Today's new cars are way overpowered...

gwstang · Dec 1, 2015

Bird said:
I'm old enough to remember when that was a "goal" rarely attained. I bought one of the first (1968) Plymouth Road Runners; 383 cu. in. and 335 hp. It could do 130 mph, but in normal highway driving, on a good day I could get as much as 13 mpg.:laughing:

I remember reading an article about the Road Runner and how they spent quite a bit of money on getting the "Meep Meep (road runner/wiley coyote cartoons)" sound of the horn just right!

gwstang · Dec 1, 2015

I dropped a 1990 EFI 5.0 HO out of a modern day mustang into my '66 mustang. It has lots of giddy up go. Downright scary with fuel injected technology in a much lighter car than the 5.0 was in originally. It will jump up to 120 MPH very quickly and still be pulling. I call the red head my "rev limiter" as she will start beating on my leg if I get too froggy with it...lol. Those old cars get very light in the front end when they get up to 90 + mph. Old technology was pretty bad aerodynamically back then. It's no wonder so many kids killed themselves back in the 60's/70's with the hot rods as they would go fast very quickly and had lousy brakes compared to the modern stuff.

MossRoad · Dec 1, 2015

Bird said:
I'm old enough to remember when that was a "goal" rarely attained. I bought one of the first (1968) Plymouth Road Runners; 383 cu. in. and 335 hp. It could do 130 mph, but in normal highway driving, on a good day I could get as much as 13 mpg.:laughing:

'67 Nova, 327ci-350hp L79 engine :thumbsup:

oosik · Dec 2, 2015

Retiredguy2.

This neighbor is a LARGE wheat farmer. Heck, he rotates all his tractors every three years or so - just before the warrantee expires. Buying his son this new car is small peanuts for him. His family has been in the wheat business since the early 1900's. He lives only a few miles from me but his acreage is south in an area called the Palouse. An area that is world famous for production of wheat.

The guy is a really nice person - however, those old tired bibs he wears everywhere are lined with gold.

Retiredguy2 · Dec 2, 2015

corl said:
Manufactures are going to smaller turbocharged and supercharged engines to get more power from smaller displacement hence lighter engines and the turbo helps with the emissions. Remember when you could get a HP from a cubic inch of engine displacement (350 cu in-350 hp). Now you get that in a cubic centimeter.

I am sorry to inform you that your math is wrong. The Malibu I mentioned in the OP has a 1998 cc engine, and the horsepower developed is 250...far from being one hp per cubic centimeter.

George2615 · Dec 2, 2015

Retiredguy2 said:
I am sorry to inform you that your math is wrong. The Malibu I mentioned in the OP has a 1998 cc engine, and the horsepower developed is 250...far from being one hp per cubic centimeter.

That's impressive. 1998 CC = 121.925440701 Cu. In. (122 Cu In rounded off)
250 HP is more than double the Cu In.

RalphVa · Dec 2, 2015

Our 2010 Jetta with only 140 hp from its TDI engine goes plenty fast. Hardly have to push the fuel pedal to go and to go up big mountains. The mountains aren't there, according to it. Returns an average of just over 40 mpg with 45-49 mpg on the highway @ 71-73 mph (49 on flat and 45 in hills). If you push the fuel pedal hard, it GOES.

Ralph

ray66v · Dec 2, 2015

I now have a Sedona mini van, and it puts out 269 hp. I don't know why? Whats next, a 7 second mini van?

The Sedona would probably still have plenty of power at 200 hp, and get a even better mileage. :confused3:

If is fun to see the kids with the little "race cars" that make those farting sounds, when they quietly get left behind by a mini van.

LD1 · Dec 2, 2015

HP takes fuel to make. Keep increasing the HP of these engines and fuel economy suffers.

I have driven several 1997-2001 saturn's. All SOHC and all 5-speeds. Current one is a 2001 SL.

100HP, 17.3second 1/4-mile, 35-40mpg no problem.

Went about 10 years with nothing to even compare from the big 3. Thats why I keep buying saturns. Only recently with the chevy cruze and dodge dart are the economy numbers up where I would feel comfortable buying something newer than the saturn SL's that were ropped in 2002.

Midsized cars getting 20MPG and 250hp weighing 3300#......

How is that any different than midsized cars of 20 years ago, also weighing 3300# and getting 20mpg?

KennyG · Dec 2, 2015

I'm glad the cars today seem to all have enough power to get out of harms way, which wasn't the case a few years back. What surprises me is the apparent trade offs between size, and cost (technology) and power/economy. I've been driving a number of rental cars lately and I have a client who requires compact cars. So I've been driving some small cars unless I get an upgrade. The really small ones (Chevy Spark, Kia Soul) not only feel almost unsafe on the road, they get crummy gas mileage. I can't seem to get over 30 mpg with them. In contrast, a Chevy Cruze gets into the low 30's and I had a Nissan Altima (4 cylinder, CVT transmission) that got in the high 30's. I'm not sure who they sell these really small cars to, but I'm considering paying for an upgrade myself to avoid them.

This is with a good bit of highway driving that I would get over 40 MPG with my Fusion Hybrid and in the low 20s with my Dodge Dakota.