The Horsepower Wars will end when people stop demanding (buying) more power. This will happen when human nature ceases to include competitiveness. That in turn will be when Homo sapiens no longer exist.
Some interesting news related to this thread today.
The Wall Street Journal reports Ford is doing away with the “retro” styling in the next-generation Mustang, and will attempt to attract younger buyers with a more modern look. No mention of fuel efficiency, but with the current trend towards big retro-styled muscle cars (e.g. the Camaro, Charger, Challenger), an interesting development. Dare I wish for a cheap, modern, fuel-efficient muscle car, with an EcoBoost V-6 maybe?
Separately, Dodge has announced pricing information for the new Dodge Dart, precisely the sort of small, efficient compact car that people like to claim American manufacturers don’t produce. Official MPG figures are not out yet, but I have seen references that suggest it may average 40 mpg. Horsepower ranges from 160 to 184, certainly not outlandish, and the interior and styling are nice enough that they may actually sell a bunch of these.
And, not unconnected to this topic, it is based on a Fiat platform and engines rather than being a USA development.
Uh, the car was engineered in Auburn Hills, and only the 1.4 liter is a Fiat engine. The 2.0 and 2.4 are Chrysler engines. The electronics architecture is Chrysler’s.
A platform is not a bucket of parts, it’s a set of dimensions. It’s not like Fiat gave them a car and said “make it look like a Dodge.”
It would be cool if it does get 40 MPG combined, but minimum 160 HP is still pretty outlandish. The 350 Chevy V8 truck I used to tow a camper with only had 160HP! I mean, there’s torque and all that, but still.
Additional side rant: why is that as horsepower has increased towing capacity has decreased? People used to tow boats and trailers with the family car all the time, and not just the huge V8 powered land yachts, but now you basically need a fullsize truck to tow anything bigger than a utility trailer. Although the mountain passes on summer weekends do seem a lot less congested than they once did…
Well everything can be boiled down to a set of dimensions, but who created those dimensions in the first place? Anyway, feel free to claim the body for the USA if you must as it is the engine that is most revealing.
The 1.4 fiat engine has as much power, and more torque, at lower revs than the 2.0. and more torque (and only slightly less power) than the 2.4.(which has the fiat multiair system included).
And though I can’t say for sure I’m willing to also suggest that it’ll be the most economical and the most fun to drive too (I suspect there will be some form of tricksy auto-box in there somewhere)
That shows the Europe-USA situations perfectly. The European engines have been pushed in the direction of greater output/litre and reduced consumption. The USA engines not so much.
It isn’t a slur on the USA automotive industry, it just hasn’t been pushed in the same direction to the same extent.
I reflexively snarl at comments like that because there are a lot of people out there who equate “platform sharing” with “badge engineering.” Building a new vehicle on an existing platform is no small task; it’s not a case of being handed an Alfa and being told “make it look like a Dodge.” Especially when Chrysler heavily re-engineerd the C-EVO platform into the C-USW platform.
What’s revealing? It’s a DI turbo, you see the same phenomenon in GM’s 1.4 liter DI turbo vs. the naturally aspirated 1.8 in the Cruze.
Which I believe is an engine developed by Opel, GM’s German wing.
Look, this isn’t a competition. I merely make the point that Europe (and Japan) go down the route of small engines, high output, greater efficiency. Such engines are there to be picked off the shelf and used in US models, sure enough, from your examples we can see that they are. That is all relevant to the OP.
Here’s another example of the future of muscle cars - the BMW i8.
A 1.5 liter, 3-cylinder turbocharged engine and an electric motor. 400 horsepower. 80 mpg!
While you’re arguably more right in the discussion, I think exception is being taken to “set of dimensions.” A platform really is much, much more than a set of dimensions. It’s also a set of specifications.
That response on its own sounds a bit flippant (not to you, jz78817, but to everyone else). So, while the dimensions are important so that different tophats (for example) will fit the same, it’s also important that DP800 be used where specified because HSLA200 will allow the occupants to die in a crash. Oh, also, the platform has these performance characteristics; if you manage to squeeze in a 400 bhp engine, it might tear itself apart. I’d even go further and point at that “set of dimensions” understates things. While correct, most people won’t think “set of dimensions” refers to the entire geometry of the platform, including surfaces.
The 1.4l isn’t DI.
You should probably stop arguing with people who watch garbage like Top Gear or say garbage like “output/litre”.
Not sure if this is aimed at me, but what exactly is the problem with using the phrase output/litre?
it can’t be aimed at you since you didn’t bring it up, but there are some irritating “I’m an expert because I watch Top Gear”-types out there who seem to think hp/litre is the only measure of an engine’s “goodness.” usually the same people who decry pushrod V8s as “antiquated” even though overhead camshafts are even older.
Huh. I must have confused it with the 2.4.
understood, I was oversimplifying too. it’s just a knee-jerk reaction against people who go “hurr badge engineering durr.”
I disagree with your premise that we’ve been underpaying compared to the rest of the world. But even though European countries tax the crap out of gasoline there are plenty of muscle cars to choose from.
Aside from that we’re already seeing people playing with electric motors on the 1/4 mile track so I don’t ever see a time when all the fun is sucked out of owning a car.
There was a short period in the 80’s when 225 hp was the high end of sports car technology due to environmental regulations and now we have 31 mpg 6 cylinders that produce over 300 hp.
I’m wondering if the USA had been paying more for gasoline all these years if the country would have turned out differently WRT public transit.
It may have made a marginal difference but the biggest factor has probably been size.
With so much room to spread out and play with, plus the distances between major conurbations so great there probably isn’t the same economies of scale at work as, say, the European countries or Japan. Hence the USA being the major pioneers of personal car usage and passenger air travel. The train/metro/underground hub model just didn’t take hold.
The BMW 1 Series has been available here for 5 years or more. They’re similar in size to a VW Golf or Audi A3.
The weediest is the 116d ES with 116 BHP and 63 MPG
The 123d M Sport is 203 BHP and 55 MPG.
Both of the above are diesel. Mine is one step down in the diesel range, a 120d SE which is 177BHP and 60 MPG.
The top of the heap is the 1 Series M Coupe. 340 BHP and 29 MPG. OK, it’s a tad over £40k before options, but what a car!
You should expand your thought on this. IMO it makes more sense in dense corridors like the upper East Coast of the US but in my state we turned it down recently because the population is spread out.
It would certainly have re-ordered the grouping of populations like the earlier canals and interurbans did but you can see the progression of transportation and why each one faded away over time. It’s the convenience factor. From a passenger perspective canals gave way to railroads then interurbans then buses then cars. Each change gave us a wider choice of point-to-point connections.
While I would like a high speed train in my state for the novelty of it I would rarely use it because I would have to transit to and from each point of connection. That means taking a taxi or bus on each end. I think the population is already heavily distributed to the point that it can’t reform around a high speed rail system without a substantial secondary system feeding it.
It would take a whopping need and subsequent carrot to get people to abandon the convenience of cars. I rarely have a NEED to drive to another city and while it would be really great to relax and read the paper while doing it the rarity of the need isn’t going to pay for the system. It would be great to zip over to another large city to catch a sporting event or museum but that would be a rare event for me.
Now there was a time I would have killed for a high speed train to work but my general goal in life is not to live 70 miles from work. I think the transit time might have been a wash or even longer with the high speed train but not driving through traffic hell would have been worth it assuming the cost was in line.
This
I would LOVE a small turbo diesel wagon with 150-200 hp and 60 mpg. Love Love Love Love Love to have one. Same thing for an electric car that can be recharged in 5 minutes. If I had the money I’d already have built one for work and weekend racing because an 80 mile car capable of 12 second 1/4 mile times is easily doable now. Not to infer such a car is rechargeable in 5 minutes but an 80 mile electric car is doable for the weekend car builder. When the economy improves it will be high on my list of toys.
The 120d, assuming we’re on the UK MOT cycle, is rated for a combined 53mpg. The diesel Jetta is 58mpg, but the European Jetta is a different car than the US model and the engine undoubtably has different emissions equipment that will affect (usually for the worse) mileage. So what you are describing is probably beyond what’s possible with technology right now. There’s always the Prius, which gets >70mpg in the UK, and the Prius C which AFAIK isn’t yet sold in Europe will be even better.
The US Jetta diesel is quoted for 34mpg combined by the EPA, which is no better than a gas Chevy Cruze Eco with similar power that uses cheaper, more available fuel and is cheaper to buy and also not a German piece of shit.