The Second Golden Age of Horsepower

[rodinator1234]

I agree completely. This is the golden age of hp. Not the second. The new modern cars are so much better, better all around braking, handling, mpg. better all around. Go drive a new Mustang 302 Boss and then tell me a 70 Boss 302 could even carry it's water. I'm 40 something. I've had the chance to drive and ride in many muscle cars and race with many. The modern cars in most any case will destroy the old stuff. Get better mileage and handle much better ride better. I watch all the classic car auctions and think which cars today in 30 years will be highly sought after like a original Boss car or a original Shelby.

BTW I have a 2013 Focus ST2, I sold my Camaro and bought this car, I have no regrets. What a fantastic little performance car. Good mileage and a absolute hoot to drive. There was nothing like this car in the 60's.

 

[hattaresguy]

Modern motors really are amazing. Not only do they put out all kinds of HP but they will do it with virtually no maintenance for hundreds of thousands of miles.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Modern motors really are amazing. Not only do they put out all kinds of HP but they will do it with virtually no maintenance for hundreds of thousands of miles.


So true. The 60's and 70's cars were considered worn out at 90-100k miles. By todays standards, thats broken in.

Fuel injection has really made rings and cylinders last twice as long.

 

[NeilR]

My parents recently bought a '14 KIA Optima with the 2.4L I-4, it makes 200hp. My '97 4Runner only made 186hp when it was new, and it's a midsize SUV!

So yes, I do think we are in the second golden age of horsepower, when you can buy a $21k korean bargain car that makes 200hp. Not to mention the new SRT Hellcat twins...

 

[rjundi]

Enjoy it while it lasts(I am).

Fuel will spike and folks will be sent clamoring back to the most efficient engines again. It is simply amazing to me a 4 cylinder Accord Sport does 0-60 in 6.6 seconds with a manual and achieve decent MPG.

Alternatively electric motors once power gets sorted are coming and they do amazing things(Tesla)!

 

[fdcg27]

I look at this a little differently.
Most of the packaged muscle cars of the 'sixties weren't all that fast.
They were typically fourteen second cars. Faster than the typical V-8 family sedan of the era, but not really fast.
Much faster cars could be ordered by those who knew what was available and were willing to pay for it.
There were things like the COPO cars, for example, where GM would build engine and car combos not listed as available as long as everything would fit and bolt together.
There were also expensive and strong engines that were listed as having only a little more power than the standard big-blocks for a lot more money.
Things like the 426 Hemi, the alloy BBC and the R-code 427 Ford made a whole lot more power than the standard big-blocks, but weren't rated as such and were quite costly.
These killer engines were available, though.
Today, if you want a fast car, there are no secrets.
You just go to a dealer and buy one.
A thirteen or even twelve second car is readily available for reasonable dollars with no ordering or tuning knowledge required.

 

[artificialist]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Modern motors really are amazing. Not only do they put out all kinds of HP but they will do it with virtually no maintenance for hundreds of thousands of miles.


So true. The 60's and 70's cars were considered worn out at 90-100k miles. By todays standards, thats broken in.

Fuel injection has really made rings and cylinders last twice as long.

I'm not so sure it was the fuel injection, although it helped.
Did the Fuelie Corvette last a long time? How about the VW Squareback?
At the same time, think of all the carb'd Ford 300 engines that went for ages with just basic maintenence.

I think better alloys, more precise machining, and better performing fuels and oils are what make newer engines last.

Another thing to remember is that in the 1960s and part of the 1970s, ash from leaded gasoline was a factor in causing wear.

 

[rodinator1234]

The Fuelie Corvette/Belair were a mechanical injection experiment. Mechanical injection does not work well on a street driven car that has to operate at a variety of RPM/throttle configurations. Mechanical injection is a full throttle/high RPM system that is extremely difficult to make work on a street car. If you have ever looked at how a Fuelie mechanical injection system worked it's no wonder that so many of them were stripped off, they simply didn't work well. They had a rudimentary MAF that was like a upside down spoon in the air flow to modulate the fuel return system. It was a novelty at best. And no the engines in a mechanical injection system do not last like a EFI injected engine. There is no real good way to control the AFR, so it's constantly rich at part throttle dumping fuel into the engine. That was the idea of the spoon the less air flow the more fuel bypassed back to the tank the more air flow the spoon closed off the bypass allowing more fuel to the injectors.

 

[Shannow]

^+1

No way you can compare an older mechanical fuel injection with a modern, lambda controlled set-up.

 

[jimbrewer]

The leap forward in hp was fairly abrupt and recent.

My 98 BMW 750il was v-12 and made I think, 327 hp. It was considered fairly outrageous in its day. Tupac Shakur was murdered while driving one. In the space of about 10 years, pretty much any sedan not trying to max out mpgs has that kind of power to weight ratio.

 

[ls1mike]

While I agree with a lot a stuff said here, you are missing something. Big numbers does not mean it performs well. Lets take a 305 HP rated car now and compare it to say my 325 rated car. In 2000 a stock Trans Am with a 6 speed would bust out 13.20s at 106 to 110 mph with a 0-60 time of about 5.2 seconds all day long. There are cars rated the same now that won't touch that. The real numbers are mile per hour and 1/4 mile times. 0-60 is great too but, what happens after that? There are a lot of factors involved in making a car move out well. HP is just a number, the real test is what the car can do.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
While I agree with a lot a stuff said here, you are missing something. Big numbers does not mean it performs well. Lets take a 305 HP rated car now and compare it to say my 325 rated car. In 2000 a stock Trans Am with a 6 speed would bust out 13.20s at 106 to 110 mph with a 0-60 time of about 5.2 seconds all day long. There are cars rated the same now that won't touch that. The real numbers are mile per hour and 1/4 mile times. 0-60 is great too but, what happens after that? There are a lot of factors involved in making a car move out well. HP is just a number, the real test is what the car can do.


Exactly Mike

My old 400HP E39 has a 0-60 of 4.6 - 4.8 seconds (depending on your source) and many examples run the 1/4 @ 108-112Mph in the mid to high 12's (with some guys getting bottom 13's).

In contrast the "R-Spec" Hyundai Genesis, sporting 429HP (and referencing SteveSRT8 here, those must be some small horses! LOL) with a 0-60 of 5.1 seconds and a 13.7 second 1/4 mile at 103Mph....

(reference for the Genesis: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hyundai-genesis-r-spec-50-sedan-test-review )

And the curb weight is VERY similar. The MPH just doesn't support the HP number.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

In contrast the "R-Spec" Hyundai Genesis, sporting 429HP (and referencing SteveSRT8 here, those must be some small horses! LOL) with a 0-60 of 5.1 seconds and a 13.7 second 1/4 mile at 103Mph....

That's 429 'Hyundai' Horsepower which works out to about 350 SAE corrected HP

 

[ls1mike]

At the wheels, that would be an 18 percent loss through the drivetrain (automatic rule of thumb). That would be correct. No manufacture, as far as I know, rates their cars at the wheels. It is all at the crank.

So when you look at my WS6 it dynoed 302 bone stock, it was rated at 325. That is through a 6 speed so you figure about a 16 percent loss (manual rule of thumb). It was well more than 325 at the crank.

 

[brages]

Cars keep goin faster all the time. What's next, the demise of mechanical scoreboards in MLB?

 

[A_Harman]

My dad is buying a new Chevy Equinox. He test drove one with the 182-HP 2.4L I4, and complained that it felt underpowered. He would only go for the V6 with ~300-HP.

I can't believe it's the same dad that would NEVER buy the high-powered engine option 40 years ago. His 1972 Blazer with the 307 had about 140HP and weighed more than the Equinox.

 

[A_Harman]

Cars keep getting more and more powerful, and our roads keep getting rougher and more congested. Why can't these things be in sync?

 

[A_Harman]

GM just announced prices today for the 650HP Corvette Z06:

$79,000 base price.
$3000 carbon fiber aero kit option
$8000 ceramic brake option

Get supercar performance for $90,000 that is better than the Corvette ZR1 from 5 years ago. Imagine what the next ZR1 will be.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
My dad is buying a new Chevy Equinox. He test drove one with the 182-HP 2.4L I4, and complained that it felt underpowered. He would only go for the V6 with ~300-HP.

I can't believe it's the same dad that would NEVER buy the high-powered engine option 40 years ago. His 1972 Blazer with the 307 had about 140HP and weighed more than the Equinox.


Funny, eh? My Dad would always counsel me to never buy the standard engine on the theory that you would always be working it hard, the bigger engine would loaf and thus last longer.

He was right IME.

I think this is a great time to be here, these kind of cars won't be around for long. This is the LAST hurrah, and I'm going to be enjoying it a lot...

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
While I agree with a lot a stuff said here, you are missing something. Big numbers does not mean it performs well. Lets take a 305 HP rated car now and compare it to say my 325 rated car. In 2000 a stock Trans Am with a 6 speed would bust out 13.20s at 106 to 110 mph with a 0-60 time of about 5.2 seconds all day long. There are cars rated the same now that won't touch that. The real numbers are mile per hour and 1/4 mile times. 0-60 is great too but, what happens after that? There are a lot of factors involved in making a car move out well. HP is just a number, the real test is what the car can do.


Exactly Mike

My old 400HP E39 has a 0-60 of 4.6 - 4.8 seconds (depending on your source) and many examples run the 1/4 @ 108-112Mph in the mid to high 12's (with some guys getting bottom 13's).

In contrast the "R-Spec" Hyundai Genesis, sporting 429HP (and referencing SteveSRT8 here, those must be some small horses! LOL) with a 0-60 of 5.1 seconds and a 13.7 second 1/4 mile at 103Mph....

(reference for the Genesis: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hyundai-genesis-r-spec-50-sedan-test-review )

And the curb weight is VERY similar. The MPH just doesn't support the HP number.


BMW and Mercedes have been know to sandbag their HP ratings, Audi does as well with their new V8.

I suspect on a dyno your motor is every bit of 400hp if not a few more; and Hyundai probably hand picked a good one off the line and on its best day of its life when new it might be a tick over 400, at sea level, with iced air intakes...