Is 400 HP the sweet spot for a street car?

Hmm... that's an impressive list of cars you own/owned. Having gone through a few high h/p cars myself I gotta say that for sheer fun and enjoyment of the driving experience, power to the ground isn't the metric I use. For me the most fun car I've owned is my slightly modified 265 hp 2400 lb '68 E-type roadster. It's not the fastest in the twisties or a rocket ship in a straight line and surely not the quickest to 60 mph, but it provides such a high smile quotient that I don't even miss the ponies. Give me a well balanced vintage sports car any day. I'll gladly follow the pack and get just as much pure joy as a 500 HP rocket ship. However, I have absolutely nothing against well engineered power - just not for me.
Just my 2 cents of course.
Randy

 

I think the original poster rockminster means in reasonably engineered sports/GT of relatively the 3000-3400 lb. weight category. If that is the case, I think he has a very good point.

We may well see this played out in the example of the C5 Z06, the C6 Z06, and now the new 620hp ZR1.

I have not had the long history of cars he mentions, but currently have three around that category. I put the Ferrari first, the old ZR1 second, and the C5 Z06 third in "fun to drive". Interesting that this is in the inverse order of power & torque.

Randy makes the other important point - it all depends on whether you can get it down onto the ground and around a corner.

 

I think 400hp WAS the sweet spot, but it's now obe and should be in the past. I will cast my lot more with Randy in a 'Back to the Future Mode' and say the new sweet spot is 2650 pounds, 300 hp, 30 mpg.

Any future sportscar (after 2010) much over 3000 pounds is a flabby dinosaur.

 

I'll agree that the balance is in the 400~500 range for cars around 3klbs. I had a 900+Hp monster Ford and it's was brutal on the street and SCARY!!! trying to control that was way to much work and far to dangerous for public exposure. my buddies 750hp SS is just as dangerous, sure lots of fun going straight but kepping it straight is very very hard.

even the sl65 I drove was too fast, and you can't use the power. BAM! and your over the limit by a HUGE margin in a sec, were's the fun?

now for AWD cars I'd say going into the 500~550 range is better as the traction and control are more up to the task.

it's all about balance..

 

My guess is we're getting close to the end of the HP wars with various government legislation. So, we might as well take advantage of what we're offered while we can. However, with the various technology the manufacturers will be using over the next while it's hard to say what the optimal HP is, assuming that HP is purely what we'll be using to measure performance.

 

What I notice is that when you want to go fast, the 400 HP cars were a lot easier to drive at the limit than the 500 HP cars. Much easier.

Art

 

My beacon of reality award for the day goes to the above post.

There is a related thread on how in the world Ferrari would ever be able to meet a 35mpg fleet average. This is the approach that the futurists (as opposed to the dinosaur worshippers like myself) seem to be favoring. This is not at all a bad approach, given the day and the time, but let me remind you -

Several cars in roughly this HP/Weight range have been made by Porsche in the past. What they shared in common, performance-wise, was 1/4 mile times in the mid to high 13s, top speeds in the low to mid 160 mph range, great for the day (but not supercar) brakes and handling, and about mid 25 mpg economy if driven fairly reasonably. Even with today's better engine management, maybe direct injection or something like that, 35 mpg would be a stretch. And that is if we would accept the performance benchmarks mentioned in this paragraph. Not many seem to be willing to do that yet.

There are just some physical realities in play here:

a) A 2650 lb car of the same frontal area and drag coef is going to take about the same HP as a 3650 lb car to push past 150 mph.

b) I would suggest that for a car as practical as say a base 911, that 2650 would be a very expensive weight goal to achieve. Given today's crash & environmental rules, only a compromised specialty car like an Elise can go much lower, and even this one is getting fleshed out to about that number now. Without the 300 hp.

c) It is true that the "lightness" thing is sort of synergistic - if you have less weight, you need less engine, tires, brakes, etc., and if you get better mileage, you can afford to put in a smaller fuel tank, etc. However, there is obviously a downward limit here if you want to drive it on the street. Our reality poster, IMHO, has pretty much nailed it with the 2,650 lb (and I assume he means what they call curb weight, not "weight as tested"),

Bottom line for me is - we may be coming to a more civilized day when we no longer need the phallic extension of a 200mph theoretical top speed, or a sub-11 second quarter mile, or the rest of the "magazine bragging rights" out of just plain necessity. I think the psychological barrier is a formidable one for both Ferrari and the owners to cross - giving up some of the unusual bragging performance.

Someday, most people may well realize that having these +600 monsters is sort of the car equivalent of a private pilot trying to own an F104 Starfighter. (It has been done, but only as a hyper-expensive airshow plane, and the FAA absolutely will not let it rip out a supersonic speed run - at least officially!).

For me, I would be perfectly happy (given that analogy) to be flying a modern version of the Saia-Marchetti SF260, or a two seat Pitts Special at far less performance, but less cost and risk as well.

In F-cars, maybe this would equate to the "new Dino" that everybody is talking about, but which Ferrari seems unable to conceptualize except as a restyled front-engine Maserati.

Rant over - just so the Feds don't come to get my guns or my Testarossa.

 

I read article about this subject a while back. They claimed 250hp was about the most you could actually use on the street. Cars like the e36 m3 and similar. I have owned some very quick cars ( 427 435hp vette, e39 m5, o2 911 ). With these cars if you try to use all that power on the street, you're going to jail. The point of the article is even though you have all that power, the most you will use on the street 99% of the time is around 250.

 

Absolutely agree. I think the real problem with modern cars is weight, not power. With all the engineering that went into the F430, I noticed that it's basically the same weight as the ancient steel-panels-bolted-on-steel-tubular-frame 328. Don't even get me started on the wretched BMW M6 (over 2 tons!! How sporting...)

400bhp may be a 'sweet spot' for today's performance cars, but only in that it compensates for excess weight. Lotus really has it figured out, although I think Ferrari will (hopefully) be going smaller and lighter in the future. The F430 Scuderia is a step in the right direction -- just needs to be tightened up into sports car proportions.

My next car will likely be vintage.

 

I do think 400 REAL hp is the sweet spot, and of course it all depends on the weight, but something around 2500lbs (I'm thinking the british Ultima here) so you've got handling and brakes and a solid chassis.

400 is a total gas

Cheers,

Fred
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I currently own 3 cars with 400 or more horses. I can tell you most people will never use all that power on the street. My Magnum SRT8 has 425 horse and is one of the most powerful feeling cars i have ever owned. Its a blast to drive. My 2005 Corvette is 400 horse but feels more tame than the magnum. Still great power for the street. My last one is a 1965 Cobra Replica. What more can I say about a car with 400 horses and only weighs 2000 lbs
Mike

 

I think Jon has it right the future is weight to power ratio and with the newer lighter materials what was high end will become commonly used maybe more fiber glass body panels and aluminum

 

Those of us old enough to remember the previous horse power war know that it was killed by a combination of high insurance and government regulations, mainly emissions which lead to anemic motors for many years. I have come to wonder if history is about to repeat itself.

That being said, I have a 328 and 430 which weigh just about the same and I think the sweet spot, as far as acceleration goes, is somewhere in between. You really have to take a 430 to a track to spend much time with pedal to the metal and even then, it's better if it's a horsepower type track. Personally, I would prefer the 430 to be smaller, lighter and have less power which, all other factors being equal, would improve the handling and probably the braking.

Dave

 

I felt my E39 540i 6-speed was just fine with 282hp. No need for the M5's 400. Not only that, but the torque curves were so totally different that the 540i was much more rewarding as a daily driver. The M5 was just a bit "high strung" for my tastes.

I know, not a Ferrari example, but an interesting one nonetheless.

 

I agree wholeheartedly, a 400hp engine is plenty. Instead of going for 500hp spend the $$ to make the thing lighter. Another angle I like is AWD - that makes high hp cars able to put the power down hard with minimal wheelspin (although I agree that a pure 'sports' car is a bit more fun with rwd only).

 

Agreed with all - 400 horsepower is about right, but it ultimately comes down to weight and power-to-weight ratio. I will contend that a lot of horsepower today (400+ horsepower cars) are also equipped with traction and stability controls. So although you have the "bragging rights" of 4XX or 5XX horsepower, you really don't put that to the ground as the computer is pulling back power via timing and fuel flow to keep you from spinning the tires uselessly. With the traction and stability control switched off, most drivers tend to get in over their heads around the 400 horsepower mark. Heck, look at the number of muscle car drivers on You Tube that get in over their heads with 300 - 350 horsepower and no traction control...

 

Interesting topic! I've always been going up the ladder of more and more horsepower -- Acura NSX (287 hp), Saleen S281 Mustang Speedster (300 hp), Ferrari 360 (400 hp), Gallardo (520 hp), but I got frustrated that I could only enjoy the Gallardo's acceleration for short spurts before I was looking over my shoulder for a cop. Now I've been going in the other direction -- Aston Martin V8 Vantage (380 hp) and I'm really having fun with my new 168 hp supercharged (and lightweight) Mini Cooper! For me, horsepower is only one component of the overall driving experience -- although a very important one. I'm inclined to agree that 400 hp in a car with appropriate weight is about right.

 

JESUS! YOUVE OWNED SOME AWESOME CARS!

 

The problem is that HP sells. It is hard to explain a power to weight ratio to the general public. I have a 360 Spyder with 400Hp and a Spyker C8 Spyder with 400HP and they are totally different cars. The Spyker is 550LB lighter and has 35% more torque, and without all the Ferrari electronics, it is much more involved when you are driving.

At the same time the Spyker has trouble selling because 400HP seems to be too low for todays exotic market. Now they need to go to 600HP and are forced to add all sorts of electronic controls to keep the car on the road. It is a shame, because the unique pure character of the car will be gone.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

way back when(late '80s I believe), Ferrari was quoted as saying > 400 hp was unnecessary on the street, and somewhat hard for some of their customers to handle. Things must've changed, since then
Maybe -all- F drivers suddenly got good enough...

 

Rijk, I remember you said you asked Spyker to tighten the throttle for you - were they able to?

 

For a fun street car torque is the biggest factor and 400+ftlb's at the rear wheel's will keep a smile on your face all day long.

 

that must be why my slightly modded 89Lotus Esprit SE is so damn fun and tossable. ( 300 + hp, 2800 lbs ? + /-, and around 28 mpg )

i am NOT fan of public stupidity and risking anyone else's safety. but i do like to enjoy the cars at safe speeds. smiles are more fun than sheer horsepower. i love the carbed, old , slow 308's and lambo Jalpa's, the 308GT4's, 84 to 89 Porsche 911's. i would rather have 5-6 "cheap" slow exotics, than one new super duper car thats hard to work on, hard to insure, and too fast for most modern city driving.

this is a great thread.

michael

 

Actually, all the available power has made cars somewhat boring to drive.

Sure 400+ HP can be fun - for a few fleeting (milli)seconds of full throttle. After which time you have to start stomping on the brakes to keep from getting thrown straight into jail. With the current levels of performance you can virtually never get anywhere near the performance limits of the car. With auto/robotized manual trannys there is not even the challenge of making a decent shift on your own. You might as well just get a steering wheel for your PlayStation.

I would also agree that 400 HP is the upper limit on what a car should have for optimum driving fun. For me a big part of the fun is the challenge of developing and executing the skill and feel needed to extract the most performance out of a car. With modern Ferraris/Astons/etc it is rare to get to the limits where it is distinguished from other more modest machines.

Oh... and don't talk about the track - track time is irrelevant to all but 0.001% of the people who own exotics.