Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / September 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Humdrum Horsepower Numbers

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
NoOption5L@aol.com - 17 Sep 2006 07:10 GMT
157.  That was the horsepower number the 1982 GT Mustang touted.  And
many people, me included, were excited.  Okay, we knew 157 wasn't
exactly pure thunder, some of the late 70's/early 80's V8s made 170-200
-- and we were still mesmerized by the 60's gross horsepower numbers of
300 and 400 -- but still, for that era the number was decent.  From
that 157 the Mustang's numbers continued to grow nearly every
subsequent model year until it hit the "respectable" power figure in
1987 of 225. Wow, two hundred and twenty five horsepower!  Now we're
talking (what a difference a decade later or so makes, huh?).  Only
Buick's Grand Nation/GNX and Chevy's Vette made more -- they made
245/276 and 240.  The next 5 years, the numbers just inched along with
the Buick V6 going to 250 in the Turbo T/A and the Vette's 5.7 liter to
245.  GM's LT-1 in 1992 got the numbers rolling again with 275, 285 and
eventually it jumped over 300.  Ford's quad-cam 4.6 saw the ante in
1996 and jumped up to 305.  For the next few years the low 300s was
enough to give you some street creed.  But, now, the low 300s is just
about humdrum -- the base Mustang GT has 300, the EVO, WRZ/STi have
300, the base Hemi has 340, and even the upcoming SRT-4 Caliber
cross-over thing will have 300.  The GTO only stayed at 350 for a year
and needed some separation from the pack and quickly went to 400.  The
base Hemi got a big brother version packing 425.  The Terminator 4.6
only sat at 390 for 2 years before jumping to 5.4 liters and 500
horsepower.  The Z06 jumped from 385 to 405 in one year, and then
jumped all the way to 505.  The Viper not to be out done went from 450
to over 500, and now, GET THIS in its [Viper's] 2008 redesign the
number will go over 600 -- a number the next Z06 is also promising to
leap frog.  Geeze, automotive horsepower power is increasing faster
than the power of PC computer chips.  With big dogs soon to go over
600, will the most muscular pony cars go to 500+ and will their base
models pack 400 or more?  At the rate things are going, you got wonder.
What do you think... where does it end?  When will the horsepower
numbers level off?  

Patrick
Backyard Mechanic - 17 Sep 2006 13:32 GMT
> With big dogs soon to go over
> 600, will the most muscular pony cars go to 500+ and will their base
> models pack 400 or more?  At the rate things are going, you got wonder.
>  What do you think... where does it end?  When will the horsepower
> numbers level off?  

When someone in the Congress gets the great idea that it's out of control
and makes a meal of that, coupled with a few 'innocent mini-van driver'
street racing deaths, then the media will pick it up, find a 'Cindy
Sheehan'....and we'll be back at a self-policed 250hp rating limit for
every car sold under 75,000.

And severe penalties for hopping up street cars.. trust me, it never fails.

Signature

Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

JohnV@nn - 18 Sep 2006 21:10 GMT
> 157.  That was the horsepower number the 1982 GT Mustang touted.  And
> many people, me included, were excited.  Okay, we knew 157 wasn't
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> Patrick

It seems to me that the performance of the vehicles is not keeping pace
with the hp numbers.  Why does the 500 horse Shelby GT 500 produce the
same 1/4 mile times and trap speeds as the 390 horse Terminator cars.
And why do people who have driven the Shelby say "it just didn't feel
that fast."

I've heard the same thing about the 400 horse GTO ("it's just not all
that fast").  Are the numbers somehow outpacing the real-world
performance?
NoOption5L@aol.com - 19 Sep 2006 02:20 GMT
> > 157.  That was the horsepower number the 1982 GT Mustang touted.  And
> > many people, me included, were excited.  Okay, we knew 157 wasn't
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> >  What do you think... where does it end?  When will the horsepower
> > numbers level off?

> It seems to me that the performance of the vehicles is not keeping pace
> with the hp numbers.  Why does the 500 horse Shelby GT 500 produce the
> same 1/4 mile times and trap speeds as the 390 horse Terminator cars.

I've only noted that in one road test -- Car & Driver's.  In all the
other tests I seen the Shelby GT500 runs quicker and faster in the 1/4.

> And why do people who have driven the Shelby say "it just didn't feel
> that fast."

In comparison to what?  The Terminator cars?  If so, then the "feel"
could be attributed to the difference in chassis -- the older Fox not
feeling as button down as the '05 and ups.

> I've heard the same thing about the 400 horse GTO ("it's just not all
> that fast").

In all the road tests I seen, the 400HP version is noteably
quicker/faster than the 350HP cars.

>  Are the numbers somehow outpacing the real-world performance?

The only thing hurting the bigger HP numbers is the increasing weight
of newer models.  

Patrick
JohnV@nn - 21 Sep 2006 01:42 GMT
snip

> >  Are the numbers somehow outpacing the real-world performance?
>
> The only thing hurting the bigger HP numbers is the increasing weight
> of newer models.
>
> Patrick

I know that the weight is increasing along with the hp.  It's a shame
that we've seen accounts (even in our own ramfm) of folks test driving,
or even buying, an 05+ GT and saying "it just didn't feel as fast as my
01 GT" or similar.  I saw a post the other day on a forum comparing a
guy's stock 92 LX and an 06 GT, and he says the LX feels faster.  To
me, this is a seriously bad sign.  The car gets more hp and along with
it more weight, and the end result is a car that doesn't "feel as fast"
(whatever that really means).

I personally have not subjected myself to a test drive of an s197 car
because I fear I would wind up owning it.  I'm old enough now to
protect myself from myself.  :-)  

John
93 GT (now with 3.55s)
NoOption5L@aol.com - 21 Sep 2006 03:51 GMT
>  snip
>
> > >  Are the numbers somehow outpacing the real-world performance?
> >
> > The only thing hurting the bigger HP numbers is the increasing weight
> > of newer models.

> I know that the weight is increasing along with the hp.  It's a shame
> that we've seen accounts (even in our own ramfm) of folks test driving,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> it more weight, and the end result is a car that doesn't "feel as fast"
> (whatever that really means).

Maybe it's the added refinement that makes the newer car feel slower.
I know when I drive/drove and older 60's car they feel/felt faster than
they really were.  So perhaps it's the same now comparing an older Fox
to a new S197.  Because we know the magazine numbers all show the newer
GT much faster than the old Fox (S197 GT magazine numbers are always
over 100 mph, usually 103 or so and the old LX Foxes where lucky to
even crack 100.  Most ran higher 90s.  Mine ran 98.

> I personally have not subjected myself to a test drive of an s197 car
> because I fear I would wind up owning it.  I'm old enough now to
> protect myself from myself.  :-)

I've test driven them.  I want one!

Patrick
'93 Cobra (also running 3.55s)

> John
> 93 GT (now with 3.55s)
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.