Today's new cars are way overpowered...

[GManBart]

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

This is taking silly to the extreme. The two cars are within 100lbs of each other. One car has 210hp, and the other 180hp. The one that has 210hp is going to be faster unless something really weird is going on. In reality, tests of the two cars show that the one with the extra 30hp was faster. C&D got a 15.3s 1/4 mile time when they tested it. Various publications list the Saturn at anywhere from 16.0s to 16.5s for 1/4mi. So, real-world testing shows what everybody knows...a car with more peak power is going to be faster through the 1/4mi than a similar weight car with less power. Shocking news to some.

Then we get someone posting here that their Saturn can run 14.9s for 1/4mi. That conflicts with common sense, published figures, and reasonable comparisons to similar weight vehicles. There is no way that Saturn is running in the 14s without a major addition of power somehow....end of story. Slight changes in final drive ratio because of a different tire aspect ration simply isn't going to get it done.

Using an online 1/4mi calculator showed 15.6s for the Mustang and 16.25s for the Saturn....pretty close to what actual testing showed. According to the same site, the Saturn would need about 230hp to get to 14.9s. Tire ratio isn't going to make up for a 50hp shortfall.

http://www.nitrousexpress.com/oldwebdocs/hpcalculators.htm

 

[MossRoad]

This is taking silly to the extreme. The two cars are within 100lbs of each other. One car has 210hp, and the other 180hp. The one that has 210hp is going to be faster unless something really weird is going on. In reality, tests of the two cars show that the one with the extra 30hp was faster. C&D got a 15.3s 1/4 mile time when they tested it. Various publications list the Saturn at anywhere from 16.0s to 16.5s for 1/4mi. So, real-world testing shows what everybody knows...a car with more peak power is going to be faster through the 1/4mi than a similar weight car with less power. Shocking news to some.

Then we get someone posting here that their Saturn can run 14.9s for 1/4mi. That conflicts with common sense, published figures, and reasonable comparisons to similar weight vehicles. There is no way that Saturn is running in the 14s without a major addition of power somehow....end of story. Slight changes in final drive ratio because of a different tire aspect ration simply isn't going to get it done.

Using an online 1/4mi calculator showed 15.6s for the Mustang and 16.25s for the Saturn....pretty close to what actual testing showed. According to the same site, the Saturn would need about 230hp to get to 14.9s. Tire ratio isn't going to make up for a 50hp shortfall.

http://www.nitrousexpress.com/oldwebdocs/hpcalculators.htm

Unless one is shaped like a brick wall and the other is shaped more aerodynamically. Although I agree that the Saturn isn't running sub 15 times without modification. Best times I saw for it were closer to 16s.

 

[forestcreature1]

The only thing I have under 400 hp is my Deere

 

[Egon]

This is taking silly to the extreme. The two cars are within 100lbs of each other. One car has 210hp, and the other 180hp. The one that has 210hp is going to be faster unless something really weird is going on. In reality, tests of the two cars show that the one with the extra 30hp was faster. C&D got a 15.3s 1/4 mile time when they tested it. Various publications list the Saturn at anywhere from 16.0s to 16.5s for 1/4mi. So, real-world testing shows what everybody knows...a car with more peak power is going to be faster through the 1/4mi than a similar weight car with less power. Shocking news to some.

Then we get someone posting here that their Saturn can run 14.9s for 1/4mi. That conflicts with common sense, published figures, and reasonable comparisons to similar weight vehicles. There is no way that Saturn is running in the 14s without a major addition of power somehow....end of story. Slight changes in final drive ratio because of a different tire aspect ration simply isn't going to get it done.

Using an online 1/4mi calculator showed 15.6s for the Mustang and 16.25s for the Saturn....pretty close to what actual testing showed. According to the same site, the Saturn would need about 230hp to get to 14.9s. Tire ratio isn't going to make up for a 50hp shortfall.

http://www.nitrousexpress.com/oldwebdocs/hpcalculators.htm

i

Silly eh! You saying them engines only run at the top HP rpm?

 

[GManBart]

i

Silly eh! You saying them engines only run at the top HP rpm?

I never said that.

 

[Egon]

I never said that.

It was implied by your statement.

 

[GManBart]

It was implied by your statement.

No, it wasn't.

You're going to have to find someone else to argue about whether a higher horsepower engine will make a car faster in the 1/4 mile.

 

[LD1]

Unless one is shaped like a brick wall and the other is shaped more aerodynamically. Although I agree that the Saturn isn't running sub 15 times without modification. Best times I saw for it were closer to 16s.

Agreed.

Had my saturn SL down the track a time or two. (actually 2 saturns ago). 100HP SOHC and 5-speed weighing in all of 2200-2300#. Best ET was 17.34 and I forget the MPH. Probably somewhere around 80-85MPH

 

[Egon]

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:

Why learn all about driving a manual if you never got to drive one. Can do without haveing to drive an 8N too. The Kubota and present JD much nicer.

Them fancy gewgaws that are so distracting; well most work just fine and the driver didn't even know it was working

 

[4570Man]

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:

I don't have any of that crap in my 1999 Chevy 1500. I actually would like to have a backup camera. They make hooking up a trailer way easier. Backing up a trailer is easy. Backing up a trailer in a stick shift dump truck with poor side mirrors is more challenging. I think your 90% claim about not being able to drive a manual is low. I'd say more like 97%.

 

[Retiredguy2]

Agreed.

Had my saturn SL down the track a time or two. (actually 2 saturns ago). 100HP SOHC and 5-speed weighing in all of 2200-2300#. Best ET was 17.34 and I forget the MPH. Probably somewhere around 80-85MPH

Having so much fun here LMAO at all the posts here...has to be the best thread I ever started....:laughing:

 

[AGRIMAN]

So, real-world testing shows what everybody knows...a car with more peak power is going to be faster through the 1/4mi than a similar weight car with less power. Shocking news to some./url]

I'm from the group that believes there is no such thing as to much HP. I understand what you are saying and don't disagree with your logic, but when you start building serous HP there are a lot more variables that can and will shoot holes in that theory.

Don't get me wrong, having more HP under your hood is what you want, but if the other guy does a better job of putting what he has to the ground, he will be waiting on you at the end of that 1/4 mile.

 

[toppop52]

I use to drag race many decades back, have restored over a dozen classic performance cars, rode bikes from a CB 125, to a GSX 11. Same driver in every car, similar weight, gearing and tires, more power wins, every time.

 

[GManBart]

Agreed.

Had my saturn SL down the track a time or two. (actually 2 saturns ago). 100HP SOHC and 5-speed weighing in all of 2200-2300#. Best ET was 17.34 and I forget the MPH. Probably somewhere around 80-85MPH

Funny...I just plugged your figures into the calculator site I linked above, and it gave a time of 17.46. That's pretty darned close!

 

[GManBart]

I'm from the group that believes there is no such thing as to much HP. I understand what you are saying and don't disagree with your logic, but when you start building serous HP there are a lot more variables that can and will shoot holes in that theory.

Don't get me wrong, having more HP under your hood is what you want, but if the other guy does a better job of putting what he has to the ground, he will be waiting on you at the end of that 1/4 mile.

Of course, but we're talking about street cars that don't have anywhere near enough power to start running into those issues. No doubt that technique, tire selection/pressure, temperature/barometric pressure, and track surface will come into play, but they're still essentially power limited. Cars with serious power are traction limited in that they struggle to put down all of what they have available. The cars we're talking about here can use all of what they have after the first few feet....wide open throttle with no spinning. Give them more power, and they'll have a faster ET.

 

[dfkrug]

Of course, but we're talking about street cars that don't have anywhere near enough power to start running into those issues. No doubt that technique, tire selection/pressure, temperature/barometric pressure, and track surface will come into play, but they're still essentially power limited. Cars with serious power are traction limited in that they struggle to put down all of what they have available. The cars we're talking about here can use all of what they have after the first few feet....wide open throttle with no spinning. Give them more power, and they'll have a faster ET.

Well-said, GMAN. Also, good calculator link above. Note to everyone: torque is NOT part of the ET equation.

As to the question, "can you ever have too much power"?: I think that not only is it possible you have too much
power when you can't keep the front wheels down, you may also have too much when you can't get
traction in normal driving. Most cars and M/Cs don't have that problem, so the quest for more power goes on.

Case in point: in the days of bias ply tires (remember them?), I used to drive around a lot with a friend who
arguably had too much power. He drove a mildly modified 69 Mustang 428CJ, and prob had 500hp. If the
pavement was wet, it was very hard to drive it at all, as the rear tires could not get traction and feathering
the throttle was hard. Manual tranny, of course.

To the OP: yes, many current cars are "over-powered", but with traction control and few manual trannies,
these issues are not quite the danger they may have been in the past. In our days of 300hp Camrys,
people should have the choice to buy all the power they want. Even if they never use it.

Despite how heavy cars are these days, we are probably in the golden age of hp.

 

[LD1]

Funny...I just plugged your figures into the calculator site I linked above, and it gave a time of 17.46. That's pretty darned close!

Those weights were without my #150(at the time) sitting in the driver seat. I'm a good driver to do a tenth better than calculated.

My track car at the time would do 11.60's @3400# curb weight out of a 396" small block. Sticky 26" ET streets, th400, 3.54 Dana 60. Never on the dyno and never calculated it, but figure somewhere around 550 HP

 

[Egon]

[video]http://arachnoid.com/gravitation_equations/power_energy_gravity.html[/video]

The true power expended does not rely on the top HP of the engine. It is the accumulated sums as the RPM is increasing . How the RPM increases is a function of many variables starting with friction to engine design.

It is about what HP is developed at what RPM.

 

[corl]

Bias ply tires are still around. My Spec Racer Ford had Goodyear racing tires that were bias ply. It was the Spec for that SCCA class and they gave you good traction. The radials that were spec before that let go quickly and it was often exciting.

 

[toppop52]

Note to everyone: torque is NOT part of the ET equation.

I suppose you mean using the calculator?