The engine in my Prius is rated at 70hp I think.
Which car has least horsepower sold in the USA ?
- Thread starter Mr Nice
- Start date
- Status
The Dumb-ForAll, Scion iQ, and Honda Insight all have less than 100hp.
Couldn't get a manual transmission in the iQ or the Insight last time I checked. Allegedly you can get one in the Dumb-ForAll, but I've never actually seen one. They have all had quite possibly the clunkiest automated dual-clutch transmission ever created.
All the sudden that 100hp in the Mazda2 doesn't sound so bad.
Couldn't get a manual transmission in the iQ or the Insight last time I checked. Allegedly you can get one in the Dumb-ForAll, but I've never actually seen one. They have all had quite possibly the clunkiest automated dual-clutch transmission ever created.
All the sudden that 100hp in the Mazda2 doesn't sound so bad.
Originally Posted By: NHGUY
I dont think there's one with less than 100hp
Not a sparker, but VW still brought in 90 hp TDIs through 2003. My wife's 2000 NB still returns nearly 50 mpg on interstate drives with mid-40s in town without trying much. The later TDIs were 100 hp and the new CR TDIs are 140 hp... unfortunately fuel economy dropped with each engine revision.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Not to mention [Smart Cars are] hilariously unsafe in a crash, dangerously unstable on the highway, the transmission sucks, it has no power, the engine is rough and noisy, the ride is like the suspension came out of a tractor trailer, and it just looks stupid.
Let's separate what's truth from fiction or opinion.
The Smart Car does amazingly well in crashes due to the outer space frame construction. Don't take it from me, take it from the IIHS - http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=632 and notice that it got the highest score in all categories.
The rest of your statement appears to be personal opinion, so having driven one I will retort. We rented a diesel Smart FourTwo in Ontario for a week and drove the snot out of it, including down the highway to Niagara Falls & back.
Going above the speed limit on the highway wasn't a problem. The car was stable, tracked well and was surprisingly resistant to the eddy wake of semis pushing it around. It didn't have much left on the top end but we easily kept up with and passed traffic on the highway at above-legal speeds. Ride quality was a bit on the stiff side but I prefer that to the mushy, floaty suspension of most American cars.
The transmission took a bit of getting used to, but coming from a proper manual it was fairly easy to do - you just have to drive it like you would a manual This requires feathering the go pedal sooner, just like you would when starting to engage the clutch in a manual.
Yes, the engine is rougher than most on the road. Coming from diesels it didn't bother us. Power output and delivery was matched well with the car and its intended use, primarily city driving. As above, going on the highway (interprovince?) wasn't an issue.
I think it looks great, especially from the inside which has a stupendous amount of passenger room. Truly unbelievable that something that small from the outside could be so large on the inside.
But much like another part of the anatomy
everyone has their own opinion. Glad to agree to disagree with most on the Smart FourTwo. We seriously looked into buying a CDI model from Canada, even going so far as to check with the Secretary of State (who would gladly register it) & our insurance company (who would insure it).
But back to the OP's question, the 1 liter 3 cylinder engine in the Geo Metro was hard to beat as far as gutlessness, even with the car around it made from flattened Alpo tins and Hungry Man trays. A friend in high school had one that was totaled after it hydroplaned and was partially windblown into a telephone pole. I was driving a dog-slow 1978 Plymouth 3/4 ton van that easily outran it (until a gas station was near - I was lucky to get 12 mpg at best).
I dont think there's one with less than 100hp
Not a sparker, but VW still brought in 90 hp TDIs through 2003. My wife's 2000 NB still returns nearly 50 mpg on interstate drives with mid-40s in town without trying much. The later TDIs were 100 hp and the new CR TDIs are 140 hp... unfortunately fuel economy dropped with each engine revision.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Not to mention [Smart Cars are] hilariously unsafe in a crash, dangerously unstable on the highway, the transmission sucks, it has no power, the engine is rough and noisy, the ride is like the suspension came out of a tractor trailer, and it just looks stupid.
Let's separate what's truth from fiction or opinion.
The Smart Car does amazingly well in crashes due to the outer space frame construction. Don't take it from me, take it from the IIHS - http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=632 and notice that it got the highest score in all categories.
The rest of your statement appears to be personal opinion, so having driven one I will retort. We rented a diesel Smart FourTwo in Ontario for a week and drove the snot out of it, including down the highway to Niagara Falls & back.
Going above the speed limit on the highway wasn't a problem. The car was stable, tracked well and was surprisingly resistant to the eddy wake of semis pushing it around. It didn't have much left on the top end but we easily kept up with and passed traffic on the highway at above-legal speeds. Ride quality was a bit on the stiff side but I prefer that to the mushy, floaty suspension of most American cars.
The transmission took a bit of getting used to, but coming from a proper manual it was fairly easy to do - you just have to drive it like you would a manual This requires feathering the go pedal sooner, just like you would when starting to engage the clutch in a manual.
Yes, the engine is rougher than most on the road. Coming from diesels it didn't bother us. Power output and delivery was matched well with the car and its intended use, primarily city driving. As above, going on the highway (interprovince?) wasn't an issue.
I think it looks great, especially from the inside which has a stupendous amount of passenger room. Truly unbelievable that something that small from the outside could be so large on the inside.
But much like another part of the anatomy
But back to the OP's question, the 1 liter 3 cylinder engine in the Geo Metro was hard to beat as far as gutlessness, even with the car around it made from flattened Alpo tins and Hungry Man trays. A friend in high school had one that was totaled after it hydroplaned and was partially windblown into a telephone pole. I was driving a dog-slow 1978 Plymouth 3/4 ton van that easily outran it (until a gas station was near - I was lucky to get 12 mpg at best).
Originally Posted By: scurvy
The Smart Car does amazingly well in crashes due to the outer space frame construction. Don't take it from me, take it from the IIHS - http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=632 and notice that it got the highest score in all categories.
The IIHS, thankfully has much more to say on the topic...a five star rating means nothing when you're up against a car two or three classes larger with a similar five star rating....the only way the smart would do "amazingly well" in real world multi car crashes is if we ALL drove smart size cars.
The Smart Car does amazingly well in crashes due to the outer space frame construction. Don't take it from me, take it from the IIHS - http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=632 and notice that it got the highest score in all categories.
The IIHS, thankfully has much more to say on the topic...a five star rating means nothing when you're up against a car two or three classes larger with a similar five star rating....the only way the smart would do "amazingly well" in real world multi car crashes is if we ALL drove smart size cars.
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
The IIHS, thankfully has much more to say on the topic...a five star rating means nothing when you're up against a car two or three classes larger with a similar five star rating....the only way the smart would do "amazingly well" in real world multi car crashes is if we ALL drove smart size cars.
that video is scary to watch when i'm considering purchasing a subcompact in the near future. but what can i do about it? i want a subcompact for the fuel economy and ease of maneuverability, but i can also understand people that need a truck or large crossover for daily duties. i guess you just have to hope you never end up in a situation like that.
The IIHS, thankfully has much more to say on the topic...a five star rating means nothing when you're up against a car two or three classes larger with a similar five star rating....the only way the smart would do "amazingly well" in real world multi car crashes is if we ALL drove smart size cars.
that video is scary to watch when i'm considering purchasing a subcompact in the near future. but what can i do about it? i want a subcompact for the fuel economy and ease of maneuverability, but i can also understand people that need a truck or large crossover for daily duties. i guess you just have to hope you never end up in a situation like that.
Good point. The Dumbforall is going to be a ready made coffin when that soccer mom in the Expedition drops her cell phone!
Originally Posted By: jmsjags
that video is scary to watch when i'm considering purchasing a subcompact in the near future. but what can i do about it? i want a subcompact for the fuel economy and ease of maneuverability,
To address the fuel economy aspect, you could look into a midsize hybrid instead (like the Camry Hybrid of Fusion Hybrid). The maneuverability part is a tough one though. Unfortunately the things that make a vehicle safer (size, weight) also make it less maneuverable.
Personally, I'm glad I was able to convince my wife not to get a Smart, even though she finds them "cute". Thankfully all it took was one test drive and she was cured. I didn't even have to show her the crash test videos. But you should have seen the expression on the salesman's face when my wife told him: "Hi, I'm here to test drive two cars, a C300 and a Smart."
that video is scary to watch when i'm considering purchasing a subcompact in the near future. but what can i do about it? i want a subcompact for the fuel economy and ease of maneuverability,
To address the fuel economy aspect, you could look into a midsize hybrid instead (like the Camry Hybrid of Fusion Hybrid). The maneuverability part is a tough one though. Unfortunately the things that make a vehicle safer (size, weight) also make it less maneuverable.
Personally, I'm glad I was able to convince my wife not to get a Smart, even though she finds them "cute". Thankfully all it took was one test drive and she was cured. I didn't even have to show her the crash test videos. But you should have seen the expression on the salesman's face when my wife told him: "Hi, I'm here to test drive two cars, a C300 and a Smart."
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: jmsjags
that video is scary to watch when i'm considering purchasing a subcompact in the near future. but what can i do about it? i want a subcompact for the fuel economy and ease of maneuverability,
To address the fuel economy aspect, you could look into a midsize hybrid instead (like the Camry Hybrid of Fusion Hybrid). The maneuverability part is a tough one though. Unfortunately the things that make a vehicle safer (size, weight) also make it less maneuverable.
price is also a factor though. i can get a subcompact with all the options for under $20k while a base midsize would start at those prices. and i would much rather have comfort and luxury over paying for more size (that i wouldn't really need).
Originally Posted By: jmsjags
that video is scary to watch when i'm considering purchasing a subcompact in the near future. but what can i do about it? i want a subcompact for the fuel economy and ease of maneuverability,
To address the fuel economy aspect, you could look into a midsize hybrid instead (like the Camry Hybrid of Fusion Hybrid). The maneuverability part is a tough one though. Unfortunately the things that make a vehicle safer (size, weight) also make it less maneuverable.
price is also a factor though. i can get a subcompact with all the options for under $20k while a base midsize would start at those prices. and i would much rather have comfort and luxury over paying for more size (that i wouldn't really need).
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: scurvy
The Smart Car does amazingly well in crashes due to the outer space frame construction. Don't take it from me, take it from the IIHS - http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=632 and notice that it got the highest score in all categories.
The IIHS, thankfully has much more to say on the topic...a five star rating means nothing when you're up against a car two or three classes larger with a similar five star rating....the only way the smart would do "amazingly well" in real world multi car crashes is if we ALL drove smart size cars.
As I've said before, the passenger compartment stays intact. The rest of the car bounces off what it impacts like a red rubber ball off a preppie's head on Dodge-Ball day in the 7th grade. The occupant's internal organs get slammed by the sudden change in direction, brain into skull etc...but you're not crushed from the outside.
Originally Posted By: scurvy
The Smart Car does amazingly well in crashes due to the outer space frame construction. Don't take it from me, take it from the IIHS - http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=632 and notice that it got the highest score in all categories.
The IIHS, thankfully has much more to say on the topic...a five star rating means nothing when you're up against a car two or three classes larger with a similar five star rating....the only way the smart would do "amazingly well" in real world multi car crashes is if we ALL drove smart size cars.
As I've said before, the passenger compartment stays intact. The rest of the car bounces off what it impacts like a red rubber ball off a preppie's head on Dodge-Ball day in the 7th grade. The occupant's internal organs get slammed by the sudden change in direction, brain into skull etc...but you're not crushed from the outside.
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
I was wondering what vehicle sold in the USA has the least horsepower gas engine ?
So, what was the reason for your question? Just curiosity or... ?
http://www.autobytel.com/top-10-cars/low-horsepower-cars/coupes/
http://www.autobytel.com/top-10-cars/low-horsepower-cars/sedans/
http://www.autobytel.com/top-10-cars/low-horsepower-cars/wagons/
I was wondering what vehicle sold in the USA has the least horsepower gas engine ?
So, what was the reason for your question? Just curiosity or... ?
http://www.autobytel.com/top-10-cars/low-horsepower-cars/coupes/
http://www.autobytel.com/top-10-cars/low-horsepower-cars/sedans/
http://www.autobytel.com/top-10-cars/low-horsepower-cars/wagons/
Originally Posted By: Hermann
The 2012 Nissan Versa has 106 HP from a 1.6L according to the good old boys at Motoweek. I think my 1973 Vega had more, like 120 or so.
I also had a 1973 Vega, with the two barrel.
It was rated by Chevrolet at the time at 110 bhp.
Using current rating methods, it had more like 85 bhp.
It also had 2.3 liters to work with.
Given the Vega's weight, it would have been a rocket with a real 110 bhp.
It was, instead, a stone.
The 2012 Nissan Versa has 106 HP from a 1.6L according to the good old boys at Motoweek. I think my 1973 Vega had more, like 120 or so.
I also had a 1973 Vega, with the two barrel.
It was rated by Chevrolet at the time at 110 bhp.
Using current rating methods, it had more like 85 bhp.
It also had 2.3 liters to work with.
Given the Vega's weight, it would have been a rocket with a real 110 bhp.
It was, instead, a stone.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
I was wondering what vehicle sold in the USA has the least horsepower gas engine ?
So, what was the reason for your question? Just curiosity or...
Just curiosity cause I didn't think any gas powered engine had less than 100 horsepower in today's new car market.
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
I was wondering what vehicle sold in the USA has the least horsepower gas engine ?
So, what was the reason for your question? Just curiosity or...
Just curiosity cause I didn't think any gas powered engine had less than 100 horsepower in today's new car market.
1980s Volkswagens (FOX) had ~70 or 80HP engines
1992 Geo Metro 3 CYL had about 80HP
Chevroet Aveo has double-digit HP, iirc.
1992 Geo Metro 3 CYL had about 80HP
Chevroet Aveo has double-digit HP, iirc.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: 45ACP
1980s Volkswagens (FOX) had ~70 or 80HP engines
1992 Geo Metro 3 CYL had about 80HP
Chevroet Aveo has double-digit HP, iirc.
The 2nd gen Nissan Sentra (my aunt had one) had 69HP
First gen had a 67HP 1.5L.
1980s Volkswagens (FOX) had ~70 or 80HP engines
1992 Geo Metro 3 CYL had about 80HP
Chevroet Aveo has double-digit HP, iirc.
The 2nd gen Nissan Sentra (my aunt had one) had 69HP
First gen had a 67HP 1.5L.
I rode in a friends Dodge Colt and when were going to merge on the freeway, I told him "you better get on it". He said it was floored and I thought he was taking his sweet time. I don't know what it had, but he must of had something wrong with his. Floored was like easy gradual acceleration in stop and go traffic. I was getting worried when a line of big rigs was coming. We rode the shoulder a bit because we didn't gain enough speed to flow right on in.
Afterward when we were on some back streets, he was flooring it, a shift light would come etc. I thought it was easy grandma driving but he said that he was flooring it because it was to doggy underpowered.
He bought it that way, sold it soon and never did get around to finding out why it was so gutless.
That thing acted like it never got to 20% throttle - so slow and miserable we should have never got on the freeway. I couldn't believe he downshifted and floored it and it still struggled up hill terribly that we were slowing down traffic in the slow lane.
I told him he should cuff and arrest himself for buying it and driving it on the road as is.
Afterward when we were on some back streets, he was flooring it, a shift light would come etc. I thought it was easy grandma driving but he said that he was flooring it because it was to doggy underpowered.
He bought it that way, sold it soon and never did get around to finding out why it was so gutless.
That thing acted like it never got to 20% throttle - so slow and miserable we should have never got on the freeway. I couldn't believe he downshifted and floored it and it still struggled up hill terribly that we were slowing down traffic in the slow lane.
I told him he should cuff and arrest himself for buying it and driving it on the road as is.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Errtt
I rode in a friends Dodge Colt and when were going to merge on the freeway, I told him "you better get on it". He said it was floored and I thought he was taking his sweet time. I don't know what it had, but he must of had something wrong with his. Floored was like easy gradual acceleration in stop and go traffic. I was getting worried when a line of big rigs was coming. We rode the shoulder a bit because we didn't gain enough speed to flow right on in.
Afterward when we were on some back streets, he was flooring it, a shift light would come etc. I thought it was easy grandma driving but he said that he was flooring it because it was to doggy underpowered.
He bought it that way, sold it soon and never did get around to finding out why it was so gutless.
That thing acted like it never got to 20% throttle - so slow and miserable we should have never got on the freeway. I couldn't believe he downshifted and floored it and it still struggled up hill terribly that we were slowing down traffic in the slow lane.
I told him he should cuff and arrest himself for buying it and driving it on the road as is.
Do you remember what year it was? The '84 base had 68HP.
My aunt's sentra was dangerously slow as well. She never passed in it.... It was incapable of doing it.
I rode in a friends Dodge Colt and when were going to merge on the freeway, I told him "you better get on it". He said it was floored and I thought he was taking his sweet time. I don't know what it had, but he must of had something wrong with his. Floored was like easy gradual acceleration in stop and go traffic. I was getting worried when a line of big rigs was coming. We rode the shoulder a bit because we didn't gain enough speed to flow right on in.
Afterward when we were on some back streets, he was flooring it, a shift light would come etc. I thought it was easy grandma driving but he said that he was flooring it because it was to doggy underpowered.
He bought it that way, sold it soon and never did get around to finding out why it was so gutless.
That thing acted like it never got to 20% throttle - so slow and miserable we should have never got on the freeway. I couldn't believe he downshifted and floored it and it still struggled up hill terribly that we were slowing down traffic in the slow lane.
I told him he should cuff and arrest himself for buying it and driving it on the road as is.
Do you remember what year it was? The '84 base had 68HP.
My aunt's sentra was dangerously slow as well. She never passed in it.... It was incapable of doing it.
Its an interesting question.
A key thing though is power to weight ratio.
I do remember even my grandparents were hesitant to give me their 1980? VW Dasher wagon. It had a diesel motor with close to 50HP and a 0-60 time around 20 seconds. My dad wrecked it in an ice storm.
A key thing though is power to weight ratio.
I do remember even my grandparents were hesitant to give me their 1980? VW Dasher wagon. It had a diesel motor with close to 50HP and a 0-60 time around 20 seconds. My dad wrecked it in an ice storm.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: grampi
The Smart car is only 70 HP and it only gets 38 MPG? What's wrong with this picture? My Corolla is 120 HP and gets 38 MPG. There something seriously worng with these so called "Smart" cars...
Not to mention it's hilariously unsafe in a crash, dangerously unstable on the highway, the transmission sucks, it has no power, the engine is rough and noisy, the ride is like the suspension came out of a tractor trailer, and it just looks stupid.
And the Corolla has a back seat & useable trunk. I have 3 kids - a back seat is mandatory, even in a commuter car.
Originally Posted By: grampi
The Smart car is only 70 HP and it only gets 38 MPG? What's wrong with this picture? My Corolla is 120 HP and gets 38 MPG. There something seriously worng with these so called "Smart" cars...
Not to mention it's hilariously unsafe in a crash, dangerously unstable on the highway, the transmission sucks, it has no power, the engine is rough and noisy, the ride is like the suspension came out of a tractor trailer, and it just looks stupid.
And the Corolla has a back seat & useable trunk. I have 3 kids - a back seat is mandatory, even in a commuter car.
My '74 Triumph Spitfire was rated at something like 67 bhp stock.
It wasn't exactly stock so it might have actually been pretty close to that at the crank. I would hope at least 60hp
Later Spitfire and Midget 1500s got a lower 7.5:1 compression. They were rated at something like 55 hp
Quote:
1992 Geo Metro 3 CYL had about 80HP
The Suzuki G10 had the same 55hp as the Triumph and Midget. I remember because one magazine stated that and a folding top were the only things the Metro convertible had in common with the British Leyland roadsters.
It wasn't exactly stock so it might have actually been pretty close to that at the crank. I would hope at least 60hp
Later Spitfire and Midget 1500s got a lower 7.5:1 compression. They were rated at something like 55 hp
Quote:
1992 Geo Metro 3 CYL had about 80HP
The Suzuki G10 had the same 55hp as the Triumph and Midget. I remember because one magazine stated that and a folding top were the only things the Metro convertible had in common with the British Leyland roadsters.
- Status
Similar threads
