Why I am against the horsepower wars.

"SantaRita" (SantaRita) 02/18/2015 at 15:55 • Filed to: None

1

46

RX-7 TT, 300ZX TT, Supra TT, 3000GT VR4 and the Stealth R/T...what an era that was...and not one of them broke ~276HP (so they said)

Can we all agree that with the "gentleman's agreement" ( !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ) , while limiting the engine power to the 300hp range, produced some of the finest pieces of completely balanced machinery to ever turn wheels in anger, get groceries or even go into hot pursuit!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

The resultant cars are all legendary. Every.single. one. think about that in our modern horsepower wars context, including the idea that somehow in the next decade or so we'll have to drive far more efficient cars. How will we get there? what compromises will we make?

I think the above cars were all subjected to a similar challenge in the 90's and passed with flying trap times. By forgoing more power (and less efficiency) they focused on every other detail of these cars in efforts to wring out every last possible improvement from the other systems like chassis, gearbox, lightweight production, novel approaces to suspension deign and... god bless it...the driver!

I have been reading more and more articles explaining how hard it is to drive and enjoy the latest Dodge Hellcat you just cant push it around town and so enjoying the red key becomes harder. This car's power is limited use only. 707Hp is a lovely number, but it's the only number that most people will ever be impressed by in that car. Even the bodykit is subdued. It's a one-trick pony-car tire-recycler.... without a lot else to make it special.

no-one is going to compliment the handling of that car. or the curb weight. Tire width isn't even an impressive number on that car.

It may be argued that Japan is still where to look...their Godzilla GT-R isn't nearly the handful the hellcat is. less power, more tractable wheels...but almost everything I have read has some frustrations with just how computer controlled it is. Everythign except the sttering wheel is being monitored and adapted by the cars ecus. . You're not driving the car anymore, you're just along for the ride.

So, here we are, looking into an uncertain future for enthusiast automobiles, and the answer may be in our pasts. Maybe its time to get to work and do the hard thing, limit ourselves in one direction so we have incentive to try harder everywhere else.

I've chosen horsepower because above a certain number the rest of the car is what matters. to illustrate this point: This is what 100 more horsepower and a 10 years of development did for a mustang's speed.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Curb Weight (lbs.) GT (Auto) - 3,518 18/23mpg skidpad .85g

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Curb Weight (lbs.) GT (Auto) - 3,530 16/25mpg skidpad .94g

Horsepower isn't really impressive it's just one of many far more important numbers like weight and skidpad grip number and we should all get over feeling like more horsepower will somehow absolve bad handling and cover up mistakes of bad drivers. To fords credit they added IRS in 2015, but the penalty is 200lbs of weight for which they had to make 440+hp to be equal to the 2014 cars. (it also get 2 less mpg and requires premium)

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Obviously none of this applies to Dragsters or Camaros, but it sure as hell applies to racecars. Why optimize one system and leave the rest dragging behind?

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 15:57

6

RX-7 TT, 300ZX TT, Supra TT, 3000GT VR4 and the Stealth R/T...what an era that was...and not one of them broke 276HP.

Weren't most of them severely underrated because of the Japanese government starting to sniff around sort of like how the top-speed wars of motorcycles stopped at 186 mph?

HammerheadFistpunch > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 15:59

1

well they were certified for no more than 276 hp, but yeah im with you generally. Its kind of like WRC, Restricter plates and max HP, but no restriction on torque!

Garrett Davis > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 16:01

0

"RX-7 TT, 300ZX TT, Supra TT, 3000GT VR4 and the Stealth R/T...what an era that was...and not one of them broke 276HP. "

Actually here in the US, every one of those besides the RX-7 were 300hp+

Sorry, didn't read any further yet, I'll continue now.

PS9 > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 16:03

3

You know that was just part of the ' gentleman's agreement ' between Japanese auto firms, right? And I'm sorry, but those mag numbers are totally laughable. Bone stock Coyotes can hit high 12s in the hands of a skilled driver.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 02/18/2015 at 16:05

1

Not to mention some of them were extremely easy to add power to.

Garrett Davis > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 16:10

5

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Curb Weight (lbs.) GT (Auto) - 3,518 18/23mpg skidpad .85g

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

You're really picking and choosing your sources here. First of all, the 2004 GT had 260hp, and according to Motor Trend did 0-60 in 5.6. Then the 2013 GT Motor Trend got 0-60 in 4.4 seconds. Huge difference.

Where are you pulling your facts from?

SantaRita > PS9 02/18/2015 at 16:13

0

was hard to find honest comparison numbers (people mod these????) so i used the autobox GT's (likely the most consistent time to compare). yes, and it wasn't even really an agreement, it was more influenced by racing classes (gt300) than anything.

However the idea would be to find a good number like 400hp and stop there for a while while the rest of the car's systems gets the same level of attention. optimize handling, efficiency, etc. instead of blowing 2 extra mpg on a "number" that's not even a truly faster car.

SantaRita > Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. 02/18/2015 at 16:15

0

very much so, but the factory limit gave the engineers freedom to experiment elsewhere and the results are a potent set of very very different approaches to the same question.

T5Killer > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 16:16

1

Great write up but a few things I would like to mention. The 2004 GT has 260 HP (4.6 2v SOHC) NOT 300hp. The 2005 Had 300HP (4.6 3v SOHC) and was a new body style.

Also in magazine reviews would be the only time you would see a '05 or '04 GT running neck and neck with a 2013 GT just look at the trap speed to show what that car could do in experienced dragracer hands. IIRC Evan Smith of MM&FF Magazine ran 12.69 @112 bone stock in a 2011 which pretty much the same as the '13 GT.

Also the 276hp cap was just for advertisement since most of the above mentioned JDM cars where at 320HP in the US and Europe spec with no changes to the motor.

chaozbandit > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 16:16

0

Stumbled upon an excellent video from a Supra owner that regretted chasing HP and ruining what was otherwise an enjoyable car. Moral of the story? If you have the money, then go for it but NEVER lose sight of what your initial vision was. It's better to end up with a balanced build than one that excels at something you'll rarely make use of.

Something more recent was the 2014 SEMA show, where some top publications battled it out; I've always been a fan of Mine's philosophy of prioritizing response and handling over outright power, with their R34 (and arguably R35) demonstrating pretty well. (Speedhunters won the show because retro ftw).

SantaRita > Garrett Davis 02/18/2015 at 16:18

0

http://www.0-60specs.com/ford-mustang-0…

i'm only using the auto-boxes since they are consistent from driver to driver, 300hp numbers are for a 2005, i've fixed that.

44444444444 > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 16:25

1

I'm all into the horsepower wars with the caveat that the cars actually handle well. Look at the RS7, E63AMG, GT3, etc... Those are all down 200hp on the Hellcat but are actually driveable on something other than a runway. They're also all AWD to actually put that power down... If your power exceeds your ability to put it down by a huge factor your power is useless.

SantaRita > T5Killer 02/18/2015 at 16:28

0

fixed it i mistyped the 2004, should be 2005.

i agree that in a drag specific race power matters most, i even qualified this article as not applying to drag-racing.

Even you would have to agree that it's more important for the pull above 70 mph than below, and that those speeds aren't really daily driver territory. but the truth is that for doubling the horsepower of the mustang since about 1990, it's really only gotten marginally faster, because at the end of the day its still limited to putting power out through whatever two rear tires will handle, and that most of the time that is the true limit, even if you do stick a bunch of traction control on it.

472CID > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 16:31

1

I do like the idea of everybody competing on a similar amount of power, but I wouldn't want that power level to stay the same too long of time.

SantaRita > 44444444444 02/18/2015 at 16:33

0

I agree completely about handling well. truly that is my hope. Although limiting to AWD might not be as much of a technical challenge for the engineers, if you're running more than about 350HP, it's virtually necessary for tractable power.

The idea isn't to limit power, it is to be content enough with the power that you build the rest of the car to match and exploit that power fully.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 16:35

1

1. Part of what made the aforementioned cars so legendary was, in fact, the ability to tune them up to stupid high horsepower numbers.

2. Every other source I can find says the 2013 does 0-60 in 4.5 seconds.

3. There are still plenty of low-power options, but for those who want big power, it's there. Let's be honest, the majority of Americans will use 707 horsepower about as often as they will need to pull .95G.

Also, it's worth noting that the Hellcat was not designed to be a track car; it was designed to be a goofy hoonmobile, and I have yet to read a negative review of it. The fact that high-powered "horsepower wars" cars exist has very little bearing on other cars.

MR2_FTW - Group J's resident Stig > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 16:38

0

The US spec Supras made over 300. Only the Japanese market models had these restrictions.

PS9 > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 16:44

2

...but it is truly faster. From SN95 to today, the mustang in bone stock trim has gained about 2 sec. in ET time in the hands of a skilled driver. Oh, did I mention the MPG has gone up by 1-2 since then?

And it wasn't just the engine that got the upgrades; the entire car was improved. You remember when the coyote first launched and - much to the chagrin of everyone at bimmerforums.com - it compared favorably to another certain ~400HP two door from germany in both straight and curved tracks? When before that did anyone think a Mustang could compete with anything from Germany, nevermind the M3? You don't get to do that by accident.

The HP wars are only happening now because the technology is so much better relative to just a few decades ago. A V6 Accord today makes more power than malaise era big block V8s used to, and hot hatches have the same power LT1 corvettes launched with, and we get almost no MPG penalty for that power. The power hasn't been the only improvement either; the Focus STs chassis is so brilliantly sorted that it has been repeatedly compared favorably in bang-for-the-buck to supercars, and the Mustang has gone IRS. The live axle for performance cars is pretty much dead now in fact . I'm not sure what more you can ask for beyond that.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 16:46

0

True, that's partly why they are so easy to add power to, the engineers were given free reign to overengineer the cars.

Trevor Slattery, ACTOR > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 16:51

1

There is a reason the VW GTI always ends up in top 10 lists. At the end of the day, it is the overall package, not peak horsepower, that makes for a great car.

lucky's pepper > PS9 02/18/2015 at 17:02

3

Today's V6 Accord, at 278 hp, makes as much or more power then most performance big-blocks from the 60's (when you take into consideration the difference between the SAE gross ratings then and the SAE net ratings now). A 4 cylinder Accord at 185 hp makes as much power as most malaise era big-blocks.

wiffleballtony > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 17:06

1

Your 0 to 60 times on the 2013 Mustang are wrong.

Art > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 17:14

1

2013 Mustang GT was rated at 420 horsepower and the quarter mile 13 flat. The 2005 with 305 was a high 13s car. I agree with your point but you did used some false information about a car's performance to make a point.

Art > Garrett Davis 02/18/2015 at 17:17

1

Now he is saying its a 2005! Haha come on. We all know that a 2005 Mustang GT needs full bolt ons to keep up with a 2011+ 5.0. I know I own one. My best run stock was 12.6 at 112. But 13 flat is the norm.

Garrett Davis > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 17:20

2

Ok, according to your source, Motorweek may have gotten a higher number, but everyone else got much lower. Hell, Car and Driver got 4.8 seconds from the much heavier GT automatic convertible.

The point is that you can't just pick and choose which numbers support your argument. You're trying to say that 10 years and 100 horsepower lead to the same 0-60 time, but that is not true at all.

So let's actually look at ten years of difference across two generations (from your source):

2005 GT automatic: 5.1 seconds

2015 GT automatic: 4.5 seconds

Big difference when you don't pick and chose your numbers to suit your argument.

Art > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 17:23

0

you must be coming from youtube. You clearly don't know much about cars. A veyron with 1000 hp is not going to be twice as fast as a 500 horsepower car. For example a 2005 z06 runs 11 flat. There is no way in hell a Veyron can run the quarter in 6 seconds flat. back to your mustang comparison. Even if the 2011+ Mustang was to have the same 300 horsepower which it did in 2010. It would still be faster than a 2005 because the 2010 has better tires, better suspension and gearing if equiped with 3.73s. Where the 2005 Mustang was a high 13s car the 2010 with the same engine just a but more power was a mid 13s car

SantaRita > Art 02/18/2015 at 18:19

0

More real wrench time than most fakers around here.

You just made my point. 1000hp is never twice as fast as 500hp, so why bother chasing the number instead of focusing on the gearing or chassis balance, in fact you listed a half doses improvements that aren't motor related and that's what I think we forget sometimes when the focus is on something a relative as peak hp

SantaRita > Art 02/18/2015 at 18:30

0

I'm comparing poorly with auto boxes but chose auto gt for consistency of times. I cite the reference for those times. I could use any car really, But wrx / civic hasn't doubled it's hp in the last decade like the usa cars, corvette and so forth, working huge magic with those cars! But again, 1000hp daily driver corvette just seems silly

Garrett Davis > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 18:51

2

Marginally faster? You're just talking out of your ass now. I've driven both a 1991 Mustang GT and a 2014 Mustang GT, and I can tell you that numbers aside, the new GT feels like a fucking rocket ship while the old one is kind of a dog by today's standards. Both were manual coupes with 5.0 V8s, and the new one was massively different than the old.

But since we're bringing up numbers here, lets see: http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/f…

1991 Mustang GT 0-60: 7.3 seconds

2014 Mustang GT 0-60: 4.4 seconds

That's a massive difference, buddy.

Art > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 19:29

1

I think everyone understands your point yet you are wrong when it comes down to it. You know why because today's transmissions shift faster, suspensions are more sophisticated (magnetic) better brakes (carbon) lighter wheels (carbon wheels) Lighter materials (aluminium, carbon composite, carbon fiber) In other words there are plenty of advances in todays cars that makes those from the past look like dinosaurs. My whole argument comes down to how you used a 2004/05 Mustang GT to a 2014 model with 415 horsepower (factory rated at 420 by the way) then you mention the 2015 as having 440 plus horses. I am not questioning your wrench time but when it comes down to writing something, you are just plain horrible.

Art > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 19:34

0

The Civic really! You mustang have been living under a rock. The civic has become nothing but an appliance. Check this out for reference.

SantaRita > Garrett Davis 02/18/2015 at 20:33

0

Perfect example as well, 300-440 hp difference among a host of other updated components...50 percent more horsepower and the car is half a second faster.

Great, but if they give me another 3500lb car eventualy I stop caring.

Finally the controversial IRS joins the party, and mustang looks better than ever...but to do this car justice it deserves to go on a diet before it goes on another workout binge.

Give us 3200lbs instead of 500hp

SantaRita > Art 02/18/2015 at 20:42

0

Art,

The mustang uses almost none of the listed advance like carbon brakes wheels or magnetic suspension. ( lighter materials is pretty generic, and transmissions are faster)

Instead they just give it more power.

That's why the car is 3500 lbs today, yesterday, and the time before that.

And honestly if deserves better, the weight hit from IRS is a already such a controversial compromise ...but at the end of the day they made up for with horsepower instead of lightness.

Garrett Davis > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 20:53

1

*Sigh*

I'm struggling to comprehend how your mind is working here. First of all, it is an increase of about 100hp, which is not at all 50% of 305 horsepower. Second of all, .6 of a second is quite a lot when we're talking about these speeds. The lower and lower in time you go, the bigger difference each tenth of a second makes. If we were talking about 10.1 seconds to 60 VS 9.5 seconds, it wouldn't be much of a noticeable difference, but once you get down around 5 seconds and especially below, that .6 of a second makes a massive difference.

Here's another example. The FR-S/BRZ have a reputation around here for being slow cars, and the Focus ST has a reputation for being quite fast. What do you think the difference in 0-60 time is? Car and Driver tested them both and came up with:

FR-S: 6.3 seconds

Focus ST: 5.7 seconds

That's right, the same .6 of a second. I've driven both and can tell you that the Toyobaru twins feel strangely slow given how sporty the rest of the car feels and looks, and from owning a Focus ST, I can tell you that the Focus is a properly fast little car. That half of a second looks like nothing on paper, but feels like a completely different animal when you actually experience it.

Art > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 20:58

0

read a bit about the gt350r coming out next year.

samssun > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 22:13

0

Sorry but as much as I like my 300ZX, and as big as the dyno numbers some Supra guys put out are, these cars were never the "finest pieces of completely balanced machinery". That's just revisionism from "import" fans whose automakers don't make anything sporty any more (Nissan does, Mazda doesn't, Toyota & Honda haven't in years).

The RX-7 was a dog at anything but a redline launch. The 300ZX was heavy, very complex, and an absolute pain to work on. The 3000GT was a tank, has a sideways engine, and the majority were FWD. The Supra had a very buildable engine, but was still stuck with floaty Toyota suspension.

I'd argue that the lowly 370Z (and even 350Z) is a far more balanced piece of machinery than the 90s cars, despite lacking their cult following and an easily buildable FI engine. It's faster than they are, without giving up anything in the braking, grip, or handling department, plus easy maintenance.

96VR4me > SantaRita 02/18/2015 at 23:14

0

I owned a 2007 Mustang GT (5 speed manual), and now own a 1996 3000GT VR4. Never thought I'd see these two cars mentioned in the same article! Also, the S197 Mustang GT was definitely a high 13's car at best - not sure how MotorTrend got a 13.6, especially with a subpar trap of 99.9mph - most run around 13.8 to 13.9 @ 102ish at best with a bad ass driver. My VR4 would just straight kill my 07 GT in a straight line just based on the butt dyno.

The Japanese 276HP rating limit was BS - the US version of the VR4 was 320HP, the 300ZX TT was 300HP, and the Supra was 320HP. Best Motoring ran one of the VR4 MR spec cars through the 1/4 mile at 13.2 seconds - since the 3000gt weighs around 3700lbs, it would need more than 276 HP to run those numbers....lol.

SantaRita > 96VR4me 02/19/2015 at 09:51

0

turbo cars lay out torque like spreading margarine, easily and all over the place. Your VR-4 has twice the on-pavement traction too...

i'm most excited about the 2.3L T in the mustang. It seems like it could have as much potential as anything i listed above.

SantaRita > SantaRita 02/19/2015 at 10:10

0

turbo cars lay out torque like spreading margarine, easily and all over the place. Your VR-4 has twice the on-pavement traction too...and frankly i love the stangs too, but there is a finesse to many of those J cars that is very tactile and sensitive. Yet others are just such technologically stretched packages that you see exactly how their DNA has slowly leaked out for decades afterwards. wasn't eh VR4 one of the first active spoilers in production?

i'm most excited about the 2.3L T in the mustang. It seems like it could have as much potential as anything i listed above.

FWIW, my old Saab 9000 Aero would easily match the 05 mustang (my Friend Chris's ) on the highway (stoplight not so much) an it was only rated at 225 hp...but then it made 270lbft of torque from 2000 rpms...

that was a 2.3L T making 15psi in a FWD sedan, in a FR car it promised quite a bit more fun... I could tell the motor is less excited to move the extra couple of hundred lbs the mustang weighs even with more rated HP&torque. That may just come down to the turbo itself, since it's a lot faster to come on boost as well.

obviously it would be the mustang ecoboost for me.

96VR4me > SantaRita 02/19/2015 at 14:31

0

Ah - I LOVE Saab 9000s! I'm very impressed that it could hang like that with an 05 GT - although I do know that Saabs have great in gear acceleration. Was there alot of turbo lag? Was it reliable? I've always wanted one as a DD, but they are so hard to find, and most are somewhat beat. Just such as cool car, one of my favorite Saabs.

Yep, the VR4 had 'active aero' rear & front spoiler - the spoiler raises / drops at speeds over 45 mph or so to create downforce. Mitsubishi actually deleted some of the 'tech' stuff as the years went on - by 1997 the active aero feature was gone. Honestly, the VR4 is overweight and somewhat overwrought with 'tech features', some of them useless (i.e. the in cabin option of quieting the exhaust note), but it only adds to the charm. It is a misunderstood car, with many assuming it to be 'slow' based on the weight - but stock for stock (with a correct AWD launch of course ;), the second gen VR4s are faster to 60 and through the 1/4 than the 300ZX TT / RX7 TT, and it matches (and in one test, is faster) the Supra TT. Of course, from a roll and at higher speeds, the AWD advantage begins to fade quickly. A highway roll race is not the VR4s forte, but stoplight to stoplight, it can match almost anything.

Vs the stang, the VR4 is simply the faster car of the two by quite a bit - the VR4 makes peak torque at 2500RPM (315 lb ft), so the pull from 3000 to redline is pretty ferocious. For reference, I test drove a 2015 WRX STI twice, and my VR4 (which is stock besides a K&N filter) pulls quite a bit harder down low. The low end power is what makes the VR4, despite the heavy weight, capable of 4.8 second runs to 60 with a good launch.

I'm undecided on the new turbo Mustang - the numbers have been somewhat disappointing, but I haven't test driven one. I do love that there is a turbo option though.

SantaRita > 96VR4me 02/19/2015 at 15:42

0

http://www.carlustblog.com/2012/02/saab-9…

That is my writeup from a while back. I think they are fairly dependable. Nothing unusual (engine mounts and one ignition cassette...and then maintenance) and better than my A6 Avant to work on...It is overall a super clean engine bay from the start there is a human hand's amount of space everywhere you'd need to work on it. Much better to tool on than a 9-3. For nearly the same listed BHP, the aero is a furious car that begs you to punish it, pulling hard to redline. When i push the A6 Avant it goes a little bit jelly and the transmission is unexcited and redline feels like i'm really asking too much.

Overall its a much nicer car than the 900 or 9-3 from a chassis and refinement standpoint. There is little bit of an Alfa's DNA left in it, but it also less rowdy with the power delivery than the viggen is. Better engine and steering supports are a big factor.

Something about the interior is a little bit like an executive lounge in the 70's, but that's a great thing. give it a 9/10 because smoking isn't as cool now as it was in 1975.

96VR4me > SantaRita 02/20/2015 at 00:49

0

Hahah - wish I could quit, but grooming dogs at a chain store makes me do it (that's my current excuse). Thanks so much for the link - fantastic write up! I always knew they were quick, but had no idea that there was an aftermarket for them! That must have been such a fun car, and very rare as well. Hope you like the Audi at least somewhat - I would imagine the interior is a much nicer place to be at least.

SantaRita > 96VR4me 02/20/2015 at 09:24

0

the audi is nicer to look at inside , the result of awd adn irs super computer tcs is a very confident car to take around full pedal in pretty much any weather. The Aero needed to be driven with some reason in the snow. typical awd/fwd platform differences really

Dsscats > SantaRita 03/12/2015 at 01:43

0

0-60 times is one of the least reliable sources on that kind of thing. Ever. Please avoid it.

SantaRita > Dsscats 03/12/2015 at 09:29

0

http://www.zeperfs.com/

probably use zeperfs from now on

Dsscats > SantaRita 03/12/2015 at 09:33

0

Or car magazines...