Ongoing General Automotive Thread 2.0

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This just ain’t true. I’ve driven 7 seater SUVs with sub-300hp and can rip just fine on the highway with them, including quick, safe passing.

More hp = more fun but the above to me indicates a driver issue rather than an engine/power issue.

Everything is heavy these days. And with the turbo charged 4 cylinders now yeah you can zip along just fine in big SUVs with sub 250hp. But your sucking a large load of fuel to do it.

Just ask the new Ram owners that have that inline 6 how their fuel economy is while doing truck things...it's two or three times worse than a 5.7L Hemi V8. Weight to power ratio is real. And should be considered when buying a new vehicle. I'd hate to buy a new tundra with a new Iforce Max.

Or any 1 ton with a 4 banger. That's awful.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Horsepower is relative to era. Civics and Corollas in the 90's only needed 120 hp because they weighed in the neighborhood of 2200 lbs. Today those vehicles weigh 3000 lbs.

Our Sportwagen is listed at 3358lbs, according to the Google. It's been our primary road trip vehicle, so we load it down with 2 adults, 2 kids, full wagon cargo, roof cargo, and often bikes on the back. At 170hp it'll still get us past people quickly, often with commentary from the kids asking why am I going so fast. Again, a big chunk of that is the DSG and using it to my advantage. I'd love to have 250 in that wagon, but suspect my mail would be full of tickets.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You sayin' my jalopies are old???


In fairness, the truck is almost an antique in Alberta. The other is just a reasonably sized car(Impreza. No, not white).

Blue with the Gold wheels, enormous 'muffler,' blow-off valve and a rear spoiler wing the size of a 747s.

[DoubleF]

Circling back, I have no issues for someone who is an enthusiast who wants more than 250HP. But to say 250HP isn't a lot is a bit out there, especially if there's also the concept of 350HP+ which on cursory glance eliminates certain models of Porches for being slugs. One of my favourite exotics is the Lotus Elise, so that's why I brought up power to weight vs raw HP.

I also question that 50-70 mph time for the V90 of 4.5 seconds. It makes no sense to me and seems to be ridiculously off. If the 0-60 mph time is 6.5 seconds or around 1.1 seconds per 10 mph from a stop, and then 50-70 mph at 4.5 seconds is closer to 2.2 seconds per 10 mph. I further got an AI response that 0-70 mph for the V90 T5 is 9.7 seconds, which also seems ridiculously off. So it takes 6.5 seconds to reach 60 mph and then an additional 3.2 seconds to reach 70 mph? There's no damn way. I am pretty sure it doesn't take me 4.5 seconds to go from 80-115 kmph in the van, let alone a car with better power to weight ratio.

I got a search result saying that a GTR R32 with 280 HP takes about 6 seconds from 0-60 and 1.6 seconds for 50-70 mph. These numbers make more sense to me than the stated V90 taking 4.5 seconds to do 50-70, which I agree is objectively abysmal, but logically also seems very inaccurate.

[Fuzz]

Wind resistance squares with speed, so you need a lot more power to accelerate at higher speeds. Also, you are probably in a higher gear so less torque.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Wind resistance squares with speed, so you need a lot more power to accelerate at higher speeds. Also, you are probably in a higher gear so less torque.

From 80-112 kmph though? 120+ kmph, certainly I'd believe that.

But I'll take the L on that though. I thought about it and i guess I didnt factor in turbo lag.

[Fuzz]

Spoiler!

https://fastestlaps.com/models/volvo-v90-t5


I think the curve starts to bend more above 80-90. It does make sense, because they are going to optimize the gearing and engine performance for efficiency at the speed you are travelling most on the highway. But it is also just physics.

[TorqueDog]

We started the discussion talking about heavy modern vehicles — like a >4,100lb Volvo sport wagon — with only 247 horsepower being insufficient, I guess it was only matter of time before we jumped the shark and the power-to-weight ratio of the Lotus bloody Elise was brought up.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Also, you are probably in a higher gear so less torque.

You can be in whatever gear you want, and if it's an auto the more throttle means the lower the gear and the hither the RPMs.

Also, less torque is the wrong thing to worry about. You care about how fast you can apply that torque to do work (push against the air resistance). Higher RPMs = faster application of torque. This is why gas engines make peak power at an RPM where torque has already fallen below the peak torque value.

[Fuzz]

Ya, I used the word "probably" in the sense that you are in first or second for the first phase, but probably not in first doing 80-110. Depending on how many gears the transmission has, you might be in second, but these days, probably not.


I think your point on torque brings us back to the reality of the acceleration we were originally talking about, and not extracting the 80-110 from the the 0-110 speed, because that data is generated from having your foot to the floor. But if you are overtaking on the highway in an auto, you are probably around 2500rpm, so low torque. You put your foot down, the vehicle accelerates briefly in the higher gear, then drops down a gear or two, then rpms rise, then you get that torque. If it has a turbo, that's another potential lag before peak power. And how fast that process happens can really depend on the vehicle.


In our CVT Impreza, it's super slow(I know it isn't dropping a gear, but the response is sluggish). To get around that I just manually drop it an imaginary gear or two and then mash it to the floor. Takes off(as much as 148hp takes off..) pretty responsively then. I know autos have buttons like disable O/D or Hold to get around that too. I suspect most people never use those tools.

[cam_wmh]

I standby what I said. 350hp, <4,000lbs.

I live where most of my driving, and passing is on undivided two lane. Quick clutch in, downshift, and I’m around a super B, in a safe, expedient manner.

For city life, and long weekends on the #1, lots of more appliance like options are available.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, I used the word "probably" in the sense that you are in first or second for the first phase, but probably not in first doing 80-110. Depending on how many gears the transmission has, you might be in second, but these days, probably not.

Your car makes the exact same amount of power in first gear at 5000 rpm as it does in 4th gear at 5000 rpm.

If you mash it to pass someone, an automatic transmission will have you run to the redline before downshifting to the next gear, repeating as necessary. You won't be anywhere near peak torque, as torque isn't deterministic of how much air your car can push away to accelerate. That's horsepower.

[Slava]

If you guys care about HP and instant gratification, you should check out EVs. You mash that pedal, and you just fly!

[Fuzz]

Well now those do typically have less torque at higher RPM's!




https://allens-home.com/electric-veh...finite-torque/


But it also shows less torque for the Camaro at higher speeds.

[Fuzz]

This page actually has a good bit of detail.

Peak torque of the engine is of no interest to the ideal tractive effort curve – that is because maximum acceleration will be realized with shorter gearing and higher engine speed, despite the lower engine torque. In other words, all we care about is staying as close to peak HP as possible, and letting the gearing make up for the lost torque at the engine!

...
So let’s look at our tractive effort graph: at 80km/h, we can use 5th gear and apply roughly 1450lb-ft of torque to the axle, or we can use 4th gear and apply 1700lb-ft of torque! That’s 17% more torque to the ground, and guess what, our HP at 80km/h is 17% higher in 4th than it is in 5th.

https://www.onpointdyno.com/understa...ractive-force/

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Slava

If you guys care about HP and instant gratification, you should check out EVs. You mash that pedal, and you just fly!

Hey, if Lucid wants to hand me a Sapphire for free I'm down. If Rivian wants to hand over one of their truck/SUVs I'm all in.

Theres more to the EV world than just Elon and his jalopies.

Oooooo, I'll take a Porsche Taycan wagon Turbo S too.

Hell I'd even take a Hummer EV from GM as well and just crab walk over to the charging station.

EDIT: oh Rimac is giving away a Nivera? Don't mind of I do!

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

We started the discussion talking about heavy modern vehicles — like a >4,100lb Volvo sport wagon — with only 247 horsepower being insufficient, I guess it was only matter of time before we jumped the shark and the power-to-weight ratio of the Lotus bloody Elise was brought up.

Well, because in the same posts, I'm also mentioning I frequently drive a Honda Odyssey and get by with a worse power to weight ratio than the Volvo. My interest in vehicles is limited and a relatively uncommon philosophy. Growing up, I was drawn to the Ferarri Testarossa, Lotus Esprit and Lotus Elise. Everyone laughed at the tech specs of those vehicles. It was always nice to meet someone who would kinda understand why I was drawn to those vehicles.

If I won the lottery, I would throw money at going to performance driving school long before I get a flashy car. I don't mind a flashy car, but I don't want to feel like I've cruelly caged a beast that deserves to just fly.

According to AI, Odyssey is about 0.06HP/pound in the Odyssey and 0.087 HP in the Volvo and the Volvo has the AWD advantage the Odyssey does not. I'm saying I feel the van is adequate for passing, so the Volvo should be adequate to decent as well. Obviously more HP/pound is more fun, but something most consider a slug (Odyssey) is IMO adequate. I'm saying a differentiation between adequate, decent, fun and enthusiast and I just disagree that the Volvo is considered in the inadequate range.

In the Odyssey, I don't have too many issues passing vehicles by selecting sport mode and clicking the paddle shifter down so that I can maintain 5K RPM+. It's not sports car numbers, but it doesn't take too long to get to 130-150 kmph when I do that. Trying to pass someone at 2.5-3.5K RPM is stupid, but I bet that is what typically happens.

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Your car makes the exact same amount of power in first gear at 5000 rpm as it does in 4th gear at 5000 rpm.

If you mash it to pass someone, an automatic transmission will have you run to the redline before downshifting to the next gear, repeating as necessary. You won't be anywhere near peak torque, as torque isn't deterministic of how much air your car can push away to accelerate. That's horsepower.

And that's the thing, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people don't do that. They think, "auto" and it's just foot on floor. There's so many additional twiddles and settings that can be done to get that zip. I'm pretty sure my vehicles barely reach 5K RPM for more than a few seconds before downshifting. I use sports mode and the paddle shifter for around 5-10 seconds when passing on the highway before going back to auto for cruising

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

I standby what I said. 350hp, <4,000lbs.

I live where most of my driving, and passing is on undivided two lane. Quick clutch in, downshift, and I’m around a super B, in a safe, expedient manner.

For city life, and long weekends on the #1, lots of more appliance like options are available.

You actually need/use that extra HP and whatever beast you are driving gets to stretch its legs regularly though. IMO that's valid for your specific needs and respectable. I'm just saying that's not a reasonable rule of thumb for the everyman and a bunch of the posers out there.

The van is my appliance and I'm just saying it ain't as slow as people claim it to be. Rant/pet peeve of mine because I grew up driving a 2004 Odyssey and I guess I was around too many people IRL that would vocally blame their nicer vehicles and #### on mine than admit they were cowards who refused to drive fast.

That's why I was saying to give the vehicle a try before relying solely on tech specs to see if the individual could bring that power out and use it. We likely agree on the concept of usage/enjoyment and appliance/enthusiast. The Volvo might not be an enthusiast vehicle, but I really cannot imagine it deserves to be considered a slug of an appliance.

[Sliver]

Everyone saying 250hp isn't plenty is tied for being the dumbest person ever.

And I like powerful cars. I'm just aware enough to know you can do plenty with 250, 220, or even 170.

[bigrangy]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I'm looking for recommendations on resources.

I'm looking to buy a new vehicle in the next 6months

I'm looking at wagons or 4door sedans, I am done with SUVs.

What are some great websites that can be used to review quality, longevity, technical specs (don't want no low HP).

I'm looking for a long term purchase of more higher end vehicle (Audio/BMW/Mercedes)

I don’t see the point of Audi/BMW/Merc when one can just get a Porsche.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by bigrangy

I don’t see the point of Audi/BMW/Merc when one can just get a Porsche.

Except one just can't get a Porsche unless they are exclusively wealthy. Porsche has raised pricing again and a base 911 Carerra is now $134,650 USD and base Porsches don't really exist. You can buy a loaded M3/M4 Competition for cheaper in CAD and it's not exactly a performance slouch.