The Second Golden Age of Horsepower

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: 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.


No...he was trying to justify WANTING the big engine! Sometimes, it's worth it (offhand, there is no reason for anyone but a fleet buyer to get a 4-banger Avenger), usually not. (I'd bet that millions of 4-banger Accords have wound up 200K...and I'd bet the V6 cars have MORE problems!)

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
(I'd bet that millions of 4-banger Accords have wound up 200K...and I'd bet the V6 cars have MORE problems!)


How would one defend that bet with facts when one wanted to claim against it...your belief, your proof.

 

[brages]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
(I'd bet that millions of 4-banger Accords have wound up 200K...and I'd bet the V6 cars have MORE problems!)


How would one defend that bet with facts when one wanted to claim against it...your belief, your proof.


Well you could compare Acura TL reliability with Accord reliability, since the TL is very similar to the Accord, but they are all V6.

Anyway, the Honda Accord V6 DOES have several trouble spots, whereas the 4-cyl is extremely reliable. And many Accords had marginal transmissions that logically would be expected to last longer without having to deal with V6 torque.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
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 italicized above is on a BAD "air" day (high temps/humidity/density altitude/etc.), on an un-prepped launch pad, stock tires, and an average driver.

The bolded is for EMPHASIS!

And, contrary to popular Nippon and Euro fanboy belief, they do NOT handle, or brake, all that badly either, even stock.
With a few well placed, and thought out mods, they can run rings around supposedly much more 'superior handling' (AND costing) products from either Europe, or the Far East.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: brages
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
(I'd bet that millions of 4-banger Accords have wound up 200K...and I'd bet the V6 cars have MORE problems!)


How would one defend that bet with facts when one wanted to claim against it...your belief, your proof.


Well you could compare Acura TL reliability with Accord reliability, since the TL is very similar to the Accord, but they are all V6.

Anyway, the Honda Accord V6 DOES have several trouble spots, whereas the 4-cyl is extremely reliable. And many Accords had marginal transmissions that logically would be expected to last longer without having to deal with V6 torque.


The V6 Accord transaxle problems are well-known!

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I like driving 60's cars better than most of todays plastic wagons.
I do agree that calling a subcompact that runs 9 sec 0-60 slow is silly. My new Nissan has tons of usable torque for a 1.6 - it easily out torqued the Honda Fit in normal. spirited driving.
Cost out the door = $12,500. Thing doesn't handle too well though - combo of cheap conti tires and a front end alignment required.



How long till your new Nissan starts knocking? :3

 

[Volvohead]

Gentlemen, don't forget about torque. Especially on a 0-60 romp, torque, and when it starts coming on, is more important than max BHP a lot of the time. Losing a couple car lengths right off the line is really hard to make up.

Horsepower, at least on a car, is a bigger factor once you start climbing up the speedometer.

Still, some of these advertised HP numbers on the new vehicles are getting pretty lofty.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Gentlemen, don't forget about torque. Especially on a 0-60 romp, torque, and when it starts coming on, is more important than max BHP a lot of the time. Losing a couple car lengths right off the line is really hard to make up.

Horsepower, at least on a car, is a bigger factor once you start climbing up the speedometer.

Still, some of these advertised HP numbers on the new vehicles are getting pretty lofty.


The newer GTDI engines have that, at least the Ecoboost engines! The 2.0L in my parent's Focuscape puts my old 4.0L six to shame for low end torque!

 

[FocusTi]

It's unfortunate that cars continue to bloat in weight as they advance in engine power. I'm thinking my '86 Civic Si would've been a blast with the '14 Civic Si engine shoehorned in.

 

[SteveSRT8]

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.



LOL, I remember that post! My neighbor actually called me out when he got the car. Boy was he surprised. I thought his was just a dog, but they simply do not get up and go like they should. Doesn't do good on gas either. Pretty good 0-60 done on gearing, but to trip the lights at real speed takes POWER.

As you guys know, trap speed is the number that rarely lies, as it is almost unaffected by the driver's skill at launching the car. Back in the old daze we always said if it couldn't trap 100 mph or better then it wasn't really a 'runner'.

These days smaller cars are at or near the magic number easily...

 

[Ducman]

The weight increase has a lot to do with improved safety systems/design and luxury appointments like electric powered everything.

It's possible we will start to see another age emerge as the weight numbers start to come down because the manufacturers are starting to work out lighter and cheaper ways to go about it in the pursuit of better economy. Electric assisted steering comes to mind.

 

[jeepman3071]

Horsepower isn't everything, especially in modern bloated vehicles. Yes, a family sedan can have 290 hp, but it also has to be revved to 7,000 RPM to achieve that power output. I find many newer vehicles to be mind numbing to drive. They have no low end torque at all. In order to get them moving from a stop light you have to rev them out.

I think the problem is marketing. Higher HP numbers sound good on paper, and that is what the auto manufacturers want. 700 hp is more than 600 hp, so it must be better right? The problem is, we can't use all of this HP unless we take our vehicles to the track. We keep making our vehicles capable of higher speeds, yet we aren't allowed to go above a certain speed on public roads.

 

[sciphi]

I'm liking the trend to boosted engines. They might not have the raw power. What they do have is a meaty torque curve where it's often used. And, when the need for power is gone, the engine is back to sipping fuel like the smaller engine it is. If folks fuel and drive those engines correctly, they're capable of a good bit of frugal fun.

 

[hattaresguy]

Mmm turbo charged!

Boosted engines are nothing new, back in the 80's you had Saab, Volvo, Porsche, Ferrari, and Mercedes in the diesel form. Bentley even got on the band wagon. Manufactures are now just forced to use them to get their CAFE numbers up.

Lots of power down low if done right.

 

[brages]

Originally Posted By: FocusTi
It's unfortunate that cars continue to bloat in weight as they advance in engine power. I'm thinking my '86 Civic Si would've been a blast with the '14 Civic Si engine shoehorned in.


Well, they are getting much safer, quieter, more luxurious and smoother riding with all that bloat.

 

[Benzadmiral]

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.

The same engine in my Regal does fine -- though I have to put my foot in it sometimes; the engine doesn't really get the bit between its teeth until it's turning 3K rpm. But the Regal weighs some 3600 lbs., the Equinox about 3925. So yes, I can see the Equinox w/ 2.4 as underpowered.

 

[rodinator1234]

I'm not sure I agree with the have to rev the snot out of it either modern engine comment. Have you driven a Ecoboost truck or car? They are torque monsters with maximum available torque available very low in the RPM range. For example my mom has a 1.6 Ecoboost Fusion tons of torque drives marvelously. My 2.0 Ecoboost Focus St tons of torque low. It all depends on the design of the engine. But go test drive a Ecoboost F150 then tell me it doesn't have stump pulling torque, that engine is amazing, my next purchase for sure.

 

[Volvohead]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
. . . What they do have is a meaty torque curve where it's often used. . . .


Absolutely. 355 ft/lbs at 3,000 rpm, with 300+ ft/lbs continuing past 6,000 -- from a tiny 2.5L engine. That is VERY usable and meaningful power. And that's from a decade ago. The new ones should be even better.

But hattaresguy has it right. EB is really nothing new. Olds and Chevy were offering turbos in the early 60s. Ford was dropping four banger turbos into T-Birds in the mid '80s, the last time turbos were IN.

Some makers like the Swedes never stopped using them. Owners of these vehicles have come to expect high output to displacement ratios as normal.

But it's a cyclical thing with the industry generally. Right now turbos are again IN.

So we get to hear all the same praises from 30 & 50 years ago all over again.

 

[HangFire]

When comparing to old musclecars, remember that a few years ago Car & Driver tacitly admitted to "enhancing" the 0-60 and quarter mile times during the good old days.

Also talk to any old drag racer, and get them to tell you what it really took to get a then-new old musclecar down into the 11's and 12's- ladder bars, slicks, a new cam, carb, fuel pump, shift kit, lots of tuning, etc., etc. Few to none of the old muscle cars were really drag strip ready from the showroom. They were more potential than reality.

 

[sciphi]

The thing about turbos this time around is that we finally have the computer controls necessary to make almost-real-time decisions about boost and fueling. That control enhances drivability and longevity. It also helps output since more of that fuel can be devoted to making power instead of controlling detonation or cylinder temperatures.