Underpowered cars

[billyo]

What is the most underpowered car you have driven?

I had a go in a 1.3 sierra a few years back. 60bhp and the thing barely moved. I say it is a danger to have such an underpowered car.

Do you think underpowered cars should be banned? Perhaps there should be a minumum power to weight ratio for our roads or at least on the motorways.

 

[obi_waynne]

Tis not a bad idea to have a minimum power to weight ratio but I'm sure a lot of HGV's will have problems with a rule like this.

Our Astra 1.4 and Toyota Corolla 1.3 were both pretty gutless. I have to agree that cars like this are dangerous as you can't accelerate out of trouble and you can't join motorways easily.

 

[charger69]

underpowered cars usually should be city cars, however that it wont make sense cause using fuel for driving around the city in low speeds isn't that good idea, when u can make them electric.
while a minimum power for a petrol car shouldn't be under 150 HP nowadays, with so much technologie.

 

[fezzafii]

So, 17 year old wants a car were going to force him to buy something say 100+ bhp? I think this would be silly.

I have a 1.25 fiesta and never have problems with it being underpowered. I would prefer it to be faster, however you just have to change your driving style to suit whats going on. I.e, I know thaty on a slip road I need to get in front of the company car driving man in a 2.0 Tdi passat as he will undoubtably pootle down the slip road at 30mph then just pull out and accellerate, whereas I will be then left kicking the #!#!#!#! out of my car to get it to 60-70 to join the carriageway.

Minimum power is silly as some people cannot be trusted with powerful cars.

 

[blacklineninja]

The thing is, having driven the MK6 Fiesta 1.25 and the MK4 Corsa 1.4, the 1.25 absolutely flounces it. It's not that the Ford is a massively powerful car, but it just responds so much better than the Vauxhall, which is just awful. It feels like it's too big for it's engine, although that can't be the case because the 1.2 litre Grande Punto is very spritely too! It just depends on how they use the power/torque they produce I guess, but an underpowered car is massively frustrating and I wouldn't have thought it'd be much good for fuel economy either?

 

[MasterAuron]

while a minimum power for a petrol car shouldn't be under 150 HP nowadays, with so much technologie.

Don't agree. That's just silly. 150bhp is quite powerful in a 900kg, 1000kg hatchback or city car. None of the youth would ever be able to get insured!

If you drive with your brain you can make do with a slow car (say 60bhp/1000kgs) in every situation. I did just fine with my Mk2 8v Punto but it gets tiresome having to put so much effort into driving.

 

[aston]

type 2 vw camper (2 tonnes @ 40 year old 1.6 aircooled engine) until I got my shogun, 2.6 litre, heavy and not working properly.

 

[pgarner]

my fiesta 1.1 and 0-60 sprint in something like 21 seconds. my sisters polo isnt much better think the book says something like 19.

minimum power doesnt mean anything most folk stuggle to drive well with little power so imagine the accident rate when you have min power of 150bhp. also watch the premuims rise very quickly because of this

 

[lutonmatt]

think one of the worst was my step brothers 1.2 cilo my little 125 scooter went faster then that infact i think i could walk up hills quicker then that

 

[HDi fun]

There is a power/weight point ratio below which cars can be tiresome to drive in certain situations. Joining motorways on short uphill slip roads can be a pain but HGV drivers seem to manage. Then again they do have 38 tons to help 'ease' their way into the LH lane.

I think the slowest car I ever drove was my mates 1976/P (yes, 76, not 96) Escort 1.1 Estate. It was only rated at about 41bhp anyway but the engine was not the best so realistically assume little more than 3/4 of this. 30bhp. At the flywheel!

The best ever 0-60mph we managed in it was 49 seconds! I challenge anyone to say that this is realistically useable on a daily basis.



Then again so can relatively powerful high revving engines that have a very low torque output below say 4000rpm. Vauxhalls current Vectra in 1.8 VVTi petrol form is like this. It's rated at 140bhp but feels to be about half of this in general use. Then chuck in the low gearing that's been put there to help things along and you wind up with a fussy and restless cruiser that struggles to better 28mpg in general use.

I'm cautious to say that having strong acceleration readily available can get you out of trouble. It can but more usually, unless you have significant experience and practise it can cause you to accelerate into trouble.

 

[WLBjork]

Has to be the work Citroen Dispatch 1.9 non-turbo. Absolutely no guts whatsoever. Only way I could get it up a 1/8 hill from a 30mph zone was in second gear, otherwise I lost power halfway up the hill. Unfortunately we've still got that piece of junk, hopefully not for much longer.

Neither the Estelle (admittedly with a competition carb installed), nor the Favorit ever felt anwhere near as bad.

 

[turbonutter69]

A mk6 Escort Estate Td. (not Intercooled.)
It was absolutely rubbish.
I had a Mondeo Td (intercooled) and that wasn't the fastest but it was a hell of alot better than the Escort. Only bought the Escort cause th Mondeo's cam belt tensioner went. Ended up selling the Escort after about a week.

 

[charger69]

Don't agree. That's just silly. 150bhp is quite powerful in a 900kg, 1000kg hatchback or city car. None of the youth would ever be able to get insured!

If you drive with your brain you can make do with a slow car (say 60bhp/1000kgs) in every situation. I did just fine with my Mk2 8v Punto but it gets tiresome having to put so much effort into driving.

the insurance is killing ya guys in UK.
i'd go for a 500 KG car with 400 HP, imagine what performance will it have, with aerodynamics of course (mercedes clk-gtr for example has 500 KG and has 620 HP)

 

[96AccordCoupe]

My first car was a 1.1 Fiat Punto 60. A 5dr in black.

I wanted the limited edition Recaro Honda Accord in the showroom but as it was my first car and on finance, I couldn't convince my old man who was acting as guarantor for the credit agreement.

Have to admit it was pretty nippy. 12" steelys and very little weight, it would pull away from most things in first gear and I would go everywhere with my foot firmly planted to the floor.

Even got 6 points for zooming past a police van at 105mph. He was laughing his head off when I said I didn't think he could catch me. I was young and dumb, thought I was invincible!

Underpowered cars I think you are more inclined to thrash, whereas higher powered cars demand a certain amount of respect and care when behind the wheel.

I'm on the fence with this one.

 

[pgarner]

the insurance is killing ya guys in UK.
i'd go for a 500 KG car with 400 HP, imagine what performance will it have, with aerodynamics of course (mercedes clk-gtr for example has 500 KG and has 620 HP)

and watch how many would wrap themselves around a tree within a month of having the car

insurance is a good thing in a way - i pay £400 nothing happens the insurance company is happy, if i happen to crash into something and do around £1,000,000 worth of damage the company pays out and not me

 

[HDi fun]

My first car was a 1.1 Fiat Punto 60. A 5dr in black.

I wanted the limited edition Recaro Honda Accord in the showroom but as it was my first car and on finance, I couldn't convince my old man who was acting as guarantor for the credit agreement.

Have to admit it was pretty nippy. 12" steelys and very little weight, it would pull away from most things in first gear and I would go everywhere with my foot firmly planted to the floor.

Even got 6 points for zooming past a police van at 105mph. He was laughing his head off when I said I didn't think he could catch me. I was young and dumb, thought I was invincible!

Underpowered cars I think you are more inclined to thrash, whereas higher powered cars demand a certain amount of respect and care when behind the wheel.

I'm on the fence with this one.

I'm staggered that the driver of a police van bothered with you at all. He must have really make a concerted effort to catch up with you in a van, quite possibly endangering other road users needlessly. And in response to what?

To achieve exactly what?

I'd have challenged that one at the roadside had I been in that situation. It's not usual for Police vehicles designated for general duties (ie. non traffic patrol cars) to have calibrated and certified speedometers so from where did the evidence arise? The van almost certainly certainly will not have been fitted with VASCAR or other time/distance recording equipment.

If it was then it's still worthless as evidence if the van driver was not trained in its operation according to Home Office type approval requirements.

The police officer's 'Reasonable grounds to believe that a Road Traffic Offence has, might have been, or might about to be committed' is insufficient without sound evidence.

 

[96AccordCoupe]

I like to think I'm a little wiser nowadays when it comes to the law, but I was 17 back then and didn't know better.

Good info though.

 

[RobBentley]

Slowest car I have driven has to be a M reg Nissan Micra with a whopping 998cc 53bhp engine I borrowed from my girlfriends mother a few years back. I also highly doubt all 53 horses where still present and correct..

Joining every roundabout was a brown-trouser moment - and to add to the "excitement" if you ever did get to 60, the brakes had the stopping power of two damp flannels..

 

[Country Bumpkin]

I drive one of those 1000 cc Micras daily, and yes it is terribly underpowered, especially with 170,000 miles on the clock. It handles like a blancmange but does a whole week on a tank of fuel.
I've been commuting back and from work in the GTO this week and to be honest, time wise there's bugger all difference purely due to the traffic flow.
In regards of fuel return though it's a different matter. I don't even add up the fuel costs of the GTO as it's simply not worth it.
That said, a couple of weeks ago we went up to Kettering for JAE and when we topped up just before the showground i had used 2 more litres [51] than Nick [49], one of our mehanics, and his GTO is reasonably standard compared to mine.

 

[HDi fun]

Still doesn't beat my mates 30bhp escort estate!

 

[turbonutter69]

Still doesn't beat my mates 30bhp escort estate!

I bet he can push it faster than the engine can pull it.

 

[HDi fun]

We are going back over twenty years so I suspect that at that time he could quite possibly have pushed it harder. In 1987 that car was only 11 years old. But it was a wreck. Aren't we all glad that build quality and reliability has improved.

 

[charger69]

french cars are the top underpowered cars, imagine they need a V6 to get almost 200 HP, and those are their top cars.

 

[turbonutter69]

french cars are the top underpowered cars, imagine they need a V6 to get almost 200 HP, and those are their top cars.

Thats just not true. My sister has a Clio Sport. 2.0 16v and 182bhp. I know it's not 200bhp but it is close and that is in standard form.
Peugeot 206 GTI 2.0 16v 180 odd bhp.

 

[HDi fun]

french cars are the top underpowered cars, imagine they need a V6 to get almost 200 HP, and those are their top cars.

Utter nonsense.

If anything in years gone by French cars outperformed their competitors models because they were so flimsy and lightly built.

 

[charger69]

Thats just not true. My sister has a Clio Sport. 2.0 16v and 182bhp. I know it's not 200bhp but it is close and that is in standard form.
Peugeot 206 GTI 2.0 16v 180 odd bhp.

yea, but they count those cars closely as exotics, how stupid.
and the clio V6 counts as british car, not french.
and i was talking more like back in history, cause nowadays there are few powered cars.

 

[HDi fun]

A Clio is not an exotic car.

 

[pgarner]

what about the clio 197 thats only 3 bhp off your 200. thats still a 2ltr 16v inline 4 cylinder engine

and who classes the clio as a exotic ? they, that is the sports models, are classed as hot hatches

 

[charger69]

what about the clio 197 thats only 3 bhp off your 200. thats still a 2ltr 16v inline 4 cylinder engine

and who classes the clio as a exotic ? they, that is the sports models, are classed as hot hatches

yea, while opel has the 193 HP with a 1.6 engine.
come on guys, let's get straight, the frenchis have no idea about powering cars, french cars are good only on britts hands.

 

[HDi fun]

Not with a 4 cylinder engine classes as exotic in my opinion.

Why do you think that Lotus finally shoehorned a mid mounted V8 into the Esprit. It wasn't lacking power as a 2.2 litre turbo four, it was lacking status.

I'm not going to bother responding to Charger's childish comments.

 

[charger69]

Not with a 4 cylinder engine classes as exotic in my opinion.

Why do you think that Lotus finally shoehorned a mid mounted V8 into the Esprit. It wasn't lacking power as a 2.2 litre turbo four, it was lacking status.

I'm not going to bother responding to Charger's childish comments.

i was saying 90% french cars are underpowered, which is a fact.
let's count french cars with over 200HP, how many are there?

 

[aston]

french cars are the top underpowered cars, imagine they need a V6 to get almost 200 HP, and those are their top cars.

Mate your'e just digging a bigger hole for yourself, better get down the library and check your data... Maybe you could replace French with American cars and people would agree.
GTA Alpine
Veyron
Clio sports
megane Sports
Saffranne bi turbo
venturi atlantique
Pug mi6 engine
Formula Renault
Renault Spider
renault 21 turbo
Renault 25 turbo
Renault 5 Turbo
Renault 9 turbo
The list is endless, It's not about BHP and the french make some mighty fine handling cars, I have owned over 60 cars from most countries and allways have fonder memories of my French cars over the others.

 

[HDi fun]

The French are superb innovators and often serve up technology to the market long before anyone else. This knock on effect is that reliability is often compromised early on in a model's life. Renault, and to a lesser Citroen, both exhibit this trend. So if you're buying one then don't be a pioneer.

Laguna II finally became a viable proposition just before it was withdrawn and the III edition launched.

 

[MasterAuron]

i was saying 90% french cars are underpowered, which is a fact.
let's count french cars with over 200HP, how many are there?

I love the way a fact isn't actually a fact these days.

 

[HDi fun]

I love the way a fact isn't actually a fact these days.

Let's substitute the word 'anachronism' in place of the word 'fact' for the purpose of considering Mr charger69's posts on this topic.

 

[old-git]

I think the slowest car I ever drove was my mates 1976/P (yes, 76, not 96) Escort 1.1 Estate. It was only rated at about 41bhp anyway but the engine was not the best so realistically assume little more than 3/4 of this. 30bhp. At the flywheel!

The best ever 0-60mph we managed in it was 49 seconds! I challenge anyone to say that this is realistically useable on a daily basis.

Back in 1976, before most Torquesters were born, 30-40bhp was not unusual so, yes, it is quite possible to drive a car with such a low bhp. You just have to change your drivng technique.

Also, although the bhp was low, so was the weight of cars. A 1968 Escort 1300 weighed 805kg!

 

[HDi fun]

That's a fair point. But there was also far less traffic on the roads in 1976 so things were perhaps easier than they would be in today's traffic with low powered cars.

I also agree that in 1985 a 1.6 petrol engine was quite adequate to get a reasonable drive from a Vaxuhall Cavalier with just 86bhp. It is, as you say, very true that modern cars are MUCH heavier and your average family today car needs over 120bhp to give a similar account of itself.