Sigh...240hp ain't what it use to be

[LS20]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
The thing is, many of the HP numbers generated by todays cars are rather peaky. So the 250HP that they make today isn't that much faster than the 200HP that they made a few years back. Also, for the amount of HP they make, they lack the torque that's needed to get them off the line. That's why a 230HP Dakota can keep up with a 200HP RSX suprisingly well given it's ~1500LB weight disadvantage. As far as traction control goes, if you wanna go fast, generally you turn it off. A V8 Firebird ran 15's at the track, another racer asked if he had traction control on, he did, turned it off, ran 13s. Brother in law had a similar experience in a Mustang.

what you mean is practical or useable power. a 230hp dakota can keep up with a 200hp rsx? in what context? on the street from supermarket to supermarket? driven all out, that dakota will not keep up with that rsx. 250hp car will be much faster than 200hp car.

per original question: supercars and luxury cars have been getting really really juiced up. normal cars, though, have only incremental power increases to compensate for their heavier weights. i dont think you can name 5 sedans under 40k that can pull off a 14.0 quartermile. and besides, 300hp means nothing in the handling department

 

[coalrabbit]

Originally posted by: Imdmn04

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Imdmn04
Cars, as much as you think technology has progressed so much, has acutally not changed a whole lot. We are still on 4 wheels, manually steering with a wheel, and most cars still use gas.

For example, Let's compare cars to telephones, phones have evolved from corded, to cordless, to wireless. The same magnitude of change in the automobile industry would be equivolent to flying cars that drives by itself.

You're comparing phones to cars? What about traction control, fuel injection, front and side air bags, increased fuel efficiency, navigation systems, power seats, heated seats, ad nauseum? It's absurd to make that comparison.

Similar analogies to phones for those things would be lcd screen, backlight, caller id, speakerphone, phonebook. Get the drift?

All those things are not revolutionary, except maybe air bags. Going from black&white to color tv is revolutionary, going from analog vcr to a tivo is revolutionary. The same magnitude of development is just nonexistent on cars.

Horse-driven -> Steam engines -> Internal combustion -> Hydrogen fuel cells

Cars have changed a lot, but the change is just slower.

 

[notfred]

I know how you feel. My 305hp car is getting closer and closer to average every new model year.

 

[LongCoolMother]

just look at those new TLs, pushing out 270 hp.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: LS20

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
The thing is, many of the HP numbers generated by todays cars are rather peaky. So the 250HP that they make today isn't that much faster than the 200HP that they made a few years back. Also, for the amount of HP they make, they lack the torque that's needed to get them off the line. That's why a 230HP Dakota can keep up with a 200HP RSX suprisingly well given it's ~1500LB weight disadvantage. As far as traction control goes, if you wanna go fast, generally you turn it off. A V8 Firebird ran 15's at the track, another racer asked if he had traction control on, he did, turned it off, ran 13s. Brother in law had a similar experience in a Mustang.

what you mean is practical or useable power. a 230hp dakota can keep up with a 200hp rsx? in what context? on the street from supermarket to supermarket? driven all out, that dakota will not keep up with that rsx. 250hp car will be much faster than 200hp car.

per original question: supercars and luxury cars have been getting really really juiced up. normal cars, though, have only incremental power increases to compensate for their heavier weights. i dont think you can name 5 sedans under 40k that can pull off a 14.0 quartermile. and besides, 300hp means nothing in the handling department

The 4.7+5 speed Dakotas pull mid-low 15s, the RSX S+6 speed pulls high 14's to low 15's. (by automag testing methods)

 

[titansfan098]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Triumph
Your 240 hp M3 is still one of the most coveted vehicles in the last 10 years.

Yeah, but the 200x ones are even better.

Huh? Like the BMW 2002? That car was made 25 years ago.

No I believe he means the E46 M3's which are from 2001-2004.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: vshah

Originally posted by: Gimli43Orcs
0-60 in about 6.1 sec

none of the family cars is that fast....IIRC the altima is like 6.7 or something. Not to mention RWD and handling. i envy you :beer:

-Vivan

no, the accord coupe hits 60 in 5.9 seconds, according to car and driver.

but don't get me wrong, i'd rather have the M3.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: vshah

Originally posted by: Gimli43Orcs
0-60 in about 6.1 sec

none of the family cars is that fast....IIRC the altima is like 6.7 or something. Not to mention RWD and handling. i envy you :beer:

-Vivan

no, the accord coupe hits 60 in 5.9 seconds, according to car and driver.

but don't get me wrong, i'd rather have the M3.

They were smoking crack when they got 5.9 seconds.

 

[Asharus]

Originally posted by: Gimli43Orcs
1997: Bought a new M3. Enjoying thumping other cars with its tire-peeling 240hp

2004: Every other family sedan has 200+ hp . These cars also have traction control, stability control, launch control, and every other control you can think of. I find it pretty remarkable the progress in technology of todays cars. Mind you, I still love my car, but man, I sure wouldnt mind some of these features in my car.

Yes, but can these family cars handle as well as your car? No.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: vshah

Originally posted by: Gimli43Orcs
0-60 in about 6.1 sec

none of the family cars is that fast....IIRC the altima is like 6.7 or something. Not to mention RWD and handling. i envy you :beer:

-Vivan

no, the accord coupe hits 60 in 5.9 seconds, according to car and driver.

but don't get me wrong, i'd rather have the M3.

They were smoking crack when they got 5.9 seconds.

C&D's times are always lower then virtually everybody else. I remember when they smoked off a 7.4s time for the Mazda3 and tC. Yet everybody else is much closer to 8s.

 

[Shockwave]

Drop an LS1 in your M3. Damn that'd be a car I'd fall in love with :heart:

 

[kag]

I'm not sure it has been done with an LS1, but I'm 95% sure I've seen a site where the guy bought a E36 318 and swapped the engine for a Chevy 350.

EDIT: this is not the page I had visited, but I found one which has an LS1

 

[CTrain]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: vshah

Originally posted by: Gimli43Orcs
0-60 in about 6.1 sec

none of the family cars is that fast....IIRC the altima is like 6.7 or something. Not to mention RWD and handling. i envy you :beer:

-Vivan

no, the accord coupe hits 60 in 5.9 seconds, according to car and driver.

but don't get me wrong, i'd rather have the M3.

They were smoking crack when they got 5.9 seconds.

C&D's times are always lower then virtually everybody else. I remember when they smoked off a 7.4s time for the Mazda3 and tC. Yet everybody else is much closer to 8s.

LOL, I was saying this in the tC thread.
Theres no way 160hp 2900++ lbs car gonna do 7.4.
Same thing with that Accord coupe. evryone else is getting closer to 6.6 and they got 5.9 ?? WTF ??

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: CTrain

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: vshah

Originally posted by: Gimli43Orcs
0-60 in about 6.1 sec

none of the family cars is that fast....IIRC the altima is like 6.7 or something. Not to mention RWD and handling. i envy you :beer:

-Vivan

no, the accord coupe hits 60 in 5.9 seconds, according to car and driver.

but don't get me wrong, i'd rather have the M3.

They were smoking crack when they got 5.9 seconds.

C&D's times are always lower then virtually everybody else. I remember when they smoked off a 7.4s time for the Mazda3 and tC. Yet everybody else is much closer to 8s.

LOL, I was saying this in the tC thread.
Theres no way 160hp 2900++ lbs car gonna do 7.4.
Same thing with that Accord coupe. evryone else is getting closer to 6.6 and they got 5.9 ?? WTF ??

Hell, even the Odyssey can easily make sub-8s times with proper launch. 5.9s in the Accord, yeah. Doable. Very repeatable after a few thousand clicks? Not as likely.

- M4H

 

[psteng19]

Originally posted by: LS20

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
The thing is, many of the HP numbers generated by todays cars are rather peaky. So the 250HP that they make today isn't that much faster than the 200HP that they made a few years back. Also, for the amount of HP they make, they lack the torque that's needed to get them off the line. That's why a 230HP Dakota can keep up with a 200HP RSX suprisingly well given it's ~1500LB weight disadvantage. As far as traction control goes, if you wanna go fast, generally you turn it off. A V8 Firebird ran 15's at the track, another racer asked if he had traction control on, he did, turned it off, ran 13s. Brother in law had a similar experience in a Mustang.

what you mean is practical or useable power. a 230hp dakota can keep up with a 200hp rsx? in what context? on the street from supermarket to supermarket? driven all out, that dakota will not keep up with that rsx. 250hp car will be much faster than 200hp car.

per original question: supercars and luxury cars have been getting really really juiced up. normal cars, though, have only incremental power increases to compensate for their heavier weights. i dont think you can name 5 sedans under 40k that can pull off a 14.0 quartermile. and besides, 300hp means nothing in the handling department

1. WRX STi
2. Evo 8
3. Neon SRT-4
4. Altima 3.5SE(R)
5. .......

 

[sciencewhiz]

Originally posted by: toant103
mine has 115HP i think. 86 accord

76 HP, 1982 Subaru DL

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: psteng19

Originally posted by: LS20
per original question: supercars and luxury cars have been getting really really juiced up. normal cars, though, have only incremental power increases to compensate for their heavier weights. i dont think you can name 5 sedans under 40k that can pull off a 14.0 quartermile. and besides, 300hp means nothing in the handling department

1. WRX STi
2. Evo 8
3. Neon SRT-4
4. Altima 3.5SE(R)
5. .......

5. Chrysler 300C Hemi

13.9

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Gimli43Orcs
1997: Bought a new M3. Enjoying thumping other cars with its tire-peeling 240hp

...I find it pretty remarkable the progress in technology of todays cars.

Yeah boy, I'm certainly impressed. :roll:

1970 Buick GS, 455 Stage I , 455-ci V-8/360 hp, 0-60 5.5, 1/4 mile 13.5/105.3

 

[vshah]

Originally posted by: MogulMonster

Originally posted by: vshah

Originally posted by: Gimli43Orcs
0-60 in about 6.1 sec

none of the family cars is that fast....IIRC the altima is like 6.7 or something. Not to mention RWD and handling. i envy you :beer:

-Vivan

Subaru Legacy GT - 0-60 in 5.8. 🙂

handling?

 

[titansfan098]

Excuse me? Subaru's are known for their all wheel drive and AWESOME handling!

 

[LS20]

Originally posted by: psteng19


1. WRX STi
2. Evo 8
3. Neon SRT-4
4. Altima 3.5SE(R)
5. .......

NOT the altima... and hardly srt-4.... maybe on a very, very, very, lucky hap.

besides the point, anyways

 

[Ornery]

"i dont think you can name 5 sedans under 40k that can pull off a 14.0 quartermile."

That was EXACTLY the point nitwit!

 

[Lithium381]

i only have 150 in my daily driver, she's a 3.0 v6.......then there is my beast of a suburban w/ 5.7 litres of goodness

 

[StageLeft]

Still handles nicely, but yeah it seems in the past few years there's been an arms race in the HP department.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: Gimli43Orcs
1997: Bought a new M3. Enjoying thumping other cars with its tire-peeling 240hp

...I find it pretty remarkable the progress in technology of todays cars.

Yeah boy, I'm certainly impressed. :roll:

1970 Buick GS, 455 Stage I , 455-ci V-8/360 hp, 0-60 5.5, 1/4 mile 13.5/105.3

Hooray for Ornery and his hatred of any and all cars produced after the oil crisis!