Today's new cars are way overpowered...

brown40 · Dec 2, 2015

Oneupsmanship on the competition, keeping up with the Joneses, and the next shiny new aesthetic were the driving forces for automakers--prettier, faster, better economy and towing... future government emissions requirements will change things significantly. In a couple decades the complaint will be back to not having enough power to get out of your own way. There will always be emissions exempt vehicles for towing and transport, but commuters are about to get a lot smaller and more sluggish, unless the fuel source and technology changes...

2LaneCruzer · Dec 2, 2015

KennyG said:
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.

You're right about the Kia. We rented one a couple years back when we were vacationing in St. Thomas USVI. What a piece of ****. The roads there are narrow, curvy, hilly and wet a lot of the time; the car was underpowered, handled poorly, bottomed out on those roads, and visibility was so bad that I needed someone to guide me backing into the drive of the condo we rented. A 4WD Jeep would have been just the ticket.

buickanddeere · Dec 2, 2015

RalphVa said:
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

Electronic throttle pedals can be programmed to make a vehicle more responsive . Instead of apply 50% power when the throttle has been pressed 50%. Just program the throttle pedal to apply 75% power when the pedal is at 50% position.

MossRoad · Dec 2, 2015

That's what I like about our 2013 Impala. It has 300hp available, but if you're nice to it, it gets 30 on the highway all day long. Then if you need to merge, or just have the hankering to drive like an idiot, its there just like that. Way better than the cars of the late 60s and 70s with similar power.

dmccarty · Dec 2, 2015

turnkey4099 said:
Yep, and the SUV is a perfect example. Not really suited to any of the jobs it is used for except in very few cases. Soccer mom driving kids to a 'doings' would be better served with a minivan.

Harry K

Not really. We looked at SUV's and minivans. Both got about the same MPG but the SUV was a bit bigger and had more safety stuff. We can sit one extra person in the SUV and the minivan and have more storage. Minivan had more gadgets like sliding doors that would break and be expensive to fix compared to the SUV. Minivan was more expensive too. The wifey really hates minivans for some reason, the SUV had more positives than negatives vs a minivan so she drives a SUV.

Later,
Dan

dfkrug · Dec 2, 2015

George2615 said:
That's impressive. 1998 CC = 121.925440701 Cu. In. (122 Cu In rounded off)
250 HP is more than double the Cu In.

Normally-aspirated performance cars of the 60s were shooting for 1hp (gross) per cubic inch, as CORL stated.
Then the high-performance target, in the metric world, became 100hp PER LITER. My 81 Kawasaki 750 made 71hp, so
it was about there at the time, but no cars were. It took 4 carbs to do it, too.

Flash forward to the amazing hp output of today: 100hp/liter is now common, and 150hp/liter is attainable with
super- (turbo-) charging.

My 72 Toyota Celica was 1968cc and put out about 95-100hp. My 2004 Celica GTS is 1795cc, and puts out 180hp.
You can thank smart electronic fuel injection and ignition, 4 valves/cyl, variable valve timing, and variable valve lift.

George2615 · Dec 2, 2015

dfkrug said:
Normally-aspirated performance cars of the 60s were shooting for 1hp (gross) per cubic inch, as CORL stated.
Then the high-performance target, in the metric world, became 100hp PER LITER. My 81 Kawasaki 750 made 71hp, so
it was about there at the time, but no cars were. It took 4 carbs to do it, too.

Flash forward to the amazing hp output of today: 100hp/liter is now common, and 150hp/liter is attainable with
super- (turbo-) charging.

My 72 Toyota Celica was 1968cc and put out about 95-100hp. My 2004 Celica GTS is 1795cc, and puts out 180hp.
You can thank smart electronic fuel injection and ignition, 4 valves/cyl, variable valve timing, and variable valve lift.

I recently sold my 72 Chevelle Convertible. It had the 402 Cu In (labelled as a 396). Factory rated HP was 375, actual HP was a little over 400. If I was lucky I could get 8 - 10 MPG highway. I mentioned in an earlier post my current 2012 Camaro 6.2L (378.34 Cu. In.), also over 400 HP, can get 26 MPG highway. That's a 160% MPG increase in a 45 year period. I agree with you about the new electronics in cars today being a big improvement. 400 HP cars of the 60's-70's could never dream of getting 26 MPG. 1HP or more per Cu. In. was what was hoped for back then. As far as cars go, cars of today like the OP posted are now getting twice the HP per Cu.In. This is also a huge improvement over 45 years ago.

Trucks on the other hand have not followed this trend. I owned many trucks from the 60's-70's that only got 10 - 12 MPG. My current 2013 truck only gets 16 MPG (maybe 18 highway) which at roughly only a 30% MPG increase is not as significant over the same 45 year period. Newer truck vs. old truck have about the same Cu.In., HP, gearing, weight. New truck has 6 spd. auto vs. 3 spd. computer technology engine management system, fuel injection, etc, yet only nets 30% MPG increase.

tallyho8 · Dec 3, 2015

I had a 1972 Ford Van, a 1978 F100, a 1986 Ranger, a 1988 Ranger, a 1990 F150 and a 2001 F150 and they all had one thing in common, they averaged 15 mpg. Now I have a larger 2012 crew cab F150 V8 and it averages 18 mpg. At last a little improvement.

My Genesis Coupe is a small sports car with 348 hp and an 8 speed transmission and I don't think any 400 hp car can beat it in a quarter mile and it has a top speed of about 150 and still gets about 28 mpg. I like it because it has awesome traction and the performance available when it is needed, which is not too often but important when called upon.

I was stopped on a 2 lane road with my left turn signal on awaiting oncoming traffic so I could turn when I looked in my rear view mirror and saw a fast approaching car and immediately heard his tires squealing as he applied his brakes too late to stop. He was probably doing about 70 mph. I stomped the gas and accelerated so quickly that I went about 100 yards before he came to a stop just before he hit me. Any other car I ever owned would have been smashed in that situation. My overpowered car may have saved a few lives that day.

wawajake · Dec 3, 2015

George2615 said:
I recently sold my 72 Chevelle Convertible. It had the 402 Cu In (labelled as a 396). Factory rated HP was 375, actual HP was a little over 400. If I was lucky I could get 8 - 10 MPG highway. I mentioned in an earlier post my current 2012 Camaro 6.2L (378.34 Cu. In.), also over 400 HP, can get 26 MPG highway. That's a 160% MPG increase in a 45 year period. I agree with you about the new electronics in cars today being a big improvement. 400 HP cars of the 60's-70's could never dream of getting 26 MPG. 1HP or more per Cu. In. was what was hoped for back then. As far as cars go, cars of today like the OP posted are now getting twice the HP per Cu.In. This is also a huge improvement over 45 years ago.

Trucks on the other hand have not followed this trend. I owned many trucks from the 60's-70's that only got 10 - 12 MPG. My current 2013 truck only gets 16 MPG (maybe 18 highway) which at roughly only a 30% MPG increase is not as significant over the same 45 year period. Newer truck vs. old truck have about the same Cu.In., HP, gearing, weight. New truck has 6 spd. auto vs. 3 spd. computer technology engine management system, fuel injection, etc, yet only nets 30% MPG increase.

I can think of one reason for the major improvement in cars but not in trucks MPG, and that is aerodynamics , cars went the route of streamlined wind tunnel , so much so they all look pretty much the same, trucks out of utility reasoning, still are a box on wheels, yes the added a airdam up front on most , that most including myself took off because of lack of clearance for snow and off road , so that is probably a significant aspect of MPG improvement that trucks makers basically cannot easily chase down.