No Replacement for Displacement

[Negative Creep]

As per my sig, can anyone boast a shiter bhp/litre ratio than me? (4.1 litres and 133bhp as standard)

[chaseracer]

As per my sig, can anyone boast a shiter bhp/litre ratio than me? (4.1 litres and 133bhp as standard)

500ci Caddy V8, in 70s front-drive Eldorado? 8.2 litre, something like 200 brake?

 

Of course, I may be talking bolleaux here.

 

 

EDIT: I am talking partial bolleaux, according to that oracle of infallible accuracy, Wikipedia; the 500ci produced 400 (SAE, so weak as piss) bhp. But - and you'll enjoy this, NC - the 425ci (7-litre) that replaced it in '77 had all of 180 brake...

[ifc63]

My last Camaro

 

 

5.7 litre, 285bhp standard

 

 

 

 

A previous Camaro 5.0 litre, 225bhp

 

& current bike Honda VFR750FL 750cc (3/4 litre !), 98.5bhp

 

[ashmicro]

No pics, but a mate bought an old and very knackered Ford-Cosworth DFR V8 with a view to sticking it in a P38 Rangie some years ago.Dyno'd @ 133 BHP, original trim was 770 BHP Piston slap could be heard from Mars.Edited to add: That Honda VFR is LUSH! Much wantage.

[garethj]

As per my sig, can anyone boast a shiter bhp/litre ratio than me? (4.1 litres and 133bhp as standard)

I can almost beat that with my ancient Pinto, with 3 of the 4 plug leads off? Going the other way, I had 1100cc with 145bhp

[ifc63]

I think the oldest car I have driven can also boast the lowest power output/litre I have driven as well !

 

I present the late father-in-law's 1932 Ford Model Y - 933cc and 8 hp.

 

[Alexg]

Mustang 2- 4950 V8 - 133hp. Shite

[Milford Cubicle]

I've owned a few naturally aspirated diesels, the worst was probably my Nissan Primera.1974cc/72bhp

[ashmicro]

What about the infamous Indenor boat-anchor as fitted to the Sierra 2.3D? 66BHP on a really good day

[Milford Cubicle]

Nothing comes close to the GM V8 diesel of the late '70s.125bhp from 5.7 litres!!

[Guest]

I really like the sound of that Oldsmobile 5.7 diesel, the reliability was meant to be shocking to boot, due to some very poor design. That engine alone gave diesels in cars a bad name, which still largely persists to this day!

[CIH]

hmmm, 80s and 90s camaros. I loves them! One of those would be my autoshite defining moment.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

Nothing comes close to the GM V8 diesel of the late '70s.125bhp from 5.7 litres!!

I was gonna quote that one!!!! No-one can beat it, even 50 year old canal barges can easily PWN that specific output.

[scaryoldcortina]

My LT recovery truck had a 70bhp 2400cc engine when I got it.. (It has the 100hp one now) and the truck weighs 2.1 tonnes unladen

[r.welfare]

hmmm, 80s and 90s camaros. I loves them! One of those would be my autoshite defining moment.

Early one with the 2.5 litre 4 cylinder "Iron Duke" must be the only autoshite choice. The first ones had bizarre twin-needle speedos for mph and kph.

[Station]

Nothing comes close to the GM V8 diesel of the late '70s.125bhp from 5.7 litres!!

I was gonna quote that one!!!! No-one can beat it, even 50 year old canal barges can easily PWN that specific output.

Is that down to California Emissions Act or something?

[Milford Cubicle]

It makes so little power just through being utterly shite I think.

[Gompo]

I do wonder how/where the bhp/litre thing will go in the future. We've had production cars pushing 100bhp/litre for 20 years, but they're still very rare. Emissions get tighter each year which hinders this type of engine and I would assume we've passed the 10-15 years where most hot hatches and many a sports car were naturally aspirated. I'm not necessarily disappointed although they can be fun to drive but i'm curious as to what the majority of cars will be in the future - it's looking like small capacity + turbo. ..Even nowadays a lot of normal cars are around 60bhp/litre which has been commonplace for a long while.In response to the thread, my worst would be one of my 1.3 X-flow Escorts, which I reckon was about 50bhp/litre

[CIH]

I think small motors with turbos or big motors with electric, either way with twin clutch semi-autos, Gompo. I read the auto gets a better CO2 rating due to the way the test is carried out. Ferrari don't do a proper manual anymore, for example.

[Albert Ross]

<<<<<< 2286cc and 62hp. Daily driver, 2 tons and loaded with half a ton of tools, plus driving both axles............ crash box with overdrive. 16 forward speeds, and 4 reverse.

[STUNO]

I think the oldest car I have driven can also boast the lowest power output/litre I have driven as well !

 

I present the late father-in-law's 1932 Ford Model Y - 933cc and 8 hp.

 

Yeah.. but they were REAL horses not brake ones

 

I have owned two XF Falcons, both 4.1 L . big , easy, lazy cruisers when they are going well.

[Jozza]

 

85 horsepower @ 4250 RPM, 2495cc, 34 horsepower per litre, and that's the fire-breathing turbocharged version! Still, the 150 lb-ft of torque @ 1800 RPM is very useful.

 

What about the 3.5 Rover V8 when fitted to the Series III 109 Land Rover. They managed to get that down to 91 horsepower or 27.5hp/litre!

[Rocket88]

bhp figures are almost always no indication of how "powerfull" a car is, as most peak bhp figures are realised in areas of the rev counter that you rarely venture into during normal driving. I much prefer a huge dollop of torque at about 27 rpm than max bhp at about eleventy million rpm...........

[ifc63]

I think the oldest car I have driven can also boast the lowest power output/litre I have driven as well !

 

I present the late father-in-law's 1932 Ford Model Y - 933cc and 8 hp.

 

Yeah.. but they were REAL horses not brake ones

 

 

From what I know the 8hp was the RAC rating for tav purposes whereas the actual output was nearer 24hp. Still fairly shite then

[autofive]

bhp figures are almost always no indication of how "powerfull" a car is, as most peak bhp figures are realised in areas of the rev counter that you rarely venture into during normal driving. I much prefer a huge dollop of torque at about 27 rpm than max bhp at about eleventy million rpm...........

i agree

 

my 3 litre scimitars have only 138bhp maximum - but plenty of torque

[Magnificent Rustbucket]

Nothing comes close to the GM V8 diesel of the late '70s.

125bhp from 5.7 litres!!

This does!!

 

1977 Chevvy Impala - 4096cc and 82bhp. Not a ball of fire, this one.

 

Positively sporting in comparison is the '77 AMC Matador. 18 feet long, 4229cc and 95 bhp! They don't quote any performance figures in the brochure. Odd that.

 

David

[wuvvum]

The Dodge 50 makes 88bhp from 4 litres, which is 22 bhp/litre. The Austin Ten made 25bhp from 1.2 litres. Probably the worst I've owned is the Commer Walkthrough - 75bhp from a 3.8, or 19.74 bhp/litre.

[Guest]

When new, the B18 A in my Amazon produced 75 DIN hp (and 110 lb ft of torque - figures from the Owner's Manual).

 

So from 1778 cc we see 42.2 brake horse power per litre.

 

However, I've had the poor thing rolling roaded. I know damn well it's down on power because the timing's out (dizzy jackshaft missing a tooth) and a couple of piston rings are shaggedzilla. The carb is leaking like a bastard and probably out of tune. We do have a lightened flywheel, for some reason. I would ask the original owner why he specified this, but he's a bit dead.

At the flywheel it has about 50 bhp. At the wheels after transmission loss, this is more like 38-40. Peak torque was still quite healthy though - 89 lb ft.

Pessimistically that gives us 22.5 bhp per litre, which ain't much when fully fuelled and with a driver, the car is standing at about 1280 kg.

At some point we're going to strap SCTSH_ANDY's Vbox to it. Up the Carrington Spur 60 on the satnav came up in 26 [handtimed] seconds.

 

The C4 is a bit better - 92 brake and 1560 cc. This is in the lowest state of tune which gives me 58 bhp per litre. They can go up to 130 brake (and 210 lb ft \ torque) without doing one, which would make it a bit of an urban weapon. The car itself is a bit of a porky bastard though.

PSA say my C4 should crack 60 in 12.5 seconds. I shit on that at Santa Pod though - 11.8 thanks very much.

 

I think the thing a lot of people miss about American engines is that they're designed to run on absolutely piss weak fuel compared to what we're used to in Europe. For a long time standard unleaded in most US states was rated at 87 octane, and their high test was 92. This has a bearing on price as well as engine performance. The less you refine, the less you pay.

 

Compare this to the UK. The standard muck you blezz in on the Tesco forecourt is 95, while the expensive stuff is between 97 and 99.

My Amazon was designed for 97 octane leaded fuel in the Sixties. The B18 B 122S was supposed to run on 100.

Then you get the distances American engines are expected to run between servicing, and the average mileage they're doing in the lifetime of the car. The easiest way to meet the requirements (factoring in a healthy dose of cost benefit analysis) is to produce very simple, large capacity designs. They're understressed and can last for years on end. This approach doesn't result in headline power figures.

 

American performance tuning has always been about the torque anyway - and when you start lobbing the pre smogged Hemis, Rats and Cobra Jets into the mix, the Yanks weren't fucking about even in the late Sixties.

I'd like to add that I'm not an American car fanboi in any sense of the word, but market requirements in the States (together with rampant consumerism) differ massively to those elsewhere in the world.

[cms206]

Had the pleasure of driving a G-reg Merc 709D today... 3.9 litres, 86bhp

 

The newer of my two Leyland Nationals put out (when new!) 180-ish bhp. Which isn't bad, from 11.1 litres

[seth]

American piss

etc.

 

I seem to remember reading that the US octane ratings are also on a different scale to ours so there is not as big a difference as the normally quoted numbers would appear to imply.