What is up with some people and having insane horsepower per liter?

[CdocZ]

Really, what so special about having massive amounts of horsepower per liter? It doesn't help performance in any way. On the same point, why do some of you feel that the only way to go fast is to have a vast amount over one thousand horsepower?

The Bugatti Veyron has 125 horsepower per liter. So what? The important figure is horsepower per ton, not per liter. The Veyron has 1,000 horsepower, yet the Saleen out-accelerates it having 250 horsepower less. Let's compare the power-to-weight ratios.
Bugatti Veyron: .53 horsepower per Kg
Saleen S7TT: .56 horsepower to the Kg
Bugatti Veyron weight: 4190 Lb's/1900Kilo's
Saleen S7 Weight: 3,000 Lb's/1338Kilo's
As you can see, weight and power per pound/kilo is what is important.

This is not meant to insult anyone, but why is it so important to people? It doesn't affect performance, all it does is say "I have a powerful engine, but my car might just weigh 50 billion tons and is really damn slow". Also, proof (I don't want to sound like a fanboy, I like them, but they are just a great example for acceleration) the Hennessey Venom. It "only" has 1192 horsepower. It also "only" has the 1/4 mile record, and is one of the few cars to ever get below 2 seconds in 0-60. Compared to the Skylines and Supra's out there with the same number of horsepower yet engines half the size, yet is still a faster accelerator, doesn't this show something?

Once again, no offense is meant, only wondering why people make it into a major thing. What's wrong with power-to-weight ratio's? :confused:

EDIT: I guess it's cool to have an engine with alot of power per liter.....but......it doesn't actually help you really.

EDIT2: Once again, DO NOT TAKE OFFENSE. I am just wondering why the people who do take alot of interest into power-per-liter think it is important.

[misterfong]

hey guys, 1st post...

veyron = rice, all show, no go

all that power is only good when it can be put down to the ground...i can put a 1000hp engine in a 2 ton truck, but ill tell you right now a little 40hp geo metro will beat it...its all in how the power is put down, and im pretty much repeating what you said cause you nailed it.

it is impressive tho, to pull over 1000hp out of an engine, bravo to those who have, but if you cant put the power down whether u have an engine so massively big and a bajillion accessories that weigh the car down (veyron), or its suspension and tire issues that keep you from getting anywhere cause your tires are smoking every time you launch. you get nowhere with that. those horses are only useful when the power can be put down to the ground with sufficient traction and well, a car that just doesnt weigh so much (veyron)

if you cant tell, i hate that darn car, its just as successful as that stupid "motorcycle" that dodge built with the v-10 in it, look at how well that one turned out

[CdocZ]

That didn't really answer the question, but A) welcome, and B) nice when the first response is on your side :p

[TheTechnician]

hey guys, 1st post...

veyron = rice, all show, no go

all that power is only good when it can be put down to the ground...i can put a 1000hp engine in a 2 ton truck, but ill tell you right now a little 40hp geo metro will beat it...its all in how the power is put down, and im pretty much repeating what you said cause you nailed it.

it is impressive tho, to pull over 1000hp out of an engine, bravo to those who have, but if you cant put the power down whether u have an engine so massively big and a bajillion accessories that weigh the car down (veyron), or its suspension and tire issues that keep you from getting anywhere cause your tires are smoking every time you launch. you get nowhere with that. those horses are only useful when the power can be put down to the ground with sufficient traction and well, a car that just doesnt weigh so much (veyron)

if you cant tell, i hate that darn car, its just as successful as that stupid "motorcycle" that dodge built with the v-10 in it, look at how well that one turned out

you are a jackass....first off if you put a 1000hp engine in a 2 ton truck it would smoke a 40 hp neon...how much do you think average everyday pickups weigh???? cuz they dont weigh 1/2 a ton...they weigh over 2 tons. Put 1000 horsepower in my silverado, your flyin down the road.

2nd. that motorcycle that dodge built was never meant to be a production vehicle...but the funny thing is that many people wanted them bad enough, that they actually made a couple of them for sale!!! So how did that turn out bad??? They made one of the most unique vehicles of all time :wtf:

[CdocZ]

Damn, i forgot about the Sidewinders. Dodge Ram's that can outrun most supercars, and cost under 150k :eek:

[JJ8325]

like the above poster said, it is more about how u apply the horsepower to the ground. the bugatti veyron has quad turbos, so it may not necessarily accelerate well compared to other supercars, but its top speed is around 250mph.

[CdocZ]

but its top speed is around 250mph.

Nope. Too un-aerodynamic. That's why it keeps getting pushed back, because it can't reach it's goal. They tested it, and it barely broke 230.

[tard]

People that buy those things don't care about power to weight ratios, or even actual performance.

Cars are sold simply by the label value they hold. It's the classic Casio vs. Rolex argument. Bugatti is a long estalished Italian name with racing heritage dating back to 1910. Saleen is the name of a guy who put ugly paint jobs and big wings on blue-collar Mustangs. As cool as the Saleen Mustangs are, they don't hold any cachet with the big dollar boys.

How many of these supercars ever get to use even half of their potential? Close to zero. They're trophies for overly tan balding guys that wear gold chains. I take my car out to the drag strip, the roadcourse, and autocrosssing all the time. It's cheap, and can be replaced. Plus, it's limits are low enough so that I can push them with less fear of getting seriously hurt. If I had a $250k+ car, no way would I be out risking it.

[JJ8325]

Nope. Too un-aerodynamic. That's why it keeps getting pushed back, because it can't reach it's goal. They tested it, and it barely broke 230.

i believe that. i just grabbed that top speed off of a website. i think that all supercars are rated faster than is actually possible under normal conditions. i know the saleen can barely hit 200, if even that.

[Kumacho]

Most of the time, when the HP per liter argument comes up, it's in an argument about Foreign vs. Domestic cars.

While the vehicles you listed are not good representations there are quite a few comparisons out there that can be used to validate the HP per liter argument.

But the final line isn't HP per liter or really even Power to weight ratios. Afterall if you have the wrong gear ratio it won't matter what your power to weight ratio is. The car still won't be quick, it might be fast but it will take forever to get up to speed.

Likewise, if you have a heavy vehicle and it's putting out say 320hp but only 220tq, it's not going to pull like a car with 320hp and 320tq.

But wait! There's more! Put that same 320hp/320tq motor into a brick shaped car and it will post lower trap speeds and the top end will be limited by it's aerodynamics! Trap speeds are not affected as much as top end speeds. But you get the idea of what I mean.

Cliff notes: HP per liter means crap. Power to weight is important but still not the entire story. Gearing is important, but not if you don't have power. Weight is important unless you over come it with torque. Aerodynamics is important to top end speed.

[CdocZ]

I know what you mean, but if any ratio on a car is useless for performance figures.......it's power per liter. That's why I don't understand why people like it.

And Tard, very well put.

[CdocZ]

i believe that. i just grabbed that top speed off of a website. i think that all supercars are rated faster than is actually possible under normal conditions. i know the saleen can barely hit 200, if even that.

The twin turbo can easily break 200, along with the supercharged version. They are amazingly aerodynamic cars, and get nearly all of their power to the ground. I think you mean the N/A first version.

[mjcole12]

The twin turbo can easily break 200, along with the supercharged version. They are amazingly aerodynamic cars, and get nearly all of their power to the ground. I think you mean the N/A first version.


am sorry but saleen have never proven that this car can hit 200

even when they compare it to the enzo etc on ther site they miss out the top speed

the sallen s7 is a beautiful car but it isnt as good as saleen make out

they use this car in the british GT championships
and it dosent have the edge over the TVR T400R

on to bhp per litre i know i would rarther have a 2.6L pushing 320 bhp than a
6L pushing the same power thats just my preferance

[CdocZ]

am sorry but saleen have never proven that this car can hit 200

even when they compare it to the enzo etc on ther site they miss out the top speed

the sallen s7 is a beautiful car but it isnt as good as saleen make out

they use this car in the british GT championships
and it dosent have the edge over the TVR T400R

on to bhp per litre i know i would rarther have a 2.6L pushing 320 bhp than a
6L pushing the same power thats just my preferance

Thats cause the Saleen can't really handle too well. It's amazingly big for a supercar also. Really for racing, the American car I would choose would be a Mosler. It gets an average of about 24 mpg, can break 200, accelerates faster then a Noble (but the Mosler costs 200k), and can handle like few others. It almost seems like it just can't be American :D

EDIT: Also, the twin turbo (isn't officially in production yet, but they have...."stopped using the factory to build the supercharged version", wonder what they're doing?), I will be VERY suprised if it doesnt break 200.

[reptilian_storm]

Some of the highest power to weight rations i have seen in road cars are.

TVR Cerbera Speed 12 - 800bhp/tonne
Ultima Can Am - 646bhp/tonne
Turner LMP - 600bhp/tonne
Caterham Superlight R500 Evolution - 531bhp/tonne
Westfeild MegaBusa - 420bhp/tonne

I see a pattern here.

They're all British and all cost around £30,000 (Bar Speed12) and will toast anything within a mile of their price range. :p

I agree that the Veyron is looking bad, they should have just given up years ago on it.

Power to weight means everything. That little Caterham has 2000cc IL4 making 250bhp but it will destroy virtually everything down the 1/4 or average race track because it weighs nothing. Hardly Practical i know, but you don't buy fast cars for practicality espcially when they cost as little as the caterham does.

I can't "weight" for official bhp/tonne figues from the new 340bhp V8 Caterham, it should be well up in the 600's. :D

[CdocZ]

British track cars have amazing power-per weight. And yes, it does mean just about everything if you can get most of it to the ground. I love British cars, too bad there are none here really, except a specially downgraded Lotus :(

[mjcole12]

rep you forgot the areil atom 600 bhp per ton

[CdocZ]

Damn. All the more incentive for me to live in England for a bit after college :D
(Not just for the cars, don't worry)

[mjcole12]

these are fearly cheap british sports cars
2000 Marcos Mantis GT just under 500 bhp per ton
2003 Farboud GTS 480 bhp per ton

these are super cars

Mclaren F1 LM 680 bhp per ton
1993 Jaguar XJ220C 550 bhp per ton
1994 Jaguar XJ220S TWR 700 bhp per ton

those 3 are in or around the price of a saleen

2004 Saleen S7 425 bhp per ton
2005 Saleen S7 Twin-Turbo 500 bhp per ton

non of this post raly has a reason i just wanted to compare bhp per ton on some cars

[reptilian_storm]

Here's an easier way of doing it.

Click (http://www.supercars.net/lists/bhpperweight.html)

:)