There is an old saying possibly going back to post WW2 when hot rodding was in it’s infancy. “Speed Costs Money. How fast do you want to go”? A turbo with enough PSI to make appreciable difference will at least require an exhaust that can handle the increased air flow. A 2.5L I4 drive train: Transmission, transfer case, drive shafts, and rear differential designed for a 119hp I4 will probably be over stressed. At least a high pressure (turbo) head gasket will be required. I suggest a Ford Ranger forum to see what their members have had success with.
I don’t have emission or safety inspections where I live so I didn’t even think of that!
I recall a vintage (re-published) Car and Driver road test on a Citroen 2CV. 0 to 60 in one afternoon!
I had to deal as a commercial driver with 55mph governed vehicles complying with the national environmental speed limit. My lowest HP vehicle was the 45hp Austin Healy Sprite Mk 1. Although at a curb weight of a bit over 1,200 lbs and a 150 pound driver it performed quite well.
I agree. My 2010 Kia SX 6 speed 2.4L I4 M/T was tested by Road&Track 0 to 60 in 6.9 seconds. If I had it in 1960s high school I could have given many stock Mustangs and Camaros a run for the money! At my age I of course have never tried to confirm the 0 to 60 time.
1 Like
Yes and Yes. Strange that the early Mustang six was not as bad. Fast forward to my 1973 Mustang 250 cu in I6 3 speed M/T was actually fun to drive.
When I lived with my parents but had a driver’s license, we had a '68 VW Beetle along with a '60 Chevy. I hated the Chevy but loved the Beetle, it was just so much fun to drive. The Chevy with a stovebolt six and two speed powerglide was probably faster, it just wasn’t fun to drive.
More power doesn’t always translate to more fun to drive. I used to own a Kawasaki ZXR1200 which was absolutely stupid-powerful. It was also heavy, got about the same gas mileage as my car, and needed a new rear tire with every oil change. If a motorcycle is supposed to be an economical alternative to a car, this bike completely misses the point of a motorcycle.
I then bought a Kawasaki Ninja 300 because I need to get 70 mpg a lot worse than I need to double the speed limit when I commute to work. Funny thing is that that little bike is so much fun to ride that the big bike just stayed parked. I finally sold it and never looked back.
Horsepower doesn’t necessarily translate to being more fun to drive. It can even be counterproductive. A few years ago, a motocross racer was disqualified and stripped of his season points because he was caught racing in the open class with a 250 cc bike. On a lot of tracks, the 250’s were posting faster lap times than the open class because the additional weight of the big bikes hurt the racers more than the horsepower helped them, that and the 250’s had become developed to a point where more power was just more wheelspin on 90% of the track.
When I rode my Honda CB400F was plenty quick, unless I was riding with my friends. Their bikes were at least 750cc and much quicker than me. The Honda got great gas mileage, too.
The CB400F has kind of become a collector’s item today. I would say the modern Ninja 300 compares favorably with the CB400F in performance. These bikes are fun to ride for the same reasons that small four cylinder sports cars are fun to drive.
