I was a little taken aback by the new Mercedes SL65 AMG Black Series' 661hp. I remember when my M5's 400hp was considered excessive. These days, German uber-brutes' horsepower and torque figures are higher than Jeff Spicoli. Obviously, the numbers have no relevance to anything whatsoever. But the whole "how much power does anyone really need anyway" has never been more important– what with CAFE regulations demanding 35mpg fleet averages by 2020. Tom and Ray addressed the question today, when an F-150 refugee obsessed about the power of a Ford Focus vs. a Nissan Sentra. Ray reckons "If you're like most people, and usually drive alone or with one other passenger, and death-defying highway stunts aren't a regular part of your routine, almost any four-cylinder car will provide adequate power." True?
78 Comments on “Question of the Day: How Much Power Do You Need?...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
“True?”
Yes.
In a small-ish car, I probably only need about 130 horsepower, but I definitely want at least 220. As weight goes up, both figures rise proportionately. I don’t think I’d want more than 500 in any car, though.
I want as much as my new car budget can afford.
I just picked up a brand new G8 GT this past weekend with 361 horses and I can’t wait to start tweaking it to produce more.
How much do I need? The 110ish or whatever in my 2004 Scion xB has been plenty.
How much do I *want*? I’d happily take TriShield’s brand new G8 GT if it were within my budget to do so. (or a Challenger SRT8, for that matter)
There is a huge disparity between need and want, and I may compromise on the 6 cyl Challenger next year.
Power-to-weight ratios RULE! Lightweight cars with ’small’ horsepower numbers can feel just as good (aka fast) as heavy cars with big-inch motors.
I see plenty of high-HP cars being driven rather sedately… what a waste. Too bad there wasn’t a way to siphon surplus HP –from those who don’t use it– to people who need just a bit more oomph.
I want unlimited warp drive, to pretend to be supersonic, driving in semi-stopped traffic at $1,000 a mile for fuel, plus $1,000 a mile in maintenance plus $1,000 a mile in mortgage…and lets see how to get someone else to pay for it. Maybe I can get a Mig 31 to taxi around in. Taking off would be a Federal offense but hey, I would have balls, eh?
Whereas given that I pay my own way, as we measure things, to achieve pleasant basic transport a 90 hp diesel Jetta is a blast. Same for 140 crank HP Miata. 170 hp A4 is a nice little bus like sedan vehicle that floats over war damaged Boston pavement and responds nicely to inputs. All are over 30 mpg. I am investigating 5 year old A8s now.
Going to Naples Florida in a couple weeks. A favorite car image, impatiently follow 308 into parking lot of 7-11. It rolls to slow crawl then comes to rest in two spots. Brake lights on for 30 seconds, then off. Wait. Door cracks, slowly opens, a cane wobbles out and down to ground followed by skinny old turkey leg with sandal with black sock. Well, black sock is more Miami. Call it no sock but white orthopedic sneaker. Both he and I want and do not need that Ferrari which is not about raw HP anyway. He is OK, whoever he is. I don’t approach, his wife is having some fit or other, maybe that is normal for her.
True.
Interesting question. I suppose you really don’t *need* all that much, but then, one doesn’t really *need* a ribeye when a round steak is so much cheaper.
One thing, though, is that merely looking at horsepower or torque by itself doesn’t mean much unless you consider how much weight that power has to lug around. 190 hp might sound piddly, but it’s a decent amount for a 1980 lb Elise. 400 hp might sound like a lot, but in a 5700 lb Range Rover, acceleration isn’t as much as you might imagine.
I think somewhere in the range of 10 lbs / hp is the minimum for me to be acceptable on a daily basis. However, equally important is a chassis that is able to exploit that power. If a car has a soft suspension and leans a lot and has no seat bolsters and has pedals that you just can’t heel-toe on, the car just won’t hold my interest. There needs to be a whole package. A car with a poor weight:power ratio but a brilliant personality otherwise will grab my attention (here’s to you, Miata!).
It depends on what kind of car guy you are. I have friends that love cars because they’re speed freaks. Their ride of choice has to be fast, or turbo, or something impre(za)ive. A pedestrian set of wheels is completely uninteresting to these kind of car guys.
On the other hand, I can squeeze a little fun out of 150bhp pushing 4500lbs. Is it enough? Well, it moves, and it has 160,000 miles, so I can at least say it works.
It’s not the 400/500/600+ hp sports cars/supercars that are the problem. There aren’t that many of them around and the people that drive them are obviously willing to pay to play. The problem is the 250+ hp Accords/Camrys/whatever that are primarily driven by people who couldn’t tell the difference between 250hp and 150hp. How much gas could be saved if the ridiculous hp increases in family transportation over the past 5-7 years is reversed?
Just one generation ago a 330i had about 230hp. Now you can get a 335i with 300 and the most basic 3-Series you can get has 230. Is that really necessary? I say let the M3 drivers keep their 414hp if they’re willing to pay for it, but the average real estate agent in a 328i doesn’t need 230 horses. The vast majority of cars today are grossly overpowered and I guarantee most of the people driving would gladly trade in most of that hp for increased mpg if they had the choice
We only need V4s for our commute.
We only need Top Ramen for our sustinance (sp?).
However, V6s, V8s, like fresh fruit and vegetables, makes life much more satisfying.
For a manual transmission gasoline fueled car I say the ideal weight to power ratio is 20lbs/hp
more weight/less power and the car is insecurely slow, less weight/more power and it is excessive.
You might need more power for an automatic. I usually find that an auto sedan requires 40-60 more HP to feel comfortable.
A diesels torque curve will require different numbers.
RE: thetopdog;
I brought this same point up in another post – most people buying high-HP cars don’t/can’t tell the difference!
As cmus stated, my xA’s 10x (whatever rating they are at this year, 103-109) has all the power I would ever need – for it’s weight.
While I would much prefer to high-rev a small 4 in a small car, I’d say that a ratio of 1hp to 20-25lbs is more than enough. This will never net amazing 0-60 times, which we Americans seem so obsessed over, but I can’t count how many people I’ve passed on the highway, out-accelerated, or whatever.
It isn’t how much (or little) HP a car has – it’s how fast or slow the drivers around you are. IDK how I would feel about my xA on the autobahn, but here in the states I’ve yet to need more, even when at max payload.
I have a 285-hp 911SC street-legal track car sitting in the driveway next to our straight chick-car Boxster and Volvo V50 nerdwagon. With headers and carburetors, the SC sounds fabulous and will twist an axle off if I’m not careful.
But I almost never drive it. Maybe 50 miles in a good summer week. I just don’t feel good about even owning it any more. My daughter is 29. What kind of world will she inherit and what have I done to shape it?
Not much good, and with three quasi-fancy cars sitting in the driveway right now, I can hardly claim to be helping. but if I ever buy another car, and I hope I never have to–the ass-engined Nazi slot car is already a quarter-century old and doing just fine, and a Volvo and a Boxster ought to last another 20 years, right?–I will hope horsepower no longer matters.
It is somewhat satisfying 2008 V6 Accord gets the same fuel mileage as a 1990 L4 Accord with more weight and twice the power.
My ‘86 Audi Coupe GT had a 110 HP I-5 in a 2300 lb body. It made me smile every time I drove it and I miss it terribly to this day.
“We only need V4s for our commute.”
Damn right, especially if it has gear driven cams and two wheels…
130 hp is ok if it has a manual transmission – a friends focus had the worst auto I had come across until I drove my mother in laws PT Cruiser.
I need anough power to merge onto the Interstate and not get run over by a semi. I need enough power to pass on a two lane road without inciting panicked flashing of the high beams in the oncoming lane. That’s it. I don’t tow a boat, or haul pallets of mulch, or cart around a soccer team. I tend to buy the smallest car that will get the job done for the least amount of $$$.
@davey49:
It is somewhat satisfying 2008 V6 Accord gets the same fuel mileage as a 1990 L4 Accord with more weight and twice the power.
The corrolary to that is if the 2008 had 120hp, like the ‘90 did, it could get 50% more fuel economy.
My Diesel car has 82hp and weighs 3300 lb. Nope, it won’t win the stoplight drags. However, it gets me where I’m going, and at 35mpg to boot.
I recently had my Volvo 240 Dyno’d. About 3,200lbs wet, 265k on the odo, it put out 95hp and 114 ft lbs. to the rear wheels. It’s a slow car, but I’ve never had any problems keeping up with traffic or acceleration.
Eggsalad definitely has me beat in the m.p.g. category; I only get about 25 max.
The correct metric is Weight/HP. The average 4 cyl. Camcord is about 20 lbs/hp. It is adequate, but not interesting. The V6 versions run about 15 lbs/hp. They are quick. The hot stuff is under 10 lbs/hp. The truly hottest Vette, Viper, Porsche turbo, run 5 lbs/hp. Of course an alternative route to super hot is through light weight Caterham Seven, Ariel Atom etc.
Personally, I have found that a 15 lbs/hp car is plenty lively enough for modern traffic/highway/law enforcement conditions. I think that under 10 would be hard for me to handle.
Between the E30, to E36 and E46 in the family I get different power levels. My E30 is adequate, but with the auto and gas mileage I dont rev it to much. The E36 has a good amount of power at 190 and 3150lbs. The 330i has more than enough power for sure. Its actually not very interesting sometimes, but It is useful and fun. 195 is good.
Dodge Aries with its 94hp and a 4sp. stick was all I ever needed back in the day. It still would have been completely enough now. The obsession with horsepower is a fad that will be eradicated by rising fuel prices. To be honest, I kinda regret that the Aries is no longer sold. It sure was more useful and fuel efficient (25/34) than most of the Detroit cars today. That was 20+ years ago. What happened to Detroit in the meantime?
I had only owned muscle cars with 10-12 lbs/hp when I purchased a 1980 Accord in 1982. Was driving a long distance to work. The Accord was one of the early small cars that was a quality car rather than a economy penalty box. Going to a slow, low powered car with 93 mph top speed was quite a change. But it got 30 mpg anyway you drove it. The thing was pretty poor in aero, but a small engine, light weight made it work. Still even it was 27 lbs/hp with only 72 hp to work on 1980 lbs of car. It would cruise quite comfortably to at least 75 mph. Engine was working into the rather efficient part of its range at that speed considering the 93 mph top speed.
Was surprisingly easy to like that car compared to what I expected. If a car is a well designed car it doesn’t need tons of power we just like the power however. I agree 25 lbs/hp or more properly 25 lbs/ft-lb of torque is enough. With todays better aerodynamics such cars will top out at more than 100 mph. Having said all that I have a C5 Corvette these days which is my first non-Honda car since way back in 1982.
I’ve been driving a 2004 Nissan Sentra 1.8 automatic lately and I’ve spent a fair amount of time in a 1998 Saturn SL2 automatic that Wikipedia tells me is a 1.9.
Wikipedia says the Saturn was 124hp and the Nissan was 130hp. Motortrend says 126hp for the Nissan, not sure who to trust on that.
First two google hits I found says the Saturn was 2,271 pounds and the Nissan was 2,588 pounds.
I have way more get up and go in the Saturn. The Nissan has power but I have to consciously push the pedal down further in the Nissan to get the slushbox to give it to me.
The Saturn weighs a lot less or the transmission is better, or its a combination of the two.
If the Nissan is what I have to compare against I want more HP, a better transmission, or a lighter vehicle (or at least 2 of the 3).
If my next car has the get up and go of the late 90s Saturn SL2 I can live with that.
Then again if it gets gas mileage like the Prius I could live with it being as sluggish as a Nissan Sentra 1.8.
I guess all of that says more about how sluggish the Sentra is than how good the ol Saturn is but hey, I can only report on what I’ve driven recently.
Ever heard of 5 stroke engines, 6 stroke engines, the IRIS engine, or the Nutating engine?
The Nutating engine is being tested by our government for use in spy drones. Spy planes need a good weight to power ratio, able to burn almost any fuel, low fuel consumption, and quiet operation.
While the car companies keep making engines that lose 75% of their fuel energy in heat and noise others are looking for alternatives.
Even if the Nutating engine isn’t the answer to having a better engine (the Wankel wasn’t) just looking at the diagrams on Wikipedia and seeing how it works is fun.
How much power do I need? More than what I have.
While the car companies keep making engines that lose 75% of their fuel energy in heat and noise others are looking for alternatives.
I’m beginning to have a sneaking suspicion why the Ottoman cycle engine is still king after over a century in use.
20 lbs/hp is lively enough for me. Sure, I’d like more power – or less weight but 20 lbs/hp keeps me happy.
A rental car I had in Germany once, was a 5-speed 1.8 liter, 8 valve 110 hp four in a lower line 3 series BMW (it was the platform prior to the current one). It had moderate acceleration, and yet, even though it felt as though the RPM’s were too high in 5th gear at US superhighway speeds, it turns out the gearing was perfect for achieving redline in 5th gear . . . . . 125 mph ! It was a very pleasant car, and it is disappointing that they choose only to market their best of the best here. The 1 series they sell here is an overpowered joke!
I want a Dodge Challenger. There, I said it. I want in on the muscle car brotherhood before the enviro-wimps and the Greenpeace crowd legislate fun-to-drive cars out of existence. I don’t care about Chrysler’s fiscal health, or the price of gas, I just want a nicely optioned Challenger R/T with a 6-speed manual and everything but the sunroof and subwoofer. Then those green bastards can take it FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS! [/Heston]
I used to have great fun with my Fiat 128, which had 55hp and weighed about 1500lbs, for 27lbs/hp. All these subsequent years of big American boats and BMW sports cars and Toyota pickup trucks never made me forget that little car.
See, you know what really irks me? Why can’t I buy the best handling car a company manufactures without having the engine that gets 15 miles per gallon too? (I’m looking at you, Mitsubishi.)
I’m perfectly happy with 20 to 25 lbs/hp and similar torque numbers as long as it has a manual tranny and a light tire/wheel combo. I learned the 2nd part the hard and expensive way.
About 9 months ago, I went from 330 hp to 187 hp. The 187 suits me just fine. Along with my wallet.
I drove a Volvo 850 sedan with a 168 hp engine and a manual transmission as my primary wheels for about 110,000 miles. I often had two or three passengers and took multiple extended trips including mountain ranges. Never once did it seem underpowered. A good manual transmission and front wheel drive both provide an efficiency improvement over a autoboxes and RWD.
My current TSX is around 200 HP and honestly doesn’t feel any quicker than the 850 did unless I rev the living daylights out of the thing. Both the 850 and the TSX are in the 2 1/2 liter displacement range. The 5 cylinder motor of the Volvo was a bit smoother running than the TSX, especially at idle. My latest long trip in the TSX was a run from California to Texas in back with two people and luggage. Highway speeds of up to 85 MPH (gotta love West Texas) were never a problem. Sure I had to floor it a few times to squirt in and out of traffic in Austin, but so what?
So, I agree with Ray. A modern 4 cylinder powerplant (or 5) is plenty for a moderate sized car.
I like my M5’s 400 h.p. plenty but would be willing to give it up for the 500 h.p. M5 if it wasn’t so ugly. Not everyone needs such a fast and powerful car for their commute. I am not one of those people.
How much power do I need?
All the power I can take from the world.
1000 hp? 2000 hp? 865000000 hp?
If there’s more to be gotten, I’d get it!
for a bke u need 90cc, and a car with ~1500 cc.
Had a Civic 1500 5spd, yields 50 ish MPG. on the Hwy. Just read about a 50 mpg Mini diesel, not sure if they bring them here? God help us.
But when gas was dirt cheap nothing under 400 cu ins was considered a proper car.
For fuel economy the smaller the better. Especially nowadays trans wth multi speeds.
Back in late 70s the Mitsubishi did brought in a small car with 4 spd and a 2 spd axle. So is 8 spd. Probably pretty easy on fuel.
The big 3 back then could have made 4 or 5 spd autobox too, but f aint broke dont fix it.
Adding lightness makes modest power sufficient: 8.6lb/hp 550kg, 140hp, 1950s vintage 550 Spyder. I’d say power that can give 15-20 second 0-60 is sufficient. I drove a manual Fit last summer and it was a fun drive with plenty of power for spirited driving in parking lots and up to any speed limit. That is probably overpowered by my standards with what 105hp and 2500lb. After driving my folks Metro 55hp, 1900lb, their Miata 133hp, 2300lb feels pretty hot.
Top Gear took the piss out of that Mercedes when an 8-man tug-of-war team pulled it with ease, while the car’s engine was gunning full blast.
Doesn’t matter how many horsepowers you have – your tires are interacting with a surface, and there are limits to the power transference.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/episodes/series4episode7.shtml
My first car was an 850 cc Mini. I *definitely* want more power than that.
Before making a blanket statement that almost any four-cylinder will provide adequate power, I would suggest some real-worst research to be certain. I would not want to venture onto I-75 in Atlanta rush hour in the following cars (automatic tranmission unless otherwise specified)- Kia Rio, Hyundai Accent, Suzuki Reno, Suzuki Forenza, Chevrolet Aveo- hmmm….actually, the statement should have been “almost any four-cylinder will provide adequate power, unless it’s Korean and under 2.0L.”
Although many drivers only need adequate power, there are those of us who like a tiny bit more than adequate. Personally, I’m very happy with an automatic/4-cylinder that will do 0-60 in about nine seconds and a manual/4-cylinder that will hit 60mph in about eight seconds. In the four years that I drove my ‘02 Accord EX (150hp 2.3L/automatic), it never left me wishing for more power (nor did it ever make me wish I’d chosen the 200hp V6 instead).
I have an ‘06 Mazda3 s 5-door now with the 2.3L 160hp I-4 and 5-speed manual transmission. I can’t imagine “needing” or wanting any additional power- it’ll hit 60 in about 7.5 seconds, gets about 28mpg cruising at 80mph on the highway and has plenty of passing power in reserve at highway speeds without even shifting out of 5th gear….
Besides, I’ve driven the MAZDASPEED version of my car….I’d stay in so much freakin’ trouble with that much power!
I have sublimated my urge for break neck accelleration and gone for simplicity, reliability,and comfort. My 21 yr old 528es are rated at 128 hp. I maintain them in my driveway.
0-60 times are about 14 seconds. The top speed is about 115 MPH. The car will cruise very comfortably all day at 75 mph and deliver 28mpg. It loves the twisties. People sneer at the 4speed automatic, yet it is perfectly suited for the stall and crawl commute into Boston.
I ran my old one to 345k miles, stopping only because tinworm was eating into structural components. The present pair has 106k and 121k respectively. For these cars, that is low mileage. They should last until something waaay more efficient and way less interesting come along.
Need? 70hp would probably be plenty to keep up with 95% of the people out there. Most people probably take close to half a minute to get up to 100kph anyway. It would not be much fun though. Not that there are many fun roads around here anyway.
I did not expect this. The consensus appears to be 20 lb/hp will work just fine. Its my experience too, with two 1.8T A4s (150 and 180 hp) with 20 to 24 lb/hp. Do I occasionally prefer to open up my 270hp Carrera 4 (13 lb/hp)? You bet, but if it went away, it wouldn’t be a tragedy.
I don’t know what it will take to get to 35 mpg fleet average, but it may not be as hard as some would have us believe. IIRC, auto shutoff/restart could be good for 15% improvement in urban traffic. How tough is that to implement?
2008 Hyundai Elantra 2.0L 5-speed, 138HP, 2800lbs (close to 20lb/HP); 0-60 8.5sec, 29/37MPG.
Sometimes I wish for a little more torque, as I have to downshift frequently in hilly Western PA, but the thing just sips fuel…
In the immortal words of Bob Hall (the spiritual father of the Mazda Miata):
“If you can’t go fast with 90 HP, 900 HP won’t help you”
I’ve found that about 30 HP (total) is adequate for my daily commute. If I need more, I turn my Honda 750 Nighthawk past 1/2 throttle and get more (up to 65 HP)
Beelzebubba: I would not want to venture onto I-75 in Atlanta rush hour in the following cars (automatic tranmission unless otherwise specified)- Kia Rio, Hyundai Accent, Suzuki Reno, Suzuki Forenza, Chevrolet Aveo- hmmm….actually, the statement should have been “almost any four-cylinder will provide adequate power, unless it’s Korean and under 2.0L.”
I would beg to differ. I drive said Hyundai Accent (auto) in all traffic conditions and in the mountains. Works just fine, no panic moments. Keeps up with traffic, and it’s small size makes it easier to navigate through the SUV/construction cone/nutter driver slalom.
Small HP and small car, my nirvana. I’m currently having a motor built for my Bugeye Sprite — will be 90-ish HP (double the stock rating) in a 1400# car. Will be a hoot and a half once it’s done, and should still turn 30 MPG to boot.
Horsepower is in irrelevant figure, at least when taken alone.
I drive two cars, one has 90 HP, the other was claimed to be 265, but more realistically it is about 220.
The first is a turbo-Diesel sedan of rather portly construction, as it is festooned with airbags, ABS, crumple zones, the full 21st century nanny state package.
The second is a straight-six, stripped out semi-lightweight roadster from the 1960s whose owner’s manual has a chapter on race prep and tuning.
The first weighs in around 3500lbs, so a 1:38 HP/W ratio.
The second weighs around 2500lbs, so an 1:11 HP/W ratio.
They both do their jobs just fine, since the first is a commuter, the second is a “fun” car. I take both on long trips, since I live in the West, and both do that job well too.
The first gets 50 MPG, the second gets 17 MPG. I’m willing to give up nearly all the “fun” of the latter to achieve the economy of the former for day-to-day use. But I’m glad to still have the latter around for enjoyment.
They are: 2002 Jetta TDI and a 1965 E-type Jaguar for the terminally curious
–chuck
http://chuck.goolsbee.org