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.