Horsepower. Less is sometimes more!

[TFB1]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Instant power?
Grand Marquis with the shuffle box transmission?
I've driven a couple of CVPIs, and they aren't at all fast.
A good running four cylinder Accord of the last decade or so would leave any 4.6 for dead, especially at more than city street speeds.
They do make decent taxis, though.


Take a look at my sig, the Marauder has a roots type supercharger and yes it does have "instant power" at any speed...

 

[meep]

The transmission makes a big difference to me. An underpowered stick, I can live with just fine. an underpowered auto kills the vehicle for me.

also, if it's going to be underpowered, the engine needs to have good manners when it's revved up and reaching for the sky. Nobody wants to grab 3rd and put it down if it sounds like it's in pain, thrashing about under the hood, killjoy. Rev a little honda, nissan, subie up there, a-ok. The 1.8L ford I had from the 80's, the 2.5L chryco my x had from the 90's, no... no good.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: stang5
try passing a semi up hill on a two lane highway in 150 hp 5000 lbs suv it'll make your toes curl...


The problem is the 5000lb, not the 150hp.

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: stang5
try passing a semi up hill on a two lane highway in 150 hp 5000 lbs suv it'll make your toes curl...


The problem is the 5000lb, not the 150hp.


Agreed. Either of our 3000 lb or less cars have little problem doing this with less than 150 hp. But they're also not lugging around an extra ton in weight.

 

[supton]

I dunno. My 140hp 3,000lb Jetta "feels" faster/better than our 189hp 3,400lb(?) Camry. I wound the Camry out one day, and it didn't really feel any faster than the extra 50hp would indicate. Probably because of the torque in my Jetta, I guess; better area under the curve. The Camry certainly is joyless in being wailed on.

Regardless, for commuter cars, both are about right for highway driving. Never need to downshift. Would not care to have less low end horsepower, though, if you ask me. I like pressing the throttle and getting response versus dropping two gears and winding it out like a banshee.

 

[dwcopple]

power to weight ratio is the bottom line here...

 

[gfh77665]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: stang5
try passing a semi up hill on a two lane highway in 150 hp 5000 lbs suv it'll make your toes curl...


The problem is the 5000lb, not the 150hp.


Well, some vehicles just are going to weigh more. Neither the hp or GVW is wrong, its just the wrong mating.

See my earlier post about the 150 hp Dodge Caravan. Great van, just too little hp.

 

[meep]

maybe choosing not to pass a semi on an incline....

 

[Jarlaxle]

How about 150hp and 35,000lbs? In two words: putt...putt.

 

[Cujet]

I'm a HP nut, but I also find that a modest output engine that's willing and fun is often the most enjoyable

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Everybody should get an instantaneous / average mpg gauge for their vehicle. You will soon lose the appetite to use all of your horses.


I was going to get the Auto Meter Eco gauge, but decided I just do not want to know what it's burning at WOT, or during stop and go in traffic.

In any case I, for one, will NEVER "lose the appetite" for using ALL of the available ponies/torque (when/where 'appropriate'), as this is one of my few, small pleasures in life, and as I've stated previously, I do not have any other expensive hobbies/bad habits/vices (i.e; NO; gambling, or alcohol, tobacco, drug, excess food consumption, or even debt for that matter) like so many others in this land.
So paying for more fuel than others with anemic-mobiles does not hurt/bother me as much as it does those who DO have those added 'expenses', or are otherwise psychotically/austerely frugal.

Besides, on the highway at steady state speeds, this thing does A OK as far as MPG goes, thank you very much, relatively low cd/frontal area, .50 OD 6th, and relatively low in the rev range torque band!

 

[SteveSRT8]

Fuel slurping big engines are already penalized by taxes. They pay huge taxes at purchase and tons more on every gallon of fuel they consume. They also cost more to insure, more to maintain, etc. I could go on...

I would never change a thing. It's a personal choice, and one of the few left.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: NateDN10
It has often been said that it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than to drive a fast car slow.

That is because those people have not actually driven a fast car.

Most of them will NEVER get this, Mike, and as has been the case, can/will only criticize you for even saying it.

(Maybe truly fast cars scare them way too much, I don't know?

)

 

[fdcg27]

I was having a little fun with you.
I'm sure that your Marauder is truly fast.
That car would offer instant power.
How much do you use it?
How painful is it at the gas station?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: NateDN10
It has often been said that it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than to drive a fast car slow.

That is because those people have not actually driven a fast car.

Most of them will NEVER get this, Mike, and as has been the case, can/will only criticize you for even saying it.

(Maybe truly fast cars scare them way too much, I don't know?

)


Yet again: my wife enjoyed driving her 65HP Festiva as much as her 765HP Grand National. Wow, does she miss that roller skate!

 

[SS1970chrysler]

My '62 Lesabre has no trouble merging.

 

[Spazdog]

My 195hp rated 1965 Impala 283 2bbl, two speed didn't have any trouble merging either.

My Oldsmobile Regency with a larger 307 cu in V8, 4speed, and 4bbl did.
Entrance ramps better be long. Passing on a 2-lane highway? You had better be sure.

 

[wander2039]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: NateDN10
It has often been said that it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than to drive a fast car slow.

That is because those people have not actually driven a fast car.

Most of them will NEVER get this, Mike, and as has been the case, can/will only criticize you for even saying it.

(Maybe truly fast cars scare them way too much, I don't know?

)


Yet again: my wife enjoyed driving her 65HP Festiva as much as her 765HP Grand National. Wow, does she miss that roller skate!


If she had the 88 it was 58hp.. unless you had the FI swap. But I've had both FI's and the carb'd version does feel quicker. Acceleration is almost instantaneous versus the FI models.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: NateDN10
It has often been said that it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than to drive a fast car slow.

That is because those people have not actually driven a fast car.

Most of them will NEVER get this, Mike, and as has been the case, can/will only criticize you for even saying it.

(Maybe truly fast cars scare them way too much, I don't know?

)


Oh, I've driven truly fast vehicles.

Rather ridden truly fast.

I rode a modified GPz750 turbo. It would either point the front tire skyward as if the hand of the Almighty Himself had grabbed it or it would try to incinerate the skinny 130/80/18 rear tire. (my 400 cc 4 cylinder Suzuki has a 160 wide tire for comparison)
I've ridden a lot of open class bikes, but that pipe-cleaner framed, skinny tired, boosted 3/4 liter legitimately scared me.

No thanks. I'll take a 250 Ninja and be able to ride it 10/10ths a lot of the time

 

[meep]

the thing i'm waiting for... in my own garage... is a turbo.

the 4.7L tundra is the fastest vehicle I've owned. Except that once I hit 75 the rear does not feel as planted, and on some interstate curves that I'd commonly shoot right through in a sedan, we slow down. I won't go over 75 in it and once you break 60-65 you can feel the mpg just drop. But off the line, that thing is //quick//. and it's saved my butt twice, by my own clumsiness, when I pulled out at the wrong time and had to skoot fast. But really what I enjoy the most about that torque-y 8 is that I hardly ever break 2k rpm. I just don't. Once it warms up and lockup activates, I cruise around all day below 1600. I'd be a perfect diesel candidate... so most days I end up relying on torque, and about half its rated power for merging.

So I don't need a large engine, but having the power on tap is nice.

When I was looking for a replacement for the jeep, I came across a used S60 with the turbo. I liked the car, loved loved loved the powerplant, but it just was not going to be practical. That aside, the engine made power everywhere. It made it down low, and it'd darn near tear the transaxle out of the car (with unholy torque steer added) up high. (they could have done a much better job with the torque steer and shift management). A lot of power out of that smaller, solid-feeling little engine.

Another example that blew me away was a co-workers new bmw cuv. x3? 4-lung turbo. Gobs of torque down below 2k. Much respect for that driveline. For someone like me, who really just tut-tuts around town, but also carries lumber, firewood, tools, music gear, multiples of kids, etc., I'd be all over it. A midsize truck with a 4cyl TDI would be perfect.... AFTER 6 years of depreciation bc there's no way I'd afford one new...