Cars that should have gotten more horsepower...

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnBM01
  • 70 comments
  • 2,772 views
the Ford BA Falcon GT-P sould have a bit more than the standard GT, you would also think they would want more than the Holden GTS 300
 
Definately the IS300 could have used a bit more power. But hopefully I'll have a turbo on mine by next summer. :trouble:
Realistically it could have done with another 50HP out of the box. 215HP just isn't enough to keep up with the other cars in it's division. (Audi A4, BMW 330, and now the Infinity G35 sedan.)

Hopefully the 2005 IS300 will bring with it a new and more potent engine. Hopefully there will be more choices than the 245HP V6 (which still wouldn't put it at the top of it's class.) that Lexus is switching to as the 2JZ-GE (NA Supra) engine in the IS will be dropped.

I would have liked to see the Mazda 6 make more power too.
 
The current Civic Si. A better suspension, and better tires wouldn't hurt either. Problem is, such a Civic exists, but Honda NA's too stupid to give it to us...

As odd as it looks, the Porsche Boxster S needs a slight bump. It has 250 odd hp, and it's pretty fun to drive, but i bet it'd be even more fun with 270-280 hp. Of course you'd have to add a bit more punch to the 911 so the Boxster doesn't interfere with sales, but it's getting a complete model change pretty soon anyway.
 
I always felt the boxter had two weak points. Its power output and its styling. Hell we could always inport a RUF :D
 
You know, I was going to mention the Mazda RX-8, the car who was the recipient of the "Best Engine Award." For those who bash on Japanese cars, maybe the RX-8 motor isn't a tough-as-nails Chevy V8, but I think the car will get better with more research and development (or R & D).

But remember, with more horsepower, requires revisions in tuning. You just can't take a high-horsepower motor and leave it as is. Anyone who's played Gran Turismo and modded only the horsepower should know this. A Stage 4 (Turbo) for the Mitsubishi Lancer can kill its performance, as mentioned in the Gran Turismo 3 Strategy guide.

Anyhow, there are just some cars that need more power. I tend to think the S15 Silvia Spec-R Aero (I love that car. BEAUTIFUL styling for a fairly inexpensive car) needs a little more boost (no pun intended) with its turbo motor.
 
I would have to say the old school Mini's, maybe even the new ones. (The new ones aren't as bad.)

Just imagine pumping about 300 horses out of a 1200 pound car. That would rock. Not to mention the thing has a dime steering radius and excellent low gravity stability. Drop a SR20 into it and boost baby. :D
 
Originally posted by JohnBM01
You know, I was going to mention the Mazda RX-8, the car who was the recipient of the "Best Engine Award." For those who bash on Japanese cars, maybe the RX-8 motor isn't a tough-as-nails Chevy V8, but I think the car will get better with more research and development (or R & D).
Click to expand...

I like domestics but I don't like to bash on [most] Japanese cars, and after a friend of mine introduced me to the RX-8 specs and engine, I will readily admit it really is a fine engine! Maybe Chevy V8 guys with 5.7L motors can bash it a bit but that 5.7L (LT1/LS1/LS6 etc.) has had a lot of refinement over the years, whereas the RX-8's RENESIS rotary engine is just gettin started. Someone commented on the torque of the engine, and I will say that the design by nature is difficult to get torque out of, but they will almost for sure do so and improve it over the next few years just as said. The RX-8 is a fine machine, and to me it deserves no discredit.

I think Ford laid back too much on the '89-'97 Thunderbirds/Cougars. No matter which engine, 3.8L, 5.0L, or 4.6L, the cars are relatively slow in stock form. Even the supercharged 3.8L in SCs and XR7s aren't comparable enough to some modern sporty cars IMO. The cars aren't entirely weak per se, but they are excessively 'bottled up' with things like air silencers, engine timing retard (during shifts), overly-wide gearing, heavy weight, etc. Ask any owner of one of these cars and they will whole-heartily agree. It's a really good chassis though.

It's hard to really put a finger on other certain cars that should have gotten more horsepower.
 
well if you ever look at displacement numbers between european,japanese and american cars, youll notice the americans dont know how to build engine without burning 13gallons of fuel with every 5 stokes of a piston. In the European Touring Car series the Skyline has a 3000cc engine as the Viper has a 10,000cc engine yet the Skyline has a horsepower advantage over all the cars, maybe the americans need to learn something. Maybe this is why cars like the 993 C2s or the E46 M3 can beat a corvette on the track, corvette is a heavy ill handling pig, the only place it might be faster is a straight but thats probabally not a problem for either the Porsche or BMW since they didnt have to slow down as much to make the turn on to the striaght. Dot get into Callaway, they know how to build engines and imagine that they are based in europe.
 
Originally posted by rollazn
On the 1/4 yes on highway rolls im sure the 350z would beat the S2000. My cuz has a black 350z and man its amazing!
Click to expand...

Between an '00-03 S2k v. Z, its a driver's race. The Z has 40+ more horses, the S has 400+ less pounds. The Z feels faster, because its torque peak is down around 3,500 rpm, but it will NOT pull on a properly driven S at highways speeds, unless the S has the top down. Both cars cut the 1320 in about 14 seconds and trap at 99 mph. If the Z indeed had a better top end than the S, you would see higher trap speeds (like 101 or 102), which I haven't seen yet.

The '04 S2000 is an under-rated car. It dynos ~23hp more than the 2.0 liter car. That's roughly ~267 hp at the crank. That's plenty in a 2850 lb. car. Shouldn't be long before stock '04s run 13.7s with some regularity at the track.


///M-Spec
 
Originally posted by MMMPWR
well if you ever look at displacement numbers between european,japanese and american cars, youll notice the americans dont know how to build engine without burning 13gallons of fuel with every 5 stokes of a piston.
Click to expand...

:odd: You're kidding, right? C5s get the same type of milage an M3 or 996 does.

Originally posted by MMMPWR
In the European Touring Car series the Skyline has a 3000cc engine as the Viper has a 10,000cc engine yet the Skyline has a horsepower advantage over all the cars, maybe the americans need to learn something.
Click to expand...

The Viper is NA. The Skyline is turbo'd. You DO know adding a turbo is essentially increasing displacement, right?

Originally posted by MMMPWR
Maybe this is why cars like the 993 C2s or the E46 M3 can beat a corvette on the track, corvette is a heavy ill handling pig, the only place it might be faster is a straight but thats probabally not a problem for either the Porsche or BMW since they didnt have to slow down as much to make the turn on to the striaght.
Click to expand...

I'd have to disagree. Your opinion toward Vettes are about 15 years out of date. C5s are not slouches in the handling dept, and even an LT1 C4 is a a respectable track car. They are very capable in the right hands, and in fact regularly hand M3s and 911s their asses on autocross courses-- these are tight course, where the cars rarely get out of 2nd gear. Z06s are just plain monsters and far beyond stock M3s, 993s and 996s.

EDIT- I mean.. I love German cars and all (I'm on my 4th BMW) ...but let's not get carried away with their supremacy.


///M-Spec
 
2owned.gif


In all actuallity The C5 is viewed as probably the best Corvette performance wise ever built. . . but a little more power would have helped it a little too :D
 
And to add to the original topic, I'd say the RX-8 is in most dire need of some power.

Mazda says 238. This is pure b.s. when cars are putting 180s to the rear wheels. Its more like 215. There are some aftermarket companies that have already figured out why Mazda neutered its new flagship, and have already put almost 35 hp back in the car --at a substantial cost to the life of the cat.

But why should you have to buy an aftermarket CPU just to get the original claimed hp? (247)


///M-Spec
 
Originally posted by MMMPWR
well if you ever look at displacement numbers between european,japanese and american cars, youll notice the americans dont know how to build engine without burning 13gallons of fuel with every 5 stokes of a piston. In the European Touring Car series the Skyline has a 3000cc engine as the Viper has a 10,000cc engine yet the Skyline has a horsepower advantage over all the cars, maybe the americans need to learn something. Maybe this is why cars like the 993 C2s or the E46 M3 can beat a corvette on the track, corvette is a heavy ill handling pig, the only place it might be faster is a straight but thats probabally not a problem for either the Porsche or BMW since they didnt have to slow down as much to make the turn on to the striaght. Dot get into Callaway, they know how to build engines and imagine that they are based in europe.
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Originally posted by ///M-Spec
Between an '00-03 S2k v. Z, its a driver's race. The Z has 40+ more horses, the S has 400+ less pounds. The Z feels faster, because its torque peak is down around 3,500 rpm, but it will NOT pull on a properly driven S at highways speeds, unless the S has the top down. Both cars cut the 1320 in about 14 seconds and trap at 99 mph. If the Z indeed had a better top end than the S, you would see higher trap speeds (like 101 or 102), which I haven't seen yet.

The '04 S2000 is an under-rated car. It dynos ~23hp more than the 2.0 liter car. That's roughly ~267 hp at the crank. That's plenty in a 2850 lb. car. Shouldn't be long before stock '04s run 13.7s with some regularity at the track.


///M-Spec
Click to expand...

Car-Stats.com Report for 2003 Nissan 350Z Track
Obtained from C&D August, 2002
0-60: 5.4 Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile: 14.1
1/4 Speed: 101


I have ;)

Car-Stats.com Report for 2003 Honda S2000
Obtained from C&D December, 2002
0-60: 6.3 Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile: 14.9
1/4 Speed: 95

Car-Stats.com Report for 2000 Honda S2000
Obtained from MT February, 2000
0-60: 5.2 Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile: 13.8
1/4 Speed: 100


14.9 in a 2003 S2000 dont sound right ;) it should be way faster. The 350z would be able to take it on highway rolls at around 65mph wouldnt it? At least my cousin in his 350z seem to think so. Either way i rather have a S2000 although the 350z has more torque and power its also that much heavier.
 
:lol: What'd you do, find the fastest 350Z times and the slowest S2000 times you could get?

95 mph on the st00k? That test car had a slipping clutch.

Fine, we can magazine race if you like. I'll rummage through my pile of road tests when I get home.


///M-Spec
 
Originally posted by ///M-Spec
:lol: What'd you do, find the fastest 350Z times and the slowest S2000 times you could get?

95 mph on the st00k? That test car had a slipping clutch.

Fine, we can magazine race if you like. I'll rummage through my pile of road tests when I get home.


///M-Spec
Click to expand...

If you can see i had my sources... Car-stats.com

the 2003 S2000 messed up or something but as you can see the 2000 S2000 ran an impressive 13.8@100mph while the 350z ran 14.1@101MPH.

What you said about finding fastest 350z time and slowest s2000 is just wrong. The 350z 14.1 isnt the fastest im sure i can find way faster times. The 2003 S2000 must have some problem as you can see the 2000 verison ran an impressive 13.8 beating the 350z.

oh yeah check out this 350z vs S2000 performance comparison i got from car-videos.com

http://www.car-videos.com/performance/view.asp?ID1=26&ID2=188
 
Originally posted by rollazn
If you can see i had my sources... Car-stats.com

the 2003 S2000 messed up or something but as you can see the 2000 S2000 ran an impressive 13.8@100mph while the 350z ran 14.1@101MPH.

What you said about finding fastest 350z time and slowest s2000 is just wrong. The 350z 14.1 isnt the fastest im sure i can find way faster times. The 2003 S2000 must have some problem as you can see the 2000 verison ran an impressive 13.8 beating the 350z.
Click to expand...


You do realize that when the ETs are so close, it's a driver's race, right? I mean, 13.8, 14.1... that's all in the first 60 feet. Traps speeds are a much better indication of power/weight.


///M-Spec

EDIT - I'll check the vid when I get home... work connection is slooooow.
 
Originally posted by ///M-Spec
You do realize that when the ETs are so close, it's a driver's race, right? I mean, 13.8, 14.1... that's all in the first 60 feet. Traps speeds are a much better indication of power/weight.


///M-Spec

EDIT - I'll check the vid when I get home... work connection is slooooow.
Click to expand...

Yes i know that. They are very close in comparison. Performance wise. The lack of torque from the S2000 basically even it out due to its weight weighting about 300lbs less well its fast. The 350z is a heavy boat weighting somewhere in the 3100lbs but it got the torque and power to back up the weight.

S2000 vs 350Z is like Evo Vs STi

It depends on the driver mostly. I agree S2000 is very close to the 350z in performance its as fast as the 350z i should say. But from rolling start i believe that the 350z would beat the S2000 but i have no proof.
 
Agree, I rather have a S2000 then a Boxster S.... to me its ugly.
 
This.
r325.jpg

241 horsepower and 236 lb-ft just aren't enough for 3256 lbs.
 
I just think that as long as it took for Volkswagen to make a 200+ horsepower car, it could have been more. I'm not dissapointed with it, its a great car. It could be better. 👍 to VW anyway.
 
Originally posted by Drifting Thunda

I think Ford laid back too much on the '89-'97 Thunderbirds/Cougars. No matter which engine, 3.8L, 5.0L, or 4.6L, the cars are relatively slow in stock form. Even the supercharged 3.8L in SCs and XR7s aren't comparable enough to some modern sporty cars IMO. The cars aren't entirely weak per se, but they are excessively 'bottled up' with things like air silencers, engine timing retard (during shifts), overly-wide gearing, heavy weight, etc. Ask any owner of one of these cars and they will whole-heartily agree. It's a really good chassis though.
Click to expand...

Id say high 15 sec 1/4th isnt too bad with the V8, these things sure do donuts and burnsouts good though. Mine tends to smoke after so long hehe 1990 Cougar. Also the lack of under the hood room to work with, you have to remove alot of 'junk' to replace pbb etc etc. Too bad they madethe 98+ Cougar gaymo and then dropped it.
 
Yeah no joke, Cougar went from 'V8 Badazz' to 'anti-rice ricer.'

Yeah the cars have some really good things going for them, but I would have liked to see the alluminum DOHC version of the 4.6L used in the '94 up so they could make low 15s. The 5.0s are cool too, a lot more raw torque. I'm tryin to get a '95 T-Bird SC 5-speed nowadays.

They are basically crawlin if you compare them to a stock '99+ Mustang GT for example, but the MN12 Cougars, Thunderbirds, and Mark VIIIs are just awesome to me. :D :cool:
 
Hyundai Tiburon... sure its a piece of crap mechanically but as the Hyundai sportscar it should have more HP than its family sedan (Elantra). Only recently have they come out with the 180hp version... but still... its slow
 
Originally posted by Fenrir51
IIRC 95 Sc's were only made and sold in Mexico. See the next Cougar concept yet?

http://forums.tccoa.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34156

http://forums.tccoa.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14391

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Click to expand...

Wow! That is just awesome! The interior looks so... post-modern, though I'm not sure what's up with the center console there, but it's sharp and V8 again!

'95 Thunderbird SCs most certainly were sold in America! 574 of the 5-speeds are runnin around the states and I need to nab me one! Where did you hear that? As far as I know ALL MN12 T-Birds and probably all the MN12 Cougars were made at the Lorain plant in Ohio.
 
Alot of Ford cars are produced in Mexico for a cheaper price, I read it on that message board.
 
Back