FYI for those interested... This is according to Autoweek: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20091218/DETROIT/912189996
100 hp/liter doesn't mean much until you have about 3 liters of displacement Meanwhile, europe (and Japan) have been increasing displacement to... achieve more power too
Lots of engines over 4 liters with 100 bhp/liter from European companies mainly. Detroit has been far behind, but they're closing the gap. which is good I think most of the displacement increases have been due to heavier cars that demand more low-end torque, as opposed to an emphasis on high-rpm power.
Lots? Let's see... AMG n/a motors aren't 100hp/ liter BMW M engines... which there are now 3 of them... Porsche's S line, and RS engines are 100/ liter.. that makes 5. VW? I know of no 100 hp/ liter n/a motors there. Opel? If you linclude the toyota vvt engine in the old Opel GT... but thats out of production. Renault Clio V6? out of production, and not 100/liter. Jaguar? Nada. TVR is dead... Citroen? Nope. Alfa Romeo? A Maserati based engine is pretty close; but not there. Ferrari? Ok, so many of Ferrari's engines are... but look at what those engines are. So that makes what, 2 in-production engines; same with Lamborghini. That makes 9 by my count. Zonda doesn't. Koenigsegg are supercharged. Spyker used an Audi sourced V8 that is... speaking of which, Audi have 2 engines that fit the bill. So 11 engines. I'm sure I'm missing a few... but out of all that, many of those earlier variants didn't have 100 hp/ liter in form either. Also, the weight increase isn't proportional to the torque/ hp increase we've seen. This is evident by the accel. numbers we see today. So, out of that, I've just listed how many manufacturers? All of those cars are either exotic, of more limited production. Lexus V8's aren't 100/liter. Neither is Nissan's. Speaking of which, their v6's aren't either. The all conquering NSX's 3.2 liter v6 is still only 287 hp.
^^^ wow dude, simmer down. You're gonna have a heart attack if you get that worked up over something like this...
I have good genes, and a pretty healthy lifestyle; so chances of that are slim to none. Slim left the building 10 months ago Your comment is just a typical european response to American cars/ engines; and fairly meaningless IMO
HP/L is a completely pointless argument people only bring it up as an excuse when their 300,000 dollar cars get blown away buy a car with a 7liter pushrod V8.
A more critical measurement is power to weight ratio. A 400hp Mustang is going to weigh in around 3,800 lbs. so expect a ~9.5:1 power to weight ratio, which is pretty good. But that is a lot of weight to start, stop and toss around. I prefer my "sport" vehicle to weigh as little as possible. My autocrosser crushes the scales at 1850 lbs. and only needs 125hp to humiliate heavier "sports cars." Scott
As for the SRT8 being a challenge for that new 5.0, I highly doubt it...out of the 3 it's the heaviest out of them all. Quite sad.
I agree with you and in a perfect world... every car would be like that. But with modern day saftey regulations, creature features such as nav, power steering, A/C, etc... its almost impossible to get a car to weigh 2300 lbs anymore.
+1 we usually call that the ricer excuses where I come from. I will say that HP per liter is impressive and can be applauded as an achievement however it does not tell the whole story. There is so much more to it, such as weight... TORQUE... etc...
Yes, but we were talking about naturally aspirated engines, not turbocharged. An engine that has been forgotten, would be the Honda S2000 engine at roughly 120hp/L.
That is a truely brilliant engine, revs all the way to 12,000rpm :O. Plus Honda's Vtec engines are virtually bullit proof.
The Mustang needs as much HP as it can get being that the car is so heavy. Ford should try to lighten it too.
I don't think the early S2000 went over 10k, let alone 12k. The later one rev'd even less. If you ever drove one of those around town for long you would realize that even though they made good power on paper, the lack of torque made them a pain in the butt. The real issue with the 'Stang is lack of IRS. It is not bad on a flat smooth track but on a bumpy road mid corner it rears it's ugly head.
LMAO seriously? Seriously??? The Audi RS2 makes far more "hp/liter" with it's turbocharged powerplant. This is a N/A discussion. The S2000 makes "huge power/liter" but lakes drivability/ torque... and, is below my semi-pointless "needs at least 3 liters" to matter argument. (partially not pointless) Plant your foot to the floor with both, and let me know which one makes you want to stomp the gas more day in and out.
Regardless of the hp/liter argument, I've owned several Japanese cars (last one being a 2004 Acura TL 6 speed) and by far, and I mean by really far, the most durable and reliable have been the Mustangs I've owned previously. The last one saw plenty of abuse on the track and autocrossing and never had anything go wrong with it. It truly made the Acura seem like a maintenance hog. You have to take the Mustang for what it is and stop wanting it to be a refined European grand tourer or high revving little blender. It's a muscle car. Big engine, solid rear axle, lots of power. That's it. It's simple, powerful and a blast to drive.
And yet it still beats it's two main competitors, the camaro and challenger, in almost every magazine comparison..... Go figure..