What's considered good bhp

rocky

255bhp in a 1.5t car is alright, but would like more power when accelerating from 100+

Henry Ford III

Good bhp? I'd say 30 bhp more than you need.

mik_da_man

As said above it's all about power to weight.

I have a car with 130ish bhp and it's plenty quick.
Has given a lot of much higher powered cars a fair surprise.
I'm quite happy with it


That said, my other car has 420 bhp and that's pretty nice too :P

wotzgoingon

mik_da_man wrote: »

As said above it's all about power to weight.

I have a car with 130ish bhp and it's plenty quick.
Has given a lot of much higher powered cars a fair surprise.
I'm quite happy with it


That said, my other car has 420 bhp and that's pretty nice too :P

What cars are they?
I really want to know what the 420 bhp car is.

mik_da_man

wotzgoingon wrote: »

What cars are they?
I really want to know what the 420 bhp car is.

The first one is easy..
Have a guess at the second!

toastedpickles

mik_da_man wrote: »

The first one is easy..
Have a guess at the second!

I know what they are Only cos i seen the 420 one :pac:

porsche959

mik_da_man wrote: »

The first one is easy..
Have a guess at the second!

Aston-Martin DB7 Vantage - [1999]420 bhp @ 6000 rpm

Aston-Martin Vantage V8 - [2008]
420 bhp @ 7000 rpm

Jaguar XF 4.2 V8 Supercharged - [2009]
420 bhp @ 6250 rpm

Porsche 911 Turbo 996 - [2000]
420 bhp @ 6000 rpm

TVR Cerbera 4.5 - [1997]
420 bhp @ 6750 rpm

Volkswagen(VW) Phaeton 6.0 W12 - [2005]
420 bhp @ 6000 rpm

Lamborghini LM002 5.2 V12 - [1986]
420 bhp @ 6800 rpm

Bentley Continental T 6.8 V8 Turbo - [1998]
420 bhp @ 4000 rpm

http://www.autosnout.com/Car-Power-List.php

mik_da_man

porsche959 wrote: »

Aston-Martin DB7 Vantage - [1999]420 bhp @ 6000 rpm

Aston-Martin Vantage V8 - [2008]
420 bhp @ 7000 rpm

Jaguar XF 4.2 V8 Supercharged - [2009]
420 bhp @ 6250 rpm

Porsche 911 Turbo 996 - [2000]
420 bhp @ 6000 rpm

TVR Cerbera 4.5 - [1997]
420 bhp @ 6750 rpm

Volkswagen(VW) Phaeton 6.0 W12 - [2005]
420 bhp @ 6000 rpm

Lamborghini LM002 5.2 V12 - [1986]
420 bhp @ 6800 rpm

Bentley Continental T 6.8 V8 Turbo - [1998]
420 bhp @ 4000 rpm

http://www.autosnout.com/Car-Power-List.php

Looks like 420 is a bit rounded...
414 is the actual figure.

porsche959

mik_da_man wrote: »

Looks like 420 is a bit rounded...
414 is the actual figure.

Audi RS4?

Bohrio

mik_da_man wrote: »

Looks like 420 is a bit rounded...
414 is the actual figure.

I can easy think of two cars, one a 4.0 and the other a 4.2

And with either of them I would still want more power...

wotzgoingon

mik_da_man wrote: »

Looks like 420 is a bit rounded...
414 is the actual figure.

Audi A4 RS4

Cleveland Hot Pocket

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Audi A4 RS4

Rs4 TDI? lol
(I'm only joking, I remember mik_da_man's rs4 from a midway meet)
Probably the only actual RS4 I've seen up close in reality

toastedpickles

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Rs4 TDI? lol
(I'm only joking, I remember mik_da_man's rs4 from a midway meet)
Probably the only actual RS4 I've seen up close in reality

I seen the elusive rs4 tdi out my way the other day, so so rare, so rare audi never made it

Knowing my luck they probably did

Bohrio

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Rs4 TDI? lol
(I'm only joking, I remember mik_da_man's rs4 from a midway meet)
Probably the only actual RS4 I've seen up close in reality

I was actually gonna say that...

I have heard so many people say "Oh man... I love the A4 RS4, a friend of mine has the diesel"... and I am .. oh well

Cleveland Hot Pocket

toastedpickles wrote: »

I seen the elusive rs4 tdi out my way the other day, so so rare, so rare audi never made it

Knowing my luck they probably did

Must be the most common car on the road that wasnt made by the manufacturer!

Johnny K

8-10 sec to 60mph will generally feel quick for everyday driving.

Anything below will feel quick full stop.

mik_da_man

porsche959 wrote: »

Audi RS4?

Yeah, have a Pug 106 Rallye, at about 130 BHP and it's a quick wee yoke - very light.

And then the RS4, completely different animal and has loads of power.

Bohrio

mik_da_man wrote: »

And then the RS4, completely different animal and has loads of power.

and I still want more power!

I had a rally when I when I was younger.. great fun.. nippy as ...

mik_da_man

Bohrio wrote: »

man I must be still young at heart but I still want more power!

Well it has lots, but more is always nice

Supercharger is the only viable option - or a new car!!

Bohrio

mik_da_man wrote: »

Well it has lots, but more is always nice

Supercharger is the only viable option - or a new car!!

True...

An air filter, and a ECU will only give you a bit extra..

I thought about APRs upgrade but is easy 12K pounds... but what a cracker of a car will be... until you want more power again...

mik_da_man

Bohrio wrote: »

True...

An air filter, and a ECU will only give you a bit extra..

I thought about APRs upgrade but is easy 12K pounds... but what a cracker of a car will be... until you want more power again...

Yeah, the only ban for buck is the Supercharger, JHM stuff looks good too but not really a runner over here..

ShadowHearth

As said before, it's all about ratio between weight and power. Then add on top of that how car manages to put that power to use.

Mx5 was only 140hp, but it always felt alive and extremely fun to drive.

Put that 140 hp in to something crazy like vectra and it will be boring and ****y.

Pinch Flat

My experience of cars is relatively narrow. So I had a 1.6 petrol vectra, I'd say it did well to put out 100bhp. Useless for any situations where acceleration was needed. Drove like a brick.

Had then a 1.8 Honda accord, probably put out about 130bhp and was a revelation compared to the vectra. Lovely car - a tad underpowered but was great for overtaking. Engine sounded nice at high revs!

Current car is a ford focus bog standard enough 1.6tdi - have to say pleasantly impressed. I think I read it puts out 90bhp, but has plenty of power (for me anyway) in a normal car.

robbiew

I'm more then satisfied with my mk5 gti.. Motorway to boreen, don't want anything else.. probably couldn't afford it anyway... :P

_Kaiser_

225 stock in my 3L Quattro A6.. but I wonder did the original owner get it remapped as it seems very quick in comparison to most on the roads, despite the size.

As a fun aside I happened upon a 04 version of my own today.. rare as hen's teeth they are now! Still a few on DoneDeal and the likes but I rarely encounter another one on the roads.

robbiew

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

225 stock in my 3L Quattro A6.. but I wonder did the original owner get it remapped as it seems very quick in comparison to most on the roads, despite the size.

As a fun aside I happened upon a 04 version of my own today.. rare as hen's teeth they are now! Still a few on DoneDeal and the likes but I rarely encounter another one on the roads.

tax & insurance must be in the mortgage levels on that..

Mycroft H

I was driving my cousins Legacy B4. Now that's a quick car. Even if it was auto. It's rapid quick. About 6 seconds to 60 in the auto.

But I tell you what's quicker. My dad has a Kawasaki ZZR1200. 150bhp. Weighs about 270kg.

He was driving on the M4 one Sunday afternoon. Coming off a slip ramp, I gunned it in the legacy. The Kawasaki left the Legacy for dead. Not even a chance. I'd need a M5 to keep up and even that would struggle.

So. Bang for buck, nothing beats a powerful motorbike. Only downside is the falling over bit, but that happens not too often.

Pugzilla

Yeah and annual tax for a bike is only €88, even if it can do 0-60 in 2.5 secs, 160km/hr in 1st gear and quartermile in under 10 seconds.

ironclaw

Took a 700 bhp GT-R out for a spin. Nothing has ever come as close or as terrifying.

_Kaiser_

robbiew wrote: »

tax & insurance must be in the mortgage levels on that..

Tax is fairly hefty alright.. €1494 for the year or €422 per quarter (but when you break it down it costs the price of a cup of coffee extra per day over a 2L on the old bands)

Insurance is only €600-something with fully comp and the usual extras.

Asmooh

< 100 = Useless
100-150 = Normal
150-200 = Sporty
250-300 = Good performance
300-500 = Good power

but this doesn't make sense does it? so lets use the following

0-100: < 3 sec = Hyper car
0-100: 3-4 sec = Super High performance car
0-100: 4-6 sec = High performance car
0-100: 6-7 sec = Performance/Sport-Class car
0-100: 7-8 sec = Normal car
0-100: 8-9 sec = Normal Family car
0-100: 9+ = Slow car

HandsomeDan

Asmooh wrote: »

< 100 = Useless
100-150 = Normal
150-200 = Sporty
250-300 = Good performance
300-500 = Good power

but this doesn't make sense does it? so lets use the following

0-100: < 3 sec = Hyper car
0-100: 3-4 sec = Super High performance car
0-100: 4-6 sec = High performance car
0-100: 6-7 sec = Performance/Sport-Class car
0-100: 7-8 sec = Normal car
0-100: 8-9 sec = Normal Family car
0-100: 9+ = Slow car

8-9 sec normal family car? 12 sec I would have thought - think 1.9tdi Passat.

Mycroft H

HandsomeDan wrote: »

8-9 sec normal family car? 12+ sec I would have thought.

What about 14? I can manage to overtake most things with a few gear changes and being sensible when I go?

Ryath

Asmooh wrote: »

< 100 = Useless
100-150 = Normal
150-200 = Sporty
250-300 = Good performance
300-500 = Good power

but this doesn't make sense does it? so lets use the following

0-100: < 3 sec = Hyper car
0-100: 3-4 sec = Super High performance car
0-100: 4-6 sec = High performance car
0-100: 6-7 sec = Performance/Sport-Class car
0-100: 7-8 sec = Normal car
0-100: 8-9 sec = Normal Family car
0-100: 9+ = Slow car

Certainly doesn't apply in Ireland. There is a bigger gap to what you'd call a normal car your average 1.6 diesel will barely crack 12 seconds. Even a entry level BMW or a most models where the odd Irish person gos for an engine above the entry level will be in the 9-10 range. My 1.5 tonne 142bhp Mondeo with a 0-60 time of 10 seconds is faster than 90% of the cars on Irish roads. It's no rocket but can make brisk progress when needed.

HandsomeDan

Ryath wrote: »

Certainly doesn't apply in Ireland. There is a bigger gap to what you'd call a normal car your average 1.6 diesel will barely crack 12 seconds. Even a entry level BMW or a most models where the odd Irish person gos for an engine above the entry level will be in the 9-10 range. My 1.5 tonne 142bhp Mondeo with a 0-60 time of 10 seconds is faster than 90% of the cars on Irish roads. It's no rocket but can make brisk progress when needed.

Yup, Id say
14s: slow
12s: average
10s: better

8s: Entry level fast
6s: Proper fast
4s: Scary fast

dr.fuzzenstein

Asmooh wrote: »

< 100 = Useless
100-150 = Normal
150-200 = Sporty
250-300 = Good performance
300-500 = Good power
More=Pooowwwwaaaaaa!

:P

YbFocus

HandsomeDan wrote: »

Yup, Id say
14s: slow
12s: average
10s: better

8s: Entry level fast
6s: Proper fast
4s: Scary fast

Much more realistic view on Ireland!

power pants

indeed, most people drive slow accelerating cars over here but for a minority

Asmooh

lol... my car does 0-100 in 8,8 sec with a 1.6 and 116hp and for me its "slow" but those are stock specs

Ryath

power pants wrote: »

indeed, most people drive slow accelerating cars over here but for a minority

Even a lot of those with higher powered cars are slow accelerating. I'd swear a lot just stick it in fifth and never shift down unless they stop. Crawling up to speed coming out of towns once they leave the 50 zone . Was stuck behing a S350 yesterday driven by an older lady coming out of town 500 metres down the road she was still barely doing 60 when I got a chance to overtake.

HandsomeDan

Asmooh wrote: »

lol... my car does 0-100 in 8,8 sec with a 1.6 and 116hp and for me its "slow" but those are stock specs

Well a car with more torque will feel faster than a car of equal performance, but who's neck needs to be wrung in order to get there. I'd say your car just lacks torque - so in day to day driving it feels slow.

316i is it?

Asmooh

HandsomeDan wrote: »

Well a car with more torque will feel faster than a car with equal performance, but whos neck needs to be wrung in order to get there. I'd say your car just lacks torque - so in day to day driving it feels slow.

316i is it?

lol... i would never drive a crappy bmw

it's a 1992 MX5.

85 kW (116 pk) @ 6500 tpm
135 Nm @ 5500 tpm


and tell me what BMW with 1.6 does 0-100 in 8.8?


because, see the following

1998-2001: Mazda MX5 1.8: 0-100: 8.0, with 140hp and 162nm
2008-2013: BMW 320i: 0-100: 8.2, with 170hp and 210nm
1989-1994: Mazda MX5 1.6: 0-100: 8,8 with 116hp and 135nm
2005-2007: BMW 320i: 0-100: 9.0, with 150hp and 200nm
2002-2012: BMW 318i: 0-100: 9,1, with 143hp and 190nm
2008-2012: BMW 316i: 0-100: 10,8 with 122hp and 160nm

HandsomeDan

Asmooh wrote: »

lol... i would never drive a crappy bmw

it's a 1992 MX5.

85 kW (116 pk) @ 6500 tpm
135 Nm @ 5500 tpm


and tell me what BMW with 1.6 does 0-100 in 8.8?


because, see the following

1998-2001: Mazda MX5 1.8: 0-100: 8.0, with 140hp and 162nm
2008-2013: BMW 320i: 0-100: 8.2, with 170hp and 210nm
1989-1994: Mazda MX5 1.6: 0-100: 8,8 with 116hp and 135nm
2005-2007: BMW 320i: 0-100: 9.0, with 150hp and 200nm
2002-2012: BMW 318i: 0-100: 9,1, with 143hp and 190nm
2008-2012: BMW 316i: 0-100: 10,8 with 122hp and 160nm

I hadn't looked it up. No need to get smart - specially as you drive a car with the torsional rigidity of overcooked spaghetti:

http://blogs.youwheel.com/2014/04/25/car-body-torsional-rigidity-a-comprehensive-list/

6000nm/deg - damn, that's floppy :P

Asmooh

HandsomeDan wrote: »

I hadn't looked it up. No need to get smart - specially as you drive a car with the torsional rigidity of overcooked spaghetti:

http://blogs.youwheel.com/2014/04/25/car-body-torsional-rigidity-a-comprehensive-list/

6000nm/deg - damn, that's floppy :P

Still more than the BMW Z3 :P

Foxhole Norman

Asmooh wrote: »

lol... i would never drive a crappy bmw

it's a 1992 MX5.

85 kW (116 pk) @ 6500 tpm
135 Nm @ 5500 tpm


and tell me what BMW with 1.6 does 0-100 in 8.8?


because, see the following

1998-2001: Mazda MX5 1.8: 0-100: 8.0, with 140hp and 162nm
2008-2013: BMW 320i: 0-100: 8.2, with 170hp and 210nm
1989-1994: Mazda MX5 1.6: 0-100: 8,8 with 116hp and 135nm
2005-2007: BMW 320i: 0-100: 9.0, with 150hp and 200nm
2002-2012: BMW 318i: 0-100: 9,1, with 143hp and 190nm
2008-2012: BMW 316i: 0-100: 10,8 with 122hp and 160nm

Completely different cars though, BMW's are generally about comfort and luxury whereas the MX-5 is a purpose built lightweight sportscar, you can't compare the two.

Asmooh

Foxhole Norman wrote: »

Completely different cars though, BMW's are generally about comfort and luxury whereas the MX-5 is a purpose built lightweight sportscar, you can't compare the two.

both have 4 wheels.. so yes I can compare them..


anyway!

1999-2000: BMW Z3 2.0: 0-100: 7.9, with 150hp and 190nm
1998-2001: Mazda MX5 1.8: 0-100: 8.0, with 140hp and 162nm
2005-2006: BMW Z4 2.0: 0-100: 8.2, with 150hp and 200nm
1989-1994: Mazda MX5 1.6: 0-100: 8,8 with 116hp and 135nm
1996-1999: BMW Z3 1.8: 0-100: 10.5, with 115hp and 168nm

power pants

ones a hairdresser's car the other is a nice car

Foxhole Norman

Asmooh wrote: »

both have 4 wheels.. so yes I can compare them..

:pac:

Asmooh

See the MX5 Gen 1 and 2, vs BMW Z3 gen 1 and 2 and Z4 gen 1 update, all between 1.6 and 2.0

HandsomeDan

Just leave this here:

" I’ve always found the ‘ickle Mazda slow, imprecise and unsatisfying"

Chris Harris

http://community.evo.co.uk/users/Monkey-Harris/blogs/index.cfm/2011/2/7/CHRIS-HARRIS-The-Mazda-MX-5-is-pants-ducks