HP, do we really need so much?

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

Here's a good example, large vehicle, different motors, virtually the same FE....
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx...Field=Findacar

The autos were virtually identical A413 type in different cases, same ratios.
2.2L 4-cyl & 3-spd auto 96hp @ 5200 RPM 119ftlbs @ 3200 RPM
2.6L 4-cyl & 3-spd auto 104hp @ 4800 RPM 142ftlbs @ 2800 RPM
2.5L 4-cyl & 3-spd auto 100hp @ 4800 RPM 135ftlbs @ 2800 RPM
3.0L V6 & 3-spd auto 136hp @ 5000 RPM 168ftlbs @ 2800 RPM

Then in later vans 96-00 there was little difference between the 2.4, 3.0 and 3.3, and in the '08s the 4.0 looks like being the dark horse with a flat torque curve like the legendary buick V6

[R.I.D.E.]

One way to determine the CU of a slant 6 is to measure the stroke with the plugs out. Use a welding rod or equilavent.

All memory here but I think the 225 was 4.5 inches, whicle the 170 was 3.5 (stroke).

I think the 170 was rated at 101 HP while the 225 was rated at 145. Your rating souds right for the 198. I think the 198 came out at the same time they abandoned the 170. My 63 Valiant got 28.5 MPG but was fairly gutless.

regards
gary

[lunarhighway]

my light kadett (1863)had a 1.3L witch 75Hp
my curent "fat" (2337)vectra has a 1.6 with only 70HP

wich one would you buy based on those figures?

well the kadett has 101Nm of torque at 4200rpm
while the vectra has 125Nm of torque at 2600rpm

they're both very well drivable. but you really had to rev the kadett like hell to get something from it (wich was fun, but noisy). you can feel the vectra has more weight but if you take of from the stoplight it just launches like a rocket.

for the moment it even seems to get slightly better economy than the kadett

[monroe74]

Originally Posted by tjts1

There is no direct correlation between peak HP and fuel economy. This is a non issue.

If the power is achieved by a small motor that can reach high revs, I tend to agree with you. A driver can choose FE, at any moment, just by avoiding high revs. But if the power is achieved by displacement, then the situation is more complicated, because it's hard to avoid excessive pumping losses. Especially with an automatic, because heavy throttle will trigger a downshift. Unfortunately, big displacement combined with an automatic is the typical Detroit design.

[kamesama980]

wow I'm late...
-sweet, another Cressida fan. DK and I know eachother from some other forums because of the Cressidas. I still owe him some used head bolts if I recal lol (long story)
-my 87 chevy s10 2.5 4 cyl makes an advertised 90 hp, 125 ftlb, and redlines about about 50 rpm (seems like... I think the actual redline is 4500-5k). it gets a combined mpg of about 25-26 and I've loaded it past capacity (camaro V8 engine, suspension, few other bits plus myself and entertainment for a 5 hour drive) and while it took a little longer to get there, had no problem maintaining 70 mph and managed 24 mpg with a 30 mph head/cross wind for the trip back going 60-65.

"I need a 5k lb 400 hp suv to haul my 2 kids to school" just pisses me off