Power needs vs. wants

[01rangerxl]

Has anyone else noticed that people really don't need nearly the amount of power than they demand?

Any car that comes out today with less than 250 HP stands a good chance of being blasted for being weak, underpowered, whatever. Personally, I have never owned anything with more than 160 HP on a good day. My first Ranger had 119 HP, my Explorer had 160 HP, and my current Ranger has 150 HP. Sounds like a pretty anemic lineup right? The thing is, I am always the a** in the left lane who is frustrated by the people in their 250 HP cars that are driving "slow." What is with the obsession with power that will never get used? Gas prices are at $3.20 a gallon here, yet it still seems like people would rather have 300 HP than 30 MPG. Why are people so insistant on having lots of power if they never really use it?

 

[MGregoir]

The most pleasant car I have driven had 170 horsepower but it had a humongous powerband so I could basiclaly keep it in high gear all the time. It'd get 22 miles per gallon at 100 mph with the AC off as well.

I want to get a Buick Allure (LaCrosse) with the 3800 Series III and 4T60-E transmission before they stop making them. The absolute perfect balance of size, comfort, driveability, fuel economy and reliability for a commuter car for me.

 

[rationull]

I agree. It's fun being able to accelerate fast but you can hardly spit these days without hitting a car that makes over 200 hp. I'm actually very satisfied with the 140 hp my civic puts out (for its weight, of course). It's no speed demon but I can still get up to speed on the short and twisty onramps we've got where I am without any problem, especially if I wind it up a little. Bottom line is for standard commuter duty, a more powerful car can't really get you places any faster (not safely anyway, with traffic) so I just don't see the point for most of the population.

For fun, I'd rather have a better handling car than one with lots of power. It's more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow, anyway.

 

[MGregoir]

One thing I find is that most of these engines rated as high as they are tend to be quite peaky. 160 horsepower from a three litre pushrod six-cylinder is a much different type of power than 160 from a 2.4 litre DOHC four cylinder. Yes, they make the same amount of power, and the four cylinder is probably more effecient making it due to higher BMEP, less frictional loss, lower weight, et cetera...but boy does it feel like it has to work a lot harder to make it and boy does it have to spin a lot faster to put it to the ground.

The engines that feel nicest to drive have that nice half-throttle pull from 1800 to about 3500 rpm. Like a draught horse, it's not fast but it isn't getting all tired out doing its job.

 

[dwendt44]

2008 is the last model year for the 3800 V-6. It's only available in that Buick since the Grand Prix has now gone bye-bye.

Being replaced by a 3.9 with VVT. Lots mor things to break or wear out.

 

[MGregoir]

I will probably buy a two year old one with a year and about 30,000 km of bumper-to-bumper warranty left (and probably in 2010, as long as this car has a body left on it, it is staying in service), they seem to be on lots for about $16,000 here and they are much less expensive to insure that way. The 2008s are really slick looking cars.

 

[RoGuE]

Originally Posted By: MGregoir
One thing I find is that most of these engines rated as high as they are tend to be quite peaky. 160 horsepower from a three litre pushrod six-cylinder is a much different type of power than 160 from a 2.4 litre DOHC four cylinder. Yes, they make the same amount of power, and the four cylinder is probably more effecient making it due to higher BMEP, less frictional loss, lower weight, et cetera...but boy does it feel like it has to work a lot harder to make it and boy does it have to spin a lot faster to put it to the ground.

The engines that feel nicest to drive have that nice half-throttle pull from 1800 to about 3500 rpm. Like a draught horse, it's not fast but it isn't getting all tired out doing its job.


That would be a little thing called torque. My 3.0L OHV making 145 HP in my old Taurus felt like it had a lot more pull than the 145HP Ecotec in my Malibu. The Malibu has 155 torque and the Taurus had 170. Plus OHV engines naturally make their power down low.

 

[MGregoir]

Even with equal amounts of rated torque, the displacement difference and cylinder layout to an extent are what makes that nice drive. Inline fours are about as bad as it gets for engine smoothness, threes are balanced in one plane but so short that they get end to end oscillation and a two is twice as bad as a four. Straight sixes, 60 degree V6s, 90 degree balanced V8s, and 60 degree V12s all have that inherent smoothness. Balance shafts and different crank layouts help but they can't totally defeat physics.

Generally the bigger displacement engine takes that much less brutality to make the torque, as the smaller displacement engine needs more cylinder pressure, and in a four cylinder you are putting that big bang in a way that's going to make things shake.

 

[saaber1]

McGregoir, Thanks for bringing up ths balance issue. Many people forget about it. I currently have a flat 4 (subaru) that is a little rough, a flat 6 (porsche) that is very smooth, and an inline 5 (volvo) which is very rough. I have had v12's and straight 6's that were very smooth and of course inline 4s which can be raspy depending on the engine.

To me this balance issue has a lot to do with the character of the car and how it feels to drive in addition to performance.

I am curious, do you know if the VW VR6 is a balanced engine? How about the VW/Bentley W12 (i.e.VR6x2)?

 

[Travis99LS1]

man i'm addicted to power..i honestly cant get enough..my Z28 is my daily driver and it makes 351hp at the rear wheels, but it gets 24mpg on the highway so its really not too bad on gas..i also spray a 100 shot of nitrous on top of that..so its pretty cool to be able to have ~450rwhp and still get decent gas mileage, and trust me..im probably one of the few people on here that truly knows the limits of there car.

 

[01rangerxl]

I can understand that. For an enthusiast it makes perfect sense. What I don't get is why 270 HP is needed in a Camry that never gets driven above maybe 70 MPH.

 

[eljefino]

Cars are so well insulated people get bored driving 65 and gradually start creeping up to 85.

Used to be one would hear tire whine and wind noise increasing exponentially. People's ears are very sensitive to pitch. Try driving 55... eh, then speed up to 75 for a couple miles then drop back to 55... suddenly it's quiet and boring.

In addition to all this power they've messed with the throttle tip in, so 20% throttle position delivers 80% of the power.

Back in the 80s if you gave your car slightly too much gas it'd downshift like a crackhead with all manual transmission controls. Now that computers and fuzzy logic are involved things are smoother which to the average jerk means he has to work harder mashing the pedal etc to feel like he's "driving."

I've had a bunch of cars, probably 2/3 stick, 1/3 automatic. My latest fix and flip beater is a 4 cyl ford contour automatic that's very difficult to maintain speed in. It's something about all the factors I listed above. The error on this car tends to slowness when I drive. One operates in almost a police pursuit mode, revving substantially, downshifting, losing TCC lockup, keeping up with traffic. Horrible programming.

 

[BuickGN]

This is why I love my turbo car. It's mild mannered in normal driving. I could take someone for a ride and they would never know it makes the power it does. Step into the gas and the other personality takes over.

 

[Challenger71]

Advertised horsepower=bhp (or brochure horsepower). In addition to that, for all this advertising on high horsepowered new vehicles for the average driver several factors come in to play in order to dupe the unaware. Such as where in the powerband does this max hp take effect, is it within the "useable" powerband? How about overall gear ratio, curb weight, weight distrubution f/r, tire & wheel size? Very few vehicles out there have the right mix IMHO. It is also likely rare that few vehicles will actually produce the advertised hp ratings, usually on the order of 10-20% below the peak number.

 

[Black Bart]

The only underpowered vehicle I have ever owned was a Bronco II that had a 2.8 V6 with a manual 5 speed man I hated that 2.8 if I wanted to pass someone it had absolutely NO guts.

I pulled the engine and dropped in a fuel injected 4.0 from a low mileage wrecked explorer and that made a world of difference.

I live in a rural area and 90 percent of my driving is on 2 lane roads.

Speed limit is 55 but normal traffic flow is 63 mph because everyone knows 65 and you get busted for speeding.

The most annulling and also dangerous thing is their is always some [censored] in a underpowered skateboard that has to try to pass everyone.
When they attempt to pass they don't have the acceleration and people have to brake to let them in.

You don't need much power to maintain a steady speed but you need a lot of power to safely pass.

For me it is more than just a safety issue I enjoy driving a nice running vehicles. I hate the sound of a 4 cylinder and riding in one with all the noise and vibration is not to my liking.
I have never owned one of them and I hope that I never do.

As far as a car having too much power I have driven sprint cars and supercharged nitrous injected cars but have never driven a car that had too much power I don't understand that thinking at all.
I guess if all a vehicle represented to them was just something to get you from point A to B then nearly anything would do and that probably explains why so many people buy them.

 

[02zx9r]

I've got 126 HP in my corolla. who wants some?

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Travis99LS1
man i'm addicted to power..i honestly cant get enough..my Z28 is my daily driver and it makes 351hp at the rear wheels, but it gets 24mpg on the highway so its really not too bad on gas..i also spray a 100 shot of nitrous on top of that..so its pretty cool to be able to have ~450rwhp and still get decent gas mileage, and trust me..im probably one of the few people on here that truly knows the limits of their car.


I also know the limits of my car.

Is yours an A4 (4L60E)??

Mine's a T56, and even with 4.10s in the rear axle it gets >30mpg on the highway (with >340 hp to the rear wheels).
So to the O.P.; I have well over 300 hp AND get over 30 mpg!!

 

[ShiningArcanine]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Has anyone else noticed that people really don't need nearly the amount of power than they demand?

Any car that comes out today with less than 250 HP stands a good chance of being blasted for being weak, underpowered, whatever. Personally, I have never owned anything with more than 160 HP on a good day. My first Ranger had 119 HP, my Explorer had 160 HP, and my current Ranger has 150 HP. Sounds like a pretty anemic lineup right? The thing is, I am always the a** in the left lane who is frustrated by the people in their 250 HP cars that are driving "slow." What is with the obsession with power that will never get used? Gas prices are at $3.20 a gallon here, yet it still seems like people would rather have 300 HP than 30 MPG. Why are people so insistant on having lots of power if they never really use it?


I read somewhere that horse power was a measure of top speed rather than actual acceleration, which makes horse power figures meaningless in the context of the fact that 80 mph is the highest speed limit that exists in the United States.

By the way, why does someone who talks about fuel economy drive a SUV? Do you prefer being terrifyingly high off the ground to getting good fuel economy?

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: MGregoir
One thing I find is that most of these engines rated as high as they are tend to be quite peaky. 160 horsepower from a three litre pushrod six-cylinder is a much different type of power than 160 from a 2.4 litre DOHC four cylinder. Yes, they make the same amount of power, and the four cylinder is probably more effecient making it due to higher BMEP, less frictional loss, lower weight, et cetera...but boy does it feel like it has to work a lot harder to make it and boy does it have to spin a lot faster to put it to the ground.

Although I didn't drive either of them, I was in a '99 Grand Prix last weekend that had the GM 3.8/4T65E combination. The engine was noisy, rough and wasn't anything special in my book.

On the other hand, I went on a long trip in a 07 Accord EX-L 4-cylinder sedan. Although it was only an I4 with 166HP, the engine was smooth and quiet even at 5k+ rpms. The transmission is extremely responsive and downshifts instantly upon light acceleration to ensure good engine response. This engine really made me reconsider a four-cylinder in my next car, even though in past posts I've sworn to never buy another four-cylinder again.

 

[Black Bart]

ShiningArcanine

I read somewhere that horse power was a measure of top speed rather than actual acceleration, which makes horse power figures meaningless in the context of the fact that 80 mph is the highest speed limit that exists in the United States.

By the way, why does someone who talks about fuel economy drive a SUV? Do you prefer being terrifyingly high off the ground to getting good fuel economy? [/quote]With all other things equal the vehicle with the most power will accelerate the fastest.

To understand it you need to understand that an engine does NOT make horsepower it only makes rotation force measured in foot pounds of torque.
Horse power is a mathematical formula
Far too many keyboard commando's that don't have a clue what they are talking about.