• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How much more power would i need?

A

AstroGuardian

Senior member
Hi everyone,

I know that there are many really smart ppl here so i will ask.

Is there any way i could know how much more engine power i would need so i can increase speed from 200 to 250 km/h? Is there a formula i can use to calculate this?

Thx all
 
Thats not really possible to tell you with what you gave. Have to factor in wind resistance of the vehicle and gearing of the transmission, and a few other things as well.
 
I am talking about taking as much factors as possible. But i think wind resistance would be the most important factor.

Also i am talking about 200-250 km/h in final gear.
 
if you give us some information about the car and what surroundings you're at, we can at least give an educated guess
 
New horsepower = old horsepower * (new top speed / old top speed)^cubed

edit: I have no idea how accurate this is
 
Last edited:
too many variables. although the difference between 120 mph and 155 mph is probably 50-100 hp, neglecting gearing, wind resistance, and assuming a weight around 3k lbs. just a guess. the difference between 155-180 is much more severe. 180-200 even more so.. the faster you go, the more wind resistance, i am not familiar with that fluid equation for calculating resistance, but I assume its a linear curve, maybe a slight exponential.
 
I'll add that it typically takes double the power for each 1 second faster in the quarter mile, all else held constant.

eg: 500 HP gets you ~10s-11s, 1000 HP gets you 8s-9s, 2000 HP gets you 6-7s, all the way down to 8000 HP to run 4s-5s.

It climbs quickly due to fluid drag (eg: air) being a cube of velocity.
 
Last edited:
bommy261 said:
too many variables. although the difference between 120 mph and 155 mph is probably 50-100 hp, neglecting gearing, wind resistance, and assuming a weight around 3k lbs. just a guess. the difference between 155-180 is much more severe. 180-200 even more so.. the faster you go, the more wind resistance, i am not familiar with that fluid equation for calculating resistance, but I assume its a linear curve, maybe a slight exponential.
Click to expand...

fairly linear, until you get past ~90mph
 
Last edited:
punjabiplaya said:
New horsepower = old horsepower * (new top speed / old top speed)^cubed

edit: I have no idea how accurate this is
Click to expand...

If all you account for is aero, this is basically correct. FWIW aero is probably the most significant factor, though there are many things that will change as you go faster.

You should also make sure that in your highest gear you can actually spin your engine fast enough to get to 250kph, i.e. that you're not gear-limited to below 250kph. For example, to exactly make 250kph at a red-line of say 6,000 rpm, your engine would have to be at 4800rpm at 200kph.

This is an interesting problem because your car's power output better increase with RPM at an appropriate rate. Say you needed 200hp to hit 250kph, your engine will need to output 200hp at our made-up 6,000 rpm, not at some lower RPM.
 
bommy261 said:
too many variables. although the difference between 120 mph and 155 mph is probably 50-100 hp, neglecting gearing, wind resistance, and assuming a weight around 3k lbs. just a guess. the difference between 155-180 is much more severe. 180-200 even more so.. the faster you go, the more wind resistance, i am not familiar with that fluid equation for calculating resistance, but I assume its a linear curve, maybe a slight exponential.
Click to expand...

D:

If you neglect gearing and wind resistance then you can get to any speed with any power level.

Weight doesn't make a difference in top speed, just how fast you get there.

Power loss through friction is not linear, if it was linear the power required to get from 150-175kph would be the same increase in power as 175-200kph. It is also not exponential. It is cubic for high Reynolds number situations like a car driving fast in air.
 
Last edited:
JCH13 said:
D:

If you neglect gearing and wind resistance then you can get to any speed with any power level.

Weight doesn't make a difference in top speed, just how fast you get there.

Power loss through friction is not linear, if it was linear the power required to get from 150-175kph would be the same increase in power as 175-200kph. It is also not exponential. It is cubic for high Reynolds number situations like a car driving fast in air.
Click to expand...

what i should have said, was assuming your car could reach that speed at a reasonable RPM based off its current gearing. But a cubic is an exponential last time I checked. You are right about that acceleration as well.
 
bommy261 said:
what i should have said, was assuming your car could reach that speed at a reasonable RPM based off its current gearing. But a cubic is an exponential last time I checked. You are right about that acceleration as well.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're checking the book of stupid.

The 3 in the function f(x)=x^3 is the exponent of a cubic function.

The function f(x)=4^x is exponential, where x is the exponent.

See this.

a function in which an independent variable appears as an exponent
Click to expand...
 
Either way the growth is still exponential. I could care less which is the exponent and which is the exponential.
 
bommy261 said:
Either way the growth is still exponential. I could care less which is the exponent and which is the exponential.
Click to expand...

D:

You just don't get it...

Wiki: Exponential growth.

The very first image is a graph comparing, guess what, linear growth, cubic growth, and exponential growth. They are very different functions with very different implications.
 
You want a cookie? From now on for all matters dealing with growth i shall defer to you. In all my years of calculus ive always referred to any growth outside of linear to be expoential. Thanks for the review in 7th grade math tho.
 
bommy261 said:
You want a cookie? From now on for all matters dealing with growth i shall defer to you. In all my years of calculus ive always referred to any growth outside of linear to be expoential. Thanks for the review in 7th grade math tho.
Click to expand...

A cookie would be great, thanks. I just finished lunch and a dessert would be nice :thumbsup:

You're welcome on the review of "7th grade math." It was clear you needed a refresher since you've been getting it wrong for all your "years of calculus."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top