Today's new cars are way overpowered...

[GManBart]

Just read the latest issue of Car and Driver, they did a report on the 2016 Chevy Malibu Premier...get this: 250 hp 2 liter four cylinder turbo charged and intercooled, they said it will do a standing quarter mile in 14.7 seconds and has a top speed of 156 mph (drag limited) but only delivers 20 mpg overall.

Well...my 2004 Saturn L-300 has only 180 hp from a 3.0 liter V6 yet it will do a standing quarter mile in 14.9 seconds, and deliver 23 mpg in mainly city driving. I have never checked the top speed for obvious reasons.

What is the purpose of building a 250 horsepower car that will go 156 mph yet only gets 20 mpg overall? Simply inane...

BTW, the Malibu C&D tested weighed 3307 pounds...my Saturn with a full tank of fuel weighs 3357 pounds

Unless I see it with my own eyes, I'm not buying a 14.9s quarter mile for your Saturn. The tests I saw referenced times in the 16 second range.

The fact that the Malibu weighs the same amount, and has nearly 40% more horsepower, but is only .2s faster (according to you) points out that something is drastically wrong.

 

[GManBart]

2005 Mustang with a 210hp V6, that weighed 3,444lbs and was 15.3s in the 1/4 mile. 30hp more, and only 100lbs heavier should make it a faster than the Saturn, not .4s slower.

The Saturn has 18.65lbs per horsepower. The Mustang has 16.4lbs per horsepower. Even accounting for differences in gearing, etc, there's no way the Saturn should be faster in the quarter mile.

Ford Mustang V-6 - Short Take Road Test - Car Reviews - Car and Driver

 

[dfkrug]

About the only thing the little RD400 couldn't keep up with was a Kawasaki H1 500 triple.

Yeah, the 70s was a dark decade for hp in cars. But NOT for m/cs. The Kawasaki H1 was even quicker than
the H2 750, and Suzuki's "water buffalo" 2-stroke 750. I have never had the chance to ride any of those.

Back then, GM actually had a V8 that put out only 110hp...a friend bought a new '76 Monza, which I
drove several times. After '71-72, it was many years before we saw high-hp cars again.

 

[Retiredguy2]

2005 Mustang with a 210hp V6, that weighed 3,444lbs and was 15.3s in the 1/4 mile. 30hp more, and only 100lbs heavier should make it a faster than the Saturn, not .4s slower.

The Saturn has 18.65lbs per horsepower. The Mustang has 16.4lbs per horsepower. Even accounting for differences in gearing, etc, there's no way the Saturn should be faster in the quarter mile.

Ford Mustang V-6 - Short Take Road Test - Car Reviews - Car and Driver

Did I say my Saturn was STOCK? DID NOT.....:laughing:

 

[LD1]

Did I say my Saturn was STOCK? DID NOT.....:laughing:

Well you did say it only ahs 180HP from a 3.0L V6. So are you now saying that whatever you did to make it no longer "stock" did not increase the HP? And if thats the case, GManBart's logic still applies.

If whatever you did increased the HP, then you mis-represented it when you said it was only 180HP

 

[Retiredguy2]

Well you did say it only ahs 180HP from a 3.0L V6. So are you now saying that whatever you did to make it no longer "stock" did not increase the HP? And if thats the case, GManBart's logic still applies.

If whatever you did increased the HP, then you mis-represented it when you said it was only 180HP

Actually I DID misrepresent it....it is actually rated at 182 hp factory and not the 180 I posted it has. It is non-stock because I installed much lower profile tires that changed the overall gear ratio. How does that affect horsepower? It does not.

 

[LD1]

Actually I DID misrepresent it....it is actually rated at 182 hp factory and not the 180 I posted it has. It is non-stock because I installed much lower profile tires that changed the overall gear ratio. How does that affect horsepower? It does not.

In order to change the gearing enough to have that large of impact on the ET, you would have to went REALLY small. Like something that wouldnt fit on the same size rim. And even then, its a stretch, and your speedo would be WAAAAAYYYY off. Like reading 80 when you are really doing 55

 

[Retiredguy2]

In order to change the gearing enough to have that large of impact on the ET, you would have to went REALLY small. Like something that wouldnt fit on the same size rim. And even then, its a stretch, and your speedo would be WAAAAAYYYY off. Like reading 80 when you are really doing 55

Please don't spoil my fun...the entire idea of my post was to laugh at the idiots who pay megabucks for an overpriced, overpowered new car loaded with gewgaws and gimcrackery to the extent they cannot even work on it themselves, much less see out the sides because said vehicle is a pillbox, and they need a rear camera to get a view out the back. My car has been paid for for 8 years now and I can work on it myself, plus it is dead reliable and has a huge trunk with a large acess space....AND I CAN SEE OUT OF IT !!

REAL PROGRESS ON YOUR PART, GM !!!!

And...LD1...if my tire size was that far off, the vehicle computer would not operate properly. It does.

 

[LD1]

Why would tire size not make the computer operate right?

It would just think it was going faster.......Tires spin faster, Engine RPM's faster, etc.

Has nothing at all to do with the computer.


Now if front to rear were two significantly different sizes, I could see some issues with ABS as it would think one end of the car were going faster than the other.

But all 4 tires being the same size, but different than OEM......no computer issues.

People jack up 4wd trucks and put MUCH bigger tires on all the time. Works fine, just speedo way off till they have it reprogrammed

 

[toppop52]

Yeah, the 70s was a dark decade for hp in cars. But NOT for m/cs. The Kawasaki H1 was even quicker than
the H2 750, and Suzuki's "water buffalo" 2-stroke 750. I have never had the chance to ride any of those.

Back then, GM actually had a V8 that put out only 110hp...a friend bought a new '76 Monza, which I
drove several times. After '71-72, it was many years before we saw high-hp cars again.

Actually the '73 and '74 SD 455 Firebirds were around 300 net H.P. and competitive with the best of them.

 

[MossRoad]

Yeah, the 70s was a dark decade for hp in cars. But NOT for m/cs. The Kawasaki H1 was even quicker than
the H2 750, and Suzuki's "water buffalo" 2-stroke 750. I have never had the chance to ride any of those.

Back then, GM actually had a V8 that put out only 110hp...a friend bought a new '76 Monza, which I
drove several times. After '71-72, it was many years before we saw high-hp cars again.

Yeah, I felt bad for our local police department when they got late 70's Volares......

There was an old saying that "You can't beat Motorola..." Well, you can if it's installed in a Volare!

hahahahaahahahahahahaahahahaahahaahahahhhaahahahhaha

If you pulled up next to the cops (there were two in a car back then) in a late 60's -early 70's car with pretty much anything under the hood, they'd just look over at you, look up and down your car, get a depressed look on their face, shake their heads and wonder what they did to deserve driving around in such a dog all day. :laughing:

 

[Kyle_in_Tex]

I got to ride a Yamaha RZ500 once. It was faaast. It could keep up with an FJ1100 on the big end. Very complicated bike.

 

[Industrial Toys]

In the worst of those days, some departments even used Reliant Ks and that Ford that looked similar. Fairmont? I drove an old 82 Malibou Ex cop car that had been converted to LPG. It was gutless with a 267 V8 but one of the nicest vehicles I have ever owned.

Seems to me that too many peoples brains are way too underpowered to be behind any wheel at all. Not the slightest concept of the physics that govern the operation of a motor vehicle!

 

[Citydude]

Please don't spoil my fun...the entire idea of my post was to laugh at the idiots who pay megabucks for an overpriced, overpowered new car loaded with gewgaws and gimcrackery to the extent they cannot even work on it themselves, much less see out the sides because said vehicle is a pillbox, and they need a rear camera to get a view out the back. My car has been paid for for 8 years now and I can work on it myself, plus it is dead reliable and has a huge trunk with a large acess space....AND I CAN SEE OUT OF IT !! REAL PROGRESS ON YOUR PART, GM !!!! And...LD1...if my tire size was that far off, the vehicle computer would not operate properly. It does.

Idiots? Really.....?

 

[Egon]

2005 Mustang with a 210hp V6, that weighed 3,444lbs and was 15.3s in the 1/4 mile. 30hp more, and only 100lbs heavier should make it a faster than the Saturn, not .4s slower.

The Saturn has 18.65lbs per horsepower. The Mustang has 16.4lbs per horsepower. Even accounting for differences in gearing, etc, there's no way the Saturn should be faster in the quarter mile.

Ford Mustang V-6 - Short Take Road Test - Car Reviews - Car and Driver

It's all about the total work done by the engine. A one point HP rating don't do that.

 

[Egon]

Idiots? Really.....?

Musta been looking in the mirror by Gar:

 

[turnkey4099]

See out of? No windows at all needed any more, the idiots are all focused on their playtoys on the dash and in their hands.

Harry K

 

[Retiredguy2]

See out of? No windows at all needed any more, the idiots are all focused on their playtoys on the dash and in their hands.

Harry K

You took the words right out of my mouth...but you said them better....!!!

The more advanced cars get, the stupider the majority of drivers get. "Lane departure warning..." "Parking assist...." "Backup cameras...." etc, etc, etc. I saw a TV commercial recently for a new truck that offers BACKUP ASSIST for those who are too lazy and stupid to learn how to back up a trailer...oh, let's not get me started on that one. I bet 90% of new drivers today could not operate a stick shift if their lives depended on it....I learned how to drive a stick on my dad's 8N when I was 12 years old and learned how to back up a hay wagon in short order using the same tractor.

I said it above and will say it again: New cars are overpowered, overpriced, and have way too many gewgaws and gimcracks and electronic features...all of which serve no purpose except to make the majority of drivers less attentive and less able to have decent driving skills.

"Oh, my new Malibu has 250 horsepower, and this huge screen in the middle of the dash, I must be one (bleep) of a great driver....."

:laughing:

 

[MossRoad]

I got to ride a Yamaha RZ500 once. It was faaast. It could keep up with an FJ1100 on the big end. Very complicated bike.

OOOOoooooo!!!! Man, that would have been FUN! :thumbsup:

 

[MossRoad]

OOOOoooooo!!!! Man, that would have been FUN! :thumbsup:

Here's a clip of Kenny Roberts retro ride...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVROhRLrQ3U