HP In Perspective
 

I am new to the forum so my apologies if I am repeating something already said. I am getting a bit weary of people telling me "ya nice car but I hear they are too slow and need more HP" (jump in their Civic with it's $5 exhaust and drive away). As I am pretty sure I am MUCH older then the average owner/reviewer/critic of these cars I felt I would share some numbers (that some people hold so dear) from cars I have had over the decades. None of these cars was exactly "slow" and some would rock your world! Before I get loads of flamers telling me I am wrong, I totally understand that I am comparing apples to aardvarks here. The changes in tech have been massive since these cars were built and most are tame by todays standards (but you could buy 2 or 3 FR-Ss for what some would cost now). If most of the cars on my list had ever hit 7000 revs the engine parts would still be coming down today! The numbers I put to each will also likely be disputed, but they are the best I could do with about 15 minutes of research and my sometimes shaky long term memory. Please note that in 1972 HP rates were changed from gross HP (an engine on a stand with nothing hooked up to it) to net HP to more realistically reflect the actual usable HP. I have converted the pre 72 vehicles to the net HP numbers (or close enough).

All of these vehicles were 6 to 15 years old when I got them so even the rated HP is optimistic as I was dirt broke back then and they were daily drivers with nothing but the basics required to keep them running put into them. There is something to be said for being able to pull the head and do a complete valve replacement in a few hours in your laneway though.

1) 64 Chev Impala - 327 4 barrel, 160HP, 2 speed auto. Certainly a boat but quick on takeoff and could bury the needle

2) 66 VW Karmann Ghia - 1300ccs, 50HP (YES 50 not a typo!!!!) 4 speed stick. Not the fastest on the list by far but not "slow" either. Once upon a time these were considered to be one of the top sports cars made.

3) 64 Ford Econoline short box van - Had a 1970 351 Cleveland squeezed into the "dog house" between the seats, 220HP, 3 speed auto from a 70 Fairlane. Could lift the front end off the ground for 50 feet from a dead start. Ask the London police that were behind me downtown one day if you don't believe me. Used to eat Camaros and Mustangs for breakfast.

4) 7- Coronet R/T - 440 magnum with 4 barrel 280HP (remember gross vs net HP), 3 speed auto. The engine alone weight 670 pounds! Could not drive it if roads wet at all as you would go into a spin as soon as the torque kicked in. One of the fastest cars I ever drove in a straight line but needed loads of room (and time) if you actually wanted to turn it.

5) 58 Ford Custom 300 2 door sedan - 223 six, 100HP, 3 on the tree. Fast on the take off but not a lot of top end. I understand they still use these engines (modded of course) for some sprint cars.

6) 84 Mustang GT - 5 liter 4 barrel, 180HP, 4 speed stick (might have been 5? wasn't my favorite). The Mustang boys will tell you the 5 liter was KING back then. Was OK but no R/T.

7) Eagle Talon TSI AWD - 2 liter turbo, 195HP, 5 speed stick. Have to confess I think I peed myself a little the first time I opened her up on the highway and the turbo kicked in. Thought I was either gonna die or go into orbit! Have never driven a faster car and all with under 200HP INCLUDING a turbo.

SO...... As much as many of us (me included) may WANT more HP the car is neither "slow" nor "underpowered" and we probably don't NEED more!

Sorry for babbling, just wanted that off my chest even though I know I am preaching to the converted on this forum.

I remember when a 100mhz 16mb ram 1 gig hard drive PC felt fast.

I was so excited when I got Windows 3 on my 486!!!!!!!!! When I typed an email the screen was only words behind the keyboard instead of whole sentences!

I remember people saying "You'll never be able to fill 1gb of hard drive!"

Need is directly related to intent and there is a very broad spectrum represented on these boards!

Unfortunately, your words fall on deaf ears to most. Understanding and appreciation seem to almost be a lost art form.

I agree, it has enough HP. But I'd really like some more torque. My 944 'feels' like it has a lot more than 9hp over the FRS (and I'm sure a few of those horses have died over the years). It doesn't rev as quick, and is probably a little slower. Despite that it will push you back in the seat more and spin the tires with less effort.

So very true! Poorly phrased on my part for this forum. The point I was going for is over half the people I have talked to (that have even heard of the car) say it is underpowered junk based on internet reviews. I was simply pointing out that HP numbers are not the definition of the ability of the car.

YES more torque would be GREAT! Most of the cars on my list gained their abilities through torque even with the low HP. The R/T felt like it was going to flip over sideways whenever you floored it there was so much!

I think you would also be surprised at the age of majority owners.

Possibly. The love of a great driving car isn't restricted to the young! I do fall well outside the target demographic though. Maybe closer to the BRZ target group but didn't like the front end treatment on them.

I remember when I was in elementary school my memory cards were floppy disks. Then came middle school and the $60 1 gig flash drive that my dad said if I lost he would disown me...needless to say my 6th grade self lost it lol

Fixed.

You're right about not needing any more HP; however, let's not delude ourselves. The BRZ is SLOW.

Edited

that was probably before you could download porn vids. :thumbsup:

My first car was a 1994 TSi AWD. It could spin all four tires pretty easily.

I've had too many fast cars to count. The fastest only made 325whp but weighed only 1800 pounds.

The car before my BRZ was a BMW 135i with 400+whp.

I love my BRZ, and it was fun when all stock, but coming from the power of the 135, I decided I wanted more power.

BRZ/FRS with 300-350whp is like the perfect car.

It is all relative, a car that will do about 140 off the lot is not that slow...

I agree though Tcoat, it gets old hearing that. If I want fast I drive my 335is. I always think of this car as capable of quick but not fast.
I drive the AT and the tq is indeed the issue. With a tune and good headers I think it would be just fine. With just minimal changes (axle back, drop in, intake tube, 94 octane) it woke right up.

Keep it simple, keep it light, go real quick around corners.

MGB was what a 1.8 producing maybe 90hp? Triumph GT 6 is very, very close in size and concept to our BRZ and it was 105 hp from a 2.0 litre inline 6 (lovely little engine, put out as much as 150 in 2.5 injected form).

My 1982 Alfa Romeo GTV6 with a very sophisticated oversquare 2.5 V6? 155 hp and 151 lb ft of torque.

No, this BRZ/FRS is not underpowered, it is just fine.

As for the torque dip, actually it is a double peak torque curve resulting from the variable valve timing. Porsche Cayman/Boxster engines display exactly the same pattern.

We should all appreciate the fact that the torque is pretty flat overall with low end torque at only about 90% of peak.

Driven normally the torque dip is not an issue. You drive below it when driving normally in traffic and above it when pressing on with gusto. Strong engine for its size and no forced induction...a supercharger would be sweet though.

Hi Tcoat and welcome to our forum ..... :)

Yep, I hear ya.

People been telling me that for years.

In 1970 I bought a new MGB; it wasn't the fastest vehicle on the road, but it handled well and it was fun to drive.

In 2006, I bought a new MX5 (Miata); it wasn't the fasted vehicle on the road, but it handled well and it was fun to drive.

In 2013, I bought a new FRS; it isn't the fastest vehicle on the road, but it handles well and it's fun to drive.


humfrz - in a rut ..... ;)

The days of simply turning a distributor cap to change your timing Ahhh sometimes I miss the simplicity. However for a modern car our ars are very easy to work on...very.

Yep from the comfort of the laptop you can

Adjust the carburetor jetting/fueling, accelerator pump,adjust the idle screw

Adjust the timing and the points and re-curve the distributor advance

Re-grind the cams to change overlap and duration ect (pity you cant do lift :lol:)

The car comes standard with a bunch of sensors to monitor everything and sundry AFR,knock, coolant/oil temps etc

If you get it all wrong you can put it back to stock settings in 2 minutes.

have not even got a spanner out yet :D

Oh I know. Just was referring to mechanical simplicity is all. I used to carry 4 wrenches in my old ford pickups back in the day and did almost all you could do with em. I do appreciate much of what tech has brought us however.

Just remembering the "old ways" :D

quote=OICU812;1862699]The days of simply turning a distributor cap to change your timing Ahhh sometimes I miss the simplicity. However for a modern car our ars are very easy to work on...very.[/quote]
Yep just loosen cap and turn it till it sounded right. If you were really uppity or at an actual garage the may put a timing light on it and see what it really was but usually didn't matter much. Of course I was just trying to keep them running so I could get to work not worried about how well or making them last for years. I think if I total up what I paid for all the cars on that list it wouldn't break $5000.

I can't even stand carburetors on lawn mowers

Ya need little tiny turbos!Can hear it now "yep... 4 ounces of boost. Brought her up from 5 to 7.2 hp. Nothin' can touch me now"

Old man with a history of wetting himself posts curmudgeonly remark? Best thread ever.

That grass never stood a chance

My other car is a '74 Celica with twin weber carbs and a host of other mods. I also upgraded to an electronic dissie as it used to eat points weekly. It weighs about 2200lbs and last time I had it dyno'd it made 130whp. Until I bought the 86 it was the most fun car I had ever driven. When i was younger I loved the challenge of balancing the carbs every month, checking the timing hadn't altered and fixing any number of minor issues that would pop up. It is good for a 14.8 at the 1/4 mile but up to 60mph it feels way faster than that. The sound and response of the twin weber setup is hard to explain to someone who has only driven cars with an ECU. ITBs are close but not quite the same.

These older, less powerful, slower cars have a charm of their own that most people will never experience or understand. :burnrubber:

Curmudgeonly?????? Geeez with that vocabulary you must have been born around 1910 or so making me MUCH younger!
Glad you have enjoyed but as soon as you said "best thread ever" I will picture you as the Comic Book Guy for ever more.

I had a Galant rally basher for a little while. It had 2 twin throat Dellorto carburetors (cheaper than Webers). When it came on cam the intake roar sounded like a small hurricane! *sigh*

Yep got er cut in 12.6! Can probably get it down to 12 with better tires.

Sweet!

In my high school days...muscle cars were brand new and computers ran programs from punch cards. Fuel mileage of 6 miles per gallon was common. When I went WOT up a steep hill in my '72 Impala I could actually see the gas needle drop.

Dude, how old are you? You originally made it sound like you were in your 70's or something.

Feels like it sometimes but not even close! In my original post I said that all those cars from the 60s and 70s were at least 6 and up to 12 years old when I got them which puts them in my hands in the mid to late 1970s. Given I had to have at least enough cash to by them (anybody got a 1970 Coronet R/T safetyed and drivable they want to sell me for $800?) that would mean late teens (at least) in the late 70s. Soooooo not really THAT old just older then the average on here. I have since found out there are actually MANY of us in this age group that own these cars.
Bet you expected a simple number as an answer didn't you!

Yep and EVERYTHING in them was mechanical! Good ole vacuum powered wipers that stopped moving whenever you accelerated and I actually had to carry a spare fuel pump in the glove box for my R/T. It got ripped apart so often I could change that puppy in 6 minutes on the side of the road. And now we whine when we get a "cricket" noise from the fuel system!
SEE U YOUNG WIPPPER SNAPPERS There are a bunch of old guys on here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol @ carrying a spare fuel pump and vacuum powered wipers. You guys make me feel young! I was just marveling at all the standard equipment in my base model forester the other day. This car was speaking to me in a robot voice about how to pair my phone to it. Full AC, power everything, keyless entry, bluetooth, tilt and telescope steering wheel, abs, traction control, etc etc. Half that shit was paid options when I was first in the market. A/C, disc brakes and power windows were luxury items! In 5 years people will be complaining that they don't have heated and cooled whale penis leather seats in their base model cars.