I was driving my GTO the other day and it hit..."Man I am driving a 400 HP car!". When I joined this board back in the day...400 HP was more than you got in a standard Vette, and (in my mind at least), Viper territory. An LS1 Camaro seemed like the best performance value known to man (300 HP for less than $20K (!)).

Now I tool around in my 400 HP car, and it while it faster than most cars on the road, it almost seems normal. The GTO is "grin on your face fast" for sure, but not like Z06 "OMG I am going to die, but at least I was going fast". My other car is my Grand Prix, which is up near 300 HP probaly now (bunch of mods)...and it seems almost pedestrian.

Anyway, my point is...at what point does it stop? I remember LS1 Camaro's seeming like the end all to affordable performance. Now 300 HP V6's seem to be approaching the norm. 500 HP cars are slowly reaching the price range that middle class people can consider them. How much futher can we we justify going for vehicles that live most of their lives under 70mph.

BTW...I am in no way saying the HP wars should end. I will take my Camaro and Zeta Impala with an LS7/3. Thanks!

 

the more the better ill be happy when 500hp and run on sunlight... but then ill want 700hp...


cory

 

It's dependent on things over which the manufacturers have little control. Fuel economy legislation, emissions legislation, insurance, fuel prices, etc.

If all cars had to be AT-PZEVs, then that would surely hurt the top end of the power scale, though you'd still be able to get 350hp, I think.

If insurance companies start raising rates on powerful cars, then that will hurt. I think that's unlikely, since powerful cars are now very safe, unlike in the good old days, when they overpowered the chassis. Also, it takes a lot more money to get a powerful car now.

If gas guzzler taxes start being levied on cars that get under 30mpg, so that you had to pay a $5000 penalty to buy your V8 Camaro, that would hurt. Though GM could turn around and put a hybrid system in.

If gas goes to $6.00 per gallon . . . .

You get the idea.

Barring anything catastrophic, it seems that in 2010 or so, 500hp will be about as common as 400hp is today.

 

I see the move away from gasoline being the changing factor in the HP wars.

until then I expect to see plenty of 400+ V8s and 300HP+ V6's getting 30mpg and up thanks to DoD, DI, and 3v+

 

500HP . C'mon, that's just childs-play!! ~1000HP is a mere twin-turbo away!!

 

Brandon, I posed that question more than a few times myself. We all are taking the power available today for granted.

20 years ago, GM was skittish about putting 350s back in IROCs. They had about 225 horsepower. 10 years ago, the LT1 Z28 had amazing horsepower at 275. 50 horses in 10 years.

Flash forward another 10 years, and we have cars that increased not just 50 more horses, but 125........ with better fuel economy!

Just let this settle in for a second:
There are plenty people on this board who will not be satisfied unless the next Camaro comes with well in excess of 500 horsepower......500 freaking horsepower!!!!

Now, think about this:
These 400, 500, or even 600 horsepower coupes will one day be cheap enough for a 18 or 19 year old to buy.

In 1989, the 210 horse Ford Thunderbird SC was one of the quickest accelerating cars made in America, a mere exhaust change from beating 5.0 Mustangs & 5.0 Camaros, and a additional pulley change from smoking them. Stock, it had a then astronomical 145 mph top speed, had an astounding 315 lbs/ft of torque, had a suspension that made it one of the most capable handling cars of any make sold in the US, and it cost today's automotive equivalent of $40,000 plus.

Yet, I'm seriously considering giving it to my son for his birthday. Because of all the old foggies who bought T-birds the insurence is deceptively low, the car is very durable, and after the number of times I've almost been smashed up by someone else, I prefer him to have the bird than to buy a fox Mustang or go out and buy a 275 or 285 horse, 157mph LT1 Camaro and kill himself racing a Honda (some kids still think their Honda is "da-bomb" ).

Soon or later, a parent is going to have that choice with something that has twice the horses of what we have today. I think if we end up with cars with 500 horses, they should be priced to the ceiling and be low availability, much like the Mustang GT500 & Chrysler SRT 300 & Charger, or put into cars that most kids pass up like 2 passenger Corvettes or big sedans.

There is no real reason why anyone needs to get to 60 mph in less than 4 seconds, and after topping out my '97 Z, we don't need a 160 mph car either. If we're going to have cars like those for manufacturers bragging rights, then perhaps we should go back to the 60s era way of doing things. Charging out the a** for them, and keeping them almost as rare as a good stead in a vegetarian resturant.

 

To a degree, I think horsepower is having to climb in order to maintain power-to-weight ratio (and thus performance) in the sport segment.

Not that performance isn't improving. It just seems it's getting more and more common for vehicles to approach the 4k curb weight area due to increased government crash test rating mandates.

I don't mind safer vehicles. Safer is good. But it'd be cool if we could find a way to do it while keeping the vehicles light.

Force equals mass times acceleration. I bet we could cut down on accident fatalities if the Big 3 funneled more energy into using strong, but light materials. A 4000-lb SUV is going to hurt no matter what it runs into. Right now we're making it hurt less by turning everything on the road into a tank.

Imagine if automakers collectively began using lighter materials.

• Vehicles become more efficient -- it takes less power to move less mass around.
• Collisions become less ghastly -- Cars that are just as strong, but a good bit lighter suddenly cause a lot less damage to the vehicles AND the passengers, not to mention buildings or other public property they may run into.
• Cars get faster -- less weight means less power is needed to make it fly. A 4k pig with 450 horsepower doesn't impress me much (read: GT500). Half the reason you guys get a good laugh at that vehicle is because a Z06 can spank it by stepping on the scales a good 800 lbs lighter.
• Cars get more reliable -- Less weight equals a lot less wear on suspension and drivetrain components over time. Also equals less regular wear on our roads.

I know the biggest factor is most likely cost. Though vehicles that pull this off like the SMART make me wonder just how much of a roadblock this is. I'd just like to see us take a different approach to the challenges we face.

I will undoubtedly get roasted for my opinion now.

 

What's to get roasted over ..... you're 100% right. The Z06 could arguably be used as a "good example" of this. It's pushing over 500HP, yet GM managed to CUT the weight down from the base C6 weight of 3243 lbs to ~3130 lbs . How? Why, lighter materials of course!! Titanium, magnesium, aluminum, carbon fibre, etc. How "exotic" are these materials really, considering we're in the new millenium already?!?! And heck, even back in the 60's GM built engines with aluminum blocks and aluminum heads, so why is this considered such "new technology" anyways??

If car companies were to mass produce their vehicles using these materials, it would help to lower the cost as they'd be bought in bulk instead of just "limited quantities". But maybe that's an overly optimistic view on things?!

 

I'm more interested to see a reduction in weight because not only does that help acceleration, it helps fuel economy, handling, braking, chassis rigidity, and so many other factors.

Adding weight to a vehicle can almost be an unending circle. "Well the car was noisey so we added 50 pounds of sound insulation, which means now we have to add 10 extra pounds to the frame to maintain rigidity, which means we have to use bigger bolts, and heavier duty stuts, larger calipers and add a couple of upgrades to the transmission, and because of that our car now weighs 100 pounds more because of the 50 pounds in initial upgrades which means we need a bigger better breathing motor to move the car at the same rate which means we need wider open exhaust which means we need even more sound insulation which means... you see the process... since so many things depend on the weight of the car, and have to become bigger and heavier as the car gets bigger and heavier if they want to maintain their same performance... then one small increase in weight in one area can starts a chain reaction unless somebody just decides that the performance in that area can just suffer, and then you might be dealing with a lighter weight but substandard car.

So again, I think it's more interesting to see a car that's just as good as its precedessor yet has a weight reduced by, say, 5+%

 

I recall an article in (I think) Autocar several years ago about the added weight from new at the time European crash regulations. I believe the car in question was the Ferrari Enzo. Crash regulations required extra rear structure. Ferrari didn't want performance to suffer, so they added a bigger engine. But that needed a heavier transmission and also a heavier frame to support the uprated engine and transmission. Also bigger tires, wheels, and brakes for the added weight. The net effect was something like 400 pounds, IIRC.

The Mazda RX8 is probably a good example of what people here seem to want. A 250 (approx) hp coupe with four seats that weighs around 3000 pounds (a bit under I think). It's not selling that well. One wonders how it would have done with a V6 coming in at 3300 pounds . . . .

 

I think the RX8 isn't selling very well because it's just a chore to drive, really... one of my best friends has an 04 w/ manual trans, and while it will corner well, it still doesn't have very confidence inspiring feedback, and not many people like to have to rev a motor up like a motorcycle just to run a mid 14 1/4-mile time.

Fuel economy is also terrible for the size of car and low torque motor, as is reliability.

I'd say that's one car that looks pretty nice on paper but in reality will only be truely appreciated by the minority.

 

the RX8 isn't selling well because its a piece of junk, doesn't get anywhere near 250hp and gets horrible fuel economy for what you get.

 

I'm sure the recall on the "Award Winning Rotary" has done wonders for RX8 sales as well?

 

Not to mention it's ugly.

 

Might that be the result for most lightweight cars?

People complain about the Z06 being noisy, for example. That's fine for a weekend or trackday car, but for commuting and long trips, most people want something quiet and comfortable with lots of gadgets.

The only other choice other than a rotary in the RX8 would have been a 4cyl engine. Now maybe it could be the turbo DISI thing maybe (I don't know if the turbo would fit). A non-turbo 4 would have the same power problems as the rotary.

Just food for thought.