"w_tom" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 12, 12:17 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>> IMO, talking about horsepower is just part of the performance equation.
>> One also has to look at the torque rating of an engine. Your old 5.0L
>> may be on the low side for hp/litre but it delivers a lot of torque.
>> Torque is what accelerates your car not hp.
>
> Torque times speed is the horsepower. Either have high speed or high
> torque. Engine adapts to a changing load by something called a
> transmission and drive train. Any higher horsepower engine can have
> more torque - simply adapt to a changing load. And so we install
> transmissions. This need for 'high torque' was a big spin to promote
> low performance, obsolete technology V-8s to the naive. Need more
> torque? Then select a lower gear. Need more acceleration? No way
> around higher horsepower. Any engine can be geared for more torque.
>
> Meanwhile, how to make an engine 'feel' more powerful. Make noise.
> A truly high performance engines not only accelerates faster. It also
> leaves a driver unaware of how much faster the vehicle is accelerating
> - because energy goes into acceleration rather than into noise and
> vibration.
>
> Let's see what true sport cars do. Mazda Miata: 85 Hp/liter. Lotus
> Elise: 105 Hp/liter. Audi TT has two engines with turbo: 100 / 125;
> or 78 Hp/liter without. Porshe 911: three engines - 90/88/100.
> Porshe Boxer: 89/88. Honda S2000: 108. Pontiac Solsitce 74.
> Chrysler Crossfi 67 and 103 with a supercharger. Ford Mustang:
> 52 / 62.
>
> All are only fuel injected unless stated otherwise.
>
> Some sport cars are nothing more than standard performance. Then
> hype promotes a myth just as hype also sells Listerine, Geritol, and
> younger skin from the Pond's Institute. A sports car typically does
> what all cars are expected to do 20 years later. If I recall
> correctly, Porsche was doing 70 Hp/liter in the 1970s. 1960s
> Corvettes and Shelby Mustangs also once did those numbers. So what
> happened?
>
> 'Bean counters' started designing all Ford and GM products. They
> promoted myths to motorheads so as to blame it all on anything but
> auto company management. Myths such as high torque V-8s. Engines
> were not 'detuned'. They were cost controlled - which is why costs
> increased and performance decreased. Read stories about GM's Mona Lisa
> room to appreciate why they had to promote myths about lower revving
> engines. Yes, you cannot machine engines to 0.0001 tolerances when
> using technology only capable of 0.001. Those HP/liter numbers
> demonstrate what a decent sports car does when using current
> technology manufacturing machines. Those who make lesser products
> mask their lesser designs with more pistons and myths.
>

Yeah, maybe... But when the light turns green and I mash the gas, the only
thing that passes my 5.0 are the car's taillights!!! Yahoo! What a frickin'
joy that car is to drive! That's what a sports car is all about. Big, long,
smokey burnouts, tons of torque off idle and an engine that sounds like the
world is coming to an end.

And for the record, all of the 'big 3' produce cars that make 100hp/litre.

If you want to drive a Miata, fill your boots. Ford owns 20% of Mazda so at
least the profits are going somewhere good.

Brad

PS: Porsche was an inch away from bankruptcy recently, so I don't think
people really care what horsepower per litre cars generate.