How much power do we really need ?

[CarMad]

It seems that I'm not the only one then that isn't able to get to enjoy the power as much as they would like. So that begs the question what is quick enough then. I think we need a poll.

* Note I know I've used BHP and its not the main factor in a diesels performance but just look a the 0-60 times, oh and yes I know that, thats also not the main factor in a cars performance either but I had to use something.

[Scotty]

I voted for "never too much".

A throttle is something that you can adjust the amount you use. So whilst it's true that with a massive amount of power you'll not use it all a lot of the time, it's nice to have it there when needed.

[CarMad]

Depending on the size of the car I'd say you could have too much. Look at some of the AMG Mercs, they even limit them in the lower gears so that things don't get too silly.

For NORMAL day to day driving I'd say up to 250bhp myself is more than enough for most eventualities. Considering most of the rest of the population drives a 1.6 or less and hardly uses much of that as it is.

[Arch]

Everything is relative. There's far more to a good drive than the amount of power going through which ever of your wheels is driven however, there's obviously limits to how much you can realistically use depending on FWD, RWD or AWD.

Too many people see bhp as the ultimate expression of what they drive (coupled with the badge half the time) I'd rather go on smiles per mile. My sub 200hp makes me smile day in day out and the best drive I ever had was in a Ford with way less than that. 0-60s don't interest me, neither do in gear overtaking times or top speeds, if I can't safely overtake with what I've got then I stay where I am. I have absolutely nothing to prove to anyone else.

How much do you really need? Who knows? I would never buy another car based on any figures or stats. I know what it needs to do for me, how it needs behave and how it needs to look. Everything else is irrelevant IMHO.

[garcon magnifique]

[ QUOTE ]

Couldnt agree more, i had a couple of occasions to be grateful of the power under my right foot last week when travelling in and out of Leeds. Twice i would have had a prang or near miss had it not been for the dropped gear and manouver out of trouble due to toss*r drivers. Under powered cars are alot more dangerous IMHO

[/ QUOTE ]

Respectfully, power is no substitute for driver skill - with good anticipation you should be less likely to get into that situation in the first place.

But I agree it is nice to have the option of accelerating out of the way if that's safe and appropriate.

On the main question, it strikes me there are two points of discussion here:

1. How much power do you need to make fast A to B progress and have fun doing so?

2. What's the point on our clogged and speed enforced roads?

On question 1, if we're talking your classic British A and B road blast, then you most definitely can have too much power. Anything over 300bhp is wasted, however good a driver you are. And for most on here (me included), take your pick of any tin top with around 200-250bhp down your favourite B road and then do the same in a 997 GT3 - I guarantee you'll be no quicker in the Porker.

As for the second point, the time may come when there's no point having anything other than a 318d but it's a while off yet.

[Rachel]

I must admit that though I could trade up to a Boxster S - I find the Boxster (2.7l) to be huge fun on twisty roads - it is beautifully balanced and has heaps of power (~185KW) for everyday use.

What this car DOES reward is smooth driving and the driver reading the road ahead properly. I've had the R32 now for almost 3 years, the Porka 1 - but it is the Porka I'll jump in for a blast, as it offers a whole different level of feel and involvement to the hugely capable AWD VW video game escapee...

[Scotty]

[ QUOTE ]

Anything over 300bhp is wasted, however good a driver you are. And for most on here (me included), take your pick of any tin top with around 200-250bhp down your favourite B road and then do the same in a 997 GT3 - I guarantee you'll be no quicker in the Porker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally disagree. Would you put you money down that none of us could get from point A to point B qucker on your favourite B road in a GT3 then, for example, an Audi TT

I could use some extra spending money

At least you can be happy not "wasting" your money on expensive cars

[garcon magnifique]

Well obviously it depends on the car and the driver. For a start I doubt, given my - um - challenge, that anyone in their right mind would pick a TT.

But I maintain that the majority of people on here would be no quicker in a GT3. Once you get to a certain car performance level, it takes a high degree of driver skill to make a more powerful car cover the ground significantly quicker. I'm sure several people on TSN have that skill (and the familiarity with very powerful cars), but nowhere near the majority.

[Scotty]

I chose a TT as it's "any tin top" but you can choose a Focus, S3, etc etc with similar power as I think they'd all get slaughtered.

[ QUOTE ]

Once you get to a certain car performance level, it takes a high degree of driver skill to make a more powerful car cover the ground significantly quicker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I just think the level you've pitched at is way too low.

[garcon magnifique]

[ QUOTE ]

I just think the level you've pitched at is way too low.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe... though I think you're over estimating people's driving ability.

I know you've had advanced training - I'd expect you to get more out of a GT3.

As a more general thing, I do think there's a limit point at which even a good, highly trained driver will be no quicker over a typical British A/B road route, given standard levels of traffic etc.

[CarMad]

I'd second that, plus how many times do you read the articles on the mega tests in the magazines that talk about a super car of some sort not being able to shake of a less powerful car.

On the poll so far most are saying the sweet spot is up to 250bhp.

[garcon magnifique]

Practical case in point. A group of us did a trip round Scotland. Amongst others there were two S4s, two R32s, and a Clio 172.

Which of them do you think covered some truly spectacular Scottish roads the quickest?

(And yes it probably did have a bit to do with the nut behind the wheel! )

[CarMad]

The S4 ?

[Golfer]

[ QUOTE ]

Well obviously it depends on the car and the driver. For a start I doubt, given my - um - challenge, that anyone in their right mind would pick a TT.

But I maintain that the majority of people on here would be no quicker in a GT3. Once you get to a certain car performance level, it takes a high degree of driver skill to make a more powerful car cover the ground significantly quicker. I'm sure several people on TSN have that skill (and the familiarity with very powerful cars), but nowhere near the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your comments are correct, and driver skill is the only way to improve on the use of some of our stupidly fast cars.

[Golfer]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I just think the level you've pitched at is way too low.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe... though I think you're over estimating people's driving ability.

I know you've had advanced training - I'd expect you to get more out of a GT3.

As a more general thing, I do think there's a limit point at which even a good, highly trained driver will be no quicker over a typical British A/B road route, given standard levels of traffic etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Add to this the risk of damageing the 50+K car and if anything could SLOW them.

[Scotty]

I guess I'm not doing very well explaining myself. I'm sure it'd be a lot easier face to face over a few beers.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that you don't _always_ need more skill to drive a more powerful car. Some cars can do a lot of the job for you. e.g. My 390bhp S4 and a stock M3. My car, even with a chunk more power than the M3, would be easier to get from A to B quicker for the average punter. The GT3 of course needs to be treated with respect but it so capable if you drove it around every bend at the same speed as the Golf/S3/TT/Focus etc (well within it's ability) and just squeezed a bit more on the straights, it would get there quicker with out pushing it or a normal drivers abilities. The risk is of course that having the power there would lure people in to making mistakes - apply the power at the wrong time or too quickly.

I think too many people think that if you have the power you have to use it all the time or it means you'll be cornering that much faster. You don't and won't. The power advantage means that when you do exit bends to can get back the speed you want quicker and this means that you'll get their sooner.

I do appreciate where this thread started and maybe I am looking at it slightly different. It we all kept to the speed limits and drove to preserve fuel (i.e. no blasting back to the speed limit etc then we don't NEED anything like the power we have.

I praised the 2.0T A4 that I recently had as a loaner. That car has more power than is 'needed' in normal life but that's not why many people buy particular cars.

Don't forget more and more people who buy performance cars are using them on track days as well. In that situation, there is definately never enough

[D1MAC]

Interesting question to which I think there's more than one answer (in fact, there are many).

It all depends on the roads (or track ) you are driving on, the car you are driving, why you are driving, your level of relative skills and so on.

CarMad - For the above reasons, I think your poll is always going to be ultimately flawed, although I appreciate you had to base it on something.

I might say that my ASBO in many ways has enough power in terms of ordinary day to day driving. That's anywhere between 225bhp and say 240bhp.

I believe my abilities could handle much more in a responsible manner, but I'm not sure there is any great benefit from, say, paying £60k for an AMG Merc (not that I have £60k to throw at one). Sure it has enough power & torque to rotate the Earth but you suffer a lot of 15mpg etc waiting for the 3 or 4 times a month/year when you can use even half of the potential.

At the same time, the devil side of the petrol head part of me wants more and as much as possible

However, while somewhere in the 200bhp-250bhp range is about right for the UK for an average sized car, it probably isn't for Germany, it probably isn't for a 7 series/S-Class/A8, it's plenty for a Caterham/Atom and definitely more than enough for a bike.

I also shudder when I think of how easy it is for so many of the uneducated (and I mean that in a purely driving sense since I include a lot of Co Car drivers) to get hold of 200bhp and a lot more when their skills suggest they shouldn't be let anywhere near anything more than 100bhp.

I'm sure there are many other perspectives that could be used to argue one way or t'other but my guess is that there is ultimately no single right answer.

[stevie_d]

Some interesting posts in this thread

I do think the power rush is getting a bit silly, but remember it is mainly bought on by the car press demanding faster cars and we all know who they 'answer' to

Seriously speaking, I think a powerful car is a good idea as it does open up more chances to overtake and make 'progress', but the most fun I've had in a car was in a stock MX-5 1.6...

[Ian_C]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Anything over 300bhp is wasted, however good a driver you are. And for most on here (me included), take your pick of any tin top with around 200-250bhp down your favourite B road and then do the same in a 997 GT3 - I guarantee you'll be no quicker in the Porker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally disagree. Would you put you money down that none of us could get from point A to point B qucker on your favourite B road in a GT3 then, for example, an Audi TT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Garcon, I catch your drift and know what you mean. Have had this debate with my brother many a time! However, I think you have used completely the wrong 'supercar' to try and get your point across! The petite 911 in slim-hipped GT3 configuration is not a problem down a country road. Even more so in 997 format with electronics unlike the original 996.

Murcielago v Impreza is the example I would use [and have previously in aforementioned debate]. The Lambo is far too wide, too brutal. Down a country road you don't know like the back of your hand, you'd be just as quick in the Subaru.

Ian

[Tarmac_Terrorist]

I enjoyed many of the 80's hatches. These cars were nippy, raw and seemed to provide the driver with lots of feedback. (probably due to no power steering and less brake servo assistance??). Older cars seemed to 'talk' to you more and I found them easier to get attached to.

It wasn't just a power thing. I enjoyed my Pug 205CTi, XR2, RS Turbo. I sometimes wonder if I would have more fun if I bought a very low mileage mint condition one again.

[Ian_C]

As Rhyds mentions above, 130 bhp isn't much nowdays, but in a 900 kilo 205, it makes for excellent fun!

Ian

[Woppum]

[ QUOTE ]

Murcielago v Impreza is the example I would use [and have previously in aforementioned debate]. The Lambo is far too wide, too brutal. Down a country road you don't know like the back of your hand, you'd be just as quick in the Subaru.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a good example. In fact I would have thought you would be far quicker in the Scoob. As I said in my CSL vs 430 review. THe CSL was a far quicker car down the twisties.

[nikw]

Or even 85bhp in a 720kg AX GT

I think the two things that matter are power to weight ratio (as opposed to simply power) and feedback.

Most 'ordinary' modern cars seem to have far too much rubber in the suspension bushes (to promote a quiet, smooth ride). Power steering is now almost universal. Coupled with a move towards bigger wheels and wider tyres the result is a loss of steering and chassis feel.

While engines have become more powerful and efficient the size and weight of the cars they are fitted to has also increased, negating much of the benefit. On the other hand improved aerodynamics have helped top speeds to climb.

So now we cars which, compared with those of 20 years ago, don't accelerate much better but reach and hold high speeds more readily, grip harder and therefore corner faster, and are more refined while doing so. The natural result is that an enthusiast must drive today's car faster and harder in order to feel that they are extracting 8 or 9 tenths of its performance. Combine the need for higher speeds with reduced opportunity as a result of rising traffic volumes and you have a recipe for dissatisfaction.

Basically, it was better in the old days.

As Gordon Murray never tires of pointing out in his Evo columns, to get back to what they had in the old days we need smaller, lighter cars with narrower tyres and tauter suspension. The trouble is I don't think that's what the majority of non-enthusiast drivers want. It's certainly not what the marketeers want.

[bullett]

More power allows more drivers to go faster. That sounds a bit obvious but what I mean is that an average driver in a powerful car can perform a similar point to point time as a good driver in a less powerful car.

I think I am a reasonable driver but I'm sure that my Cayman could go point to point faster than I am prepared to take it. Most cars performance are better than their drivers now, so does that make them safer? More power means you don't need to rag it quite so much to make progress.