In hindsight, I should have used 
after that comment but you are correct. Itâs only half a joke though because for the most part, theyâre either idling or WOT for about 1/4 mile on the good days.
In my Ford E-150, a 2005 model with 4.6 engine I would floor it on my local highway entrance just to amaze myself with how much power that engine would put out. My old 428 Cobra Jet could outdo it of course, but the old engines that were 270 cubic inches would never act like that. The 70 LTD with the 390 was no slouch either. I liked hills with all those cars. Going up was so easy. I want vehicles to get much lighter and smaller so we could go back to 30 or 40 HP and make driving fun again with CVT transmission and windshield as an option.
Almost never. Downshifting and common-sense driving keeps me out of such situations . . . and I live in the Pocono Mountains and drive hills every day, commute on the interstate 2 days a week, and drive in the city once a week or so. Now . . . when do I feel like flooring it? Hmmm Rocketman
I think youâd be surprised.
40 horsepower back before they hung all of the emmissions trinkets on vehicles would be fairly equivalent to twice that much today. If you look at an 8N Ford tractor from 60 years ago it had about 25 horsepower and did fine. Today, the same size tractor probably has 40 to 50 horsepower. The difference is, the 8N wasnât designed for the hydraulic and PTO system needs todayâs implements have.
My 78 Chevy pickup had a 250 straight 6 in it, but it had a plain cab, no ac, no power brakes, no power steering, an AM radio and an ash tray. My 07 Dodge has power everything, windows, mirrors, rear window, heated mirrors, ac, steering, brakes, transfer case, electronic injection, satellite radio, door locks, defrosters, 4 door cab, power seats, air bags, computers etc. The 78 had a header and a muffler, this new truck has $5000 worth of exhaust emmissions trinkets on it.
Skipper
I heard a soundbite on the news yesterday- fleet owners are asking their drivers to slow down in an effort to save fuel.
Itâs the âking of the hillâ mentality that results in the widespread aggression on the roads, especially in urban areas. Same thinking that resulted in the H-bomb.
Model Tâs probably had about 10 horsepower. You had to hand crank it to start it and they wouldnât run 50 mph. I suppose we could go back anytime we wanted to.
Skip
I have an âoverpoweredâ 4-banger with a turbo, so I rarely have to put the petal to the metal, but, let me tell you, when I need to pass I really appreciate that extra power. I like to just pass and get it over with, and I love knowing that I can safely do it when I want to.
I never floor the accelerator but I would never want to have to floor it just to get up a hill. My car has about 140 HP and, while I am not afraid of nor am I not able to handle more, it is plenty for my needs. I used to drive about 700 miles a week and all of those 145 horses kept me out of some jambs when some drivers would come out of an acceleration lane and cross 2 lanes without looking into the left lane. Then I floored and if I could not have, I would have been pushed into median. 40 HP is good for some but not all & 145 HP is good for some but not all, you get what I mean. Happy Motoring
Nope, but about 50 HP in a small car would be just about right for most commuters.
Iâm satisifed with my 400 HP , but more wouldnât hurt.
I agree, craig58, except that Americans are not ugly.
Some of us are pretty ugly. (-;
Agree that all the stuff put on the engine for efficiency and emission controls cost MORE THAN THE ENGINE itself. But that is the price we pay for clean air, and getting decent gas mileage.
Iâm ugly. And Iâm spoiled. And Iâm happy.
Iâd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.
Not on the highways I commute on!
But I agree with the principle, most of us could get by with a lot less HP than we think we need. And most of those SUVs are totally unnecessary too.
âNot on the highways I commute on!â
My wifeâs 240D has about 70 HP in a 3500 pound car; I donât have any problem driving it on highways. If it takes an extra 5 seconds to get up to highway speed, someone behind me will just have to wait an extra five seconds while I merge; tough.
We have three vehicles, a 2001 Mazda, a 1993 Plymouth and a 1978 Dodge pickup. The Mazda gets 130 hp, the Plymouth 96 hp, and Iâm not sure about the Dodge. With only a few exceptions, they all have more than enough for me. The Plymouth only has a three speed automatic. If it had a five speed manual Iâd be much more happy with it. The Mazda (with a 4 speed AT) is really quite peppy and I have no problem passing or climbing hills with it. My old 1989 Honda Accord five speed had less than 100 hp and seemed to do just fine except for crossing the Rockies on I-70 loaded down with people and stuff.
Your old bug weight about what 1800 lbs and it was a death trap. Add enough shack absorbing materials and safety devices and you will be up to around 2400 lbs and your 40 hp wouldnât cut that any more.
The Germans used a different horse back then when calculating horse power. It was called DIN where everyone else was using SAE horses. Te DIN was about 20% stronger, and it was measured at the axle with all the normal drains added to the engine. Everyone else measured their horsepower at the flywheel with all drains removed. Drains are things like the water pump, alternator, etc. That made the German horses about 40% stronger overall. Your 40 hp then would have been closer to 56 hp as measured by anyone else back then, about 48 hp by todays standards.
We had an 86 Tercel that weighed about 2400 lbs and had a 62 hp engine. When that engine blew at 300k+ miles, I replaced it with a slightly larger 75 hp engine. It could have gotten by with the 62 hp, but 75 was a lot more comfortable. It meant not having to downshift or turn off the AC for hills.
The Tercel got about 26 mpg, I have an 02 Saturn SL. It also weighs about 2400 lbs and has a 100 hp engine, but it gets 38 mpg. I donât think less horsepower would result in better fuel economy, and I donât think its overpowered.
Years ago I lived in a condo where, I would guess, 80% of the drivers believed that the throttle had just two positions. These morons would brake (hard) for the speed bump right outside my window, and then floor it to get to the next speed bump. They were lucky I didnât have my rifle then⊠I would have used it.