worse it had an automatic transmission and it weighed 3100 pounds.
As a result I took the car to redline every single day I drove it. It was painfully slow, especially loaded with passengers. I ended up getting marginal fuel economy since I almost always had my foot through the floor. Where I live I deal with short highway on ramps and have to perform quick maneuvers on a daily basis.
When I got my Sonata turbo that all changed, I hardly go full throttle. With 269 lb-ft of torque at 1800 RPM I have no problem getting onto fast paced roads. Not to mention my Sonata only weighs around 200 pounds more than my Camry did and I get better fuel economy.
I guess the point I'm getting at is having a larger engine/more powerful allows you to use less throttle to achieve the same result.
Ever drive a Gen 4 Camry V6? Oh what a relief.
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Does your 4Runner really need a V8 in it?
Well, maybe but remember it's not a high horsepower motor, only 285hp with 325 ft-lbs of torque. I tow a utility trailer weighing from 2K to 5K off road, up and down some steep hills and on soft and rutted roads in the desert, plus a horse trailer and a travel trailer. About 20-40% of the driving time is towing something or other. The 4Runner works hard for its living unlike some other sport utility vehicles and pickups.
My daily driver Honda has 76 horse power and I get around just fine. The cruising speed on the freeway is the flow of traffic which around here is anything from 70-80mph and the Honda keeps up with no trouble at all.
Try doing that in the Rocky Mountains "no trouble at all". So if I want to be able to tow a small trailer with an "econobox" does it mean I can't have a larger engine option because you say so?
This has nothing to do with towing a small trailer behind an econo box. How many people do that. Not many. Some cars are not recommend for towing by the factory. And you can have any kind of car you like. Why would I have any say, or even care.
I don't drive in the rocky mountains so I don't every have to consider performance at higher altitude. The highest we get here is 4,600' and the Honda does just fine and has no trouble keeping up with traffic. I do admit that these high horsepower cars accelerate right past me coming on the freeway but I don't mind at all. It must mean that they are better drivers and that's okay, too.
The topic is econo boxes and engine size or more correctly horsepower. Would econo cars get better mileage with less horsepower available to the driver?
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Does your 4Runner really need a V8 in it?
Well, maybe but remember it's not a high horsepower motor, only 285hp with 325 ft-lbs of torque. I tow a utility trailer weighing from 2K to 5K off road, up and down some steep hills and on soft and rutted roads in the desert, plus a horse trailer and a travel trailer. About 20-40% of the driving time is towing something or other. The 4Runner works hard for its living unlike some other sport utility vehicles and pickups.
My daily driver Honda has 76 horse power and I get around just fine. The cruising speed on the freeway is the flow of traffic which around here is anything from 70-80mph and the Honda keeps up with no trouble at all.
Try doing that in the Rocky Mountains "no trouble at all". So if I want to be able to tow a small trailer with an "econobox" does it mean I can't have a larger engine option because you say so?
This has nothing to do with towing a small trailer behind an econo box. How many people do that. Not many. Some cars are not recommend for towing by the factory. And you can have any kind of car you like. Why would I have any say, or even care.
I don't drive in the rocky mountains so I don't every have to consider performance at higher altitude. The highest we get here is 4,600' and the Honda does just fine and has no trouble keeping up with traffic. I do admit that these high horsepower cars accelerate right past me coming on the freeway but I don't mind at all. It must mean that they are better drivers and that's okay, too.
The topic is econo boxes and engine size or more correctly horsepower. Would econo cars get better mileage with less horsepower available to the driver?
Better aerodynamics and other friction-reducing strategies would have a far greater effect on highway MPG than raw horsepower. Turns out compacts can get the same or better highway fuel economy than subcompacts since they're longer. That helps the air stay attached to the car for longer, which reduces drag.
Our two cars get pretty good fuel economy. We take the larger and more powerful Cruze on long trips since it gets better fuel economy by about 6-7 mpg, and has more passing power when needed.
Our two cars get pretty good fuel economy. We take the larger and more powerful Cruze on long trips since it gets better fuel economy by about 6-7 mpg, and has more passing power when needed.
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
The topic is econo boxes and engine size or more correctly horsepower. Would econo cars get better mileage with less horsepower available to the driver?
That's not what I got from the original post, I thought you were ranting.
To answer your question, smaller engine displacement doesn't necessary mean better fuel economy.
For example, for mostly city driving, too small of an engine will actually decrease the fuel economy, like others stated, because the engine has to rev higher to accelerate. If you look at some compact cars offered in Europe, like Ford Focus, Mazda 3 etc, but with smaller engines, 1.2-1.4L, you will notice that their city fuel economy is very similar to the NA counterparts with larger engine.
For highway usage, a smaller engine can have significant fuel savings, provided that it is geared properly which is mostly not the case.
The topic is econo boxes and engine size or more correctly horsepower. Would econo cars get better mileage with less horsepower available to the driver?
That's not what I got from the original post, I thought you were ranting.
To answer your question, smaller engine displacement doesn't necessary mean better fuel economy.
For example, for mostly city driving, too small of an engine will actually decrease the fuel economy, like others stated, because the engine has to rev higher to accelerate. If you look at some compact cars offered in Europe, like Ford Focus, Mazda 3 etc, but with smaller engines, 1.2-1.4L, you will notice that their city fuel economy is very similar to the NA counterparts with larger engine.
For highway usage, a smaller engine can have significant fuel savings, provided that it is geared properly which is mostly not the case.
Originally Posted By: Olas
The vehicle price means nothing, weight and gearing determine torque needs.
Horsepower is only a function of torque but you didnt specify an average RPM.
Of course, but you know the old saying: Horsepower sells cars; torque wins races.
The vehicle price means nothing, weight and gearing determine torque needs.
Horsepower is only a function of torque but you didnt specify an average RPM.
Of course, but you know the old saying: Horsepower sells cars; torque wins races.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I've long said that no car NEEDS more than about 130-140 hp. I base that on a half million miles of use of MB diesels down to as low as 67 hp. I can cruise fine in my 67 hp, 3400lb 240D. That includes merging and accelerating, which some think demands a v6 "for safety".
It's also why hybrid and turbos are great. A little extra when needed, less the rest of the time, and perhaps none when stopped.
Nothing says the poor Yaris was at WOT ridiculously raucous.
The 240D has something that makes up for low HP rating, ample torque at low rpm due to diesel engine. Not exactly valid to state 67HP as reasonable # without that major tid bit....
The idea of V6 required is not as valid in most folks minds given sales pretty low in top selling vehicles when an option. 4 cylinders have come a long way offering incredible MPG with power curves at great starting prices($20k). Hybrid/turbo stuff is still pricey.
That's why I said 130 hp. So there can be enough torque.
We took a 97 Plymouth breeze with the 132 hp, 2.0 engine to 200k-ish miles as a family car, so I've got some experience with gassers. Ditto with my 318i, though it was lighter.
Both are faster than my 240 with its "ample" torque
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I've long said that no car NEEDS more than about 130-140 hp. I base that on a half million miles of use of MB diesels down to as low as 67 hp. I can cruise fine in my 67 hp, 3400lb 240D. That includes merging and accelerating, which some think demands a v6 "for safety".
It's also why hybrid and turbos are great. A little extra when needed, less the rest of the time, and perhaps none when stopped.
Nothing says the poor Yaris was at WOT ridiculously raucous.
The 240D has something that makes up for low HP rating, ample torque at low rpm due to diesel engine. Not exactly valid to state 67HP as reasonable # without that major tid bit....
The idea of V6 required is not as valid in most folks minds given sales pretty low in top selling vehicles when an option. 4 cylinders have come a long way offering incredible MPG with power curves at great starting prices($20k). Hybrid/turbo stuff is still pricey.
That's why I said 130 hp. So there can be enough torque.
We took a 97 Plymouth breeze with the 132 hp, 2.0 engine to 200k-ish miles as a family car, so I've got some experience with gassers. Ditto with my 318i, though it was lighter.
Both are faster than my 240 with its "ample" torque
"The topic is econo boxes and engine size or more correctly horsepower. Would econo cars get better mileage with less horsepower available to the driver?"
And the answer is always yes. The most fuel efficient car is almost always the car with a motor sized to run at peak torque and mid rpm. This topic sure went off the rails...lol
And the answer is always yes. The most fuel efficient car is almost always the car with a motor sized to run at peak torque and mid rpm. This topic sure went off the rails...lol
- Status
Similar threads
