Why is extra horsepower so expensive?

[otolith]

Pica-Pica said:

DanCousins said:

Danxr46 said:

Torque matters more than hp

No it doesn't.

Torque can be manipulated by gearing. If you want to know how fast a car is going to go from A to B, it's all about the horsies. If your car makes more power, it can do more work, more quickly and will therefore be faster.

Power can be manipulated by gearing, actually. That is, you manipulate the torque to be delivered at higher revs, thus increasing the power.
Power = (Torque x RPM)/Constant. Torque = work capable of being done, Power = rate of doing that work.

Hmm, not sure you are quite expressing what you mean there.

Power into a gearbox is fixed. Power out will be the same, minus losses. Torque out will depend on rpm out, such that the product of the two remains constant.

You can move an engine into a different part of its rev range by using a different gear, if that's what you mean, but the output of the engine at that RPM is what it is.

[Mr2Mike]

HedgeyGedgey said:

So the VXR is NA? Well this is news to me. Hondas lack torque in comparison with their rivals which are turbocharged is the point i was getting at. Also if you look at their power graphs they have next to no torque up top in comparison with less revving turbo cars. Physics doesn't lie, torque × rpm/ 5252

In summary, when comparing a normally aspirated engine with a turbocharged one producing similar power, the turbocharged one produces more torque at lower RPM. This is sure to excite members of the apple/orange comparison committee.

Pica-Pica said:

Power can be manipulated by gearing, actually.

A transmission is a torque multiplier, not a power multiplier.

[Porridge GTI]

Here’s the example I had in mind when I started this thread. I bought my Golf GTI for about 25 grand new, full option. If I’d wanted the Golf R it would have been 33 grand, full option. So I asked myself whether the extra horsepower was worth £8,000 and the answer was easily no. But I did wonder why it was £8,000 as there aren’t any other material differences between the cars.

[culpz]

Nanook said:

Porridge GTI said:

Here’s the example I had in mind when I started this thread. I bought my Golf GTI for about 25 grand new, full option. If I’d wanted the Golf R it would have been 33 grand, full option. So I asked myself whether the extra horsepower was worth £8,000 and the answer was easily no. But I did wonder why it was £8,000 as there aren’t any other material differences between the cars.

Apart from the 4 wheel drive system you mean?

Got to it before i did.

[daemon]

Porridge GTI said:

Here’s the example I had in mind when I started this thread. I bought my Golf GTI for about 25 grand new, full option. If I’d wanted the Golf R it would have been 33 grand, full option. So I asked myself whether the extra horsepower was worth £8,000 and the answer was easily no. But I did wonder why it was £8,000 as there aren’t any other material differences between the cars.

You're working on the assumption that VW have priced the car based on what it costs for the extra BHP (and AWD system), however they'll have priced the car at whatever they think they will pay for a Golf R. Also, you said the Golf R was (full optioned)?

List price Golf R 3 door is £32,850. Discounted price on Broadspeed is £27,775

List price Golf GTI 3 door is £28,460. Discounted price on Broadspped is £23,956

So £3,819 difference. Factor in say, £2,000 for the AWD system / spec variances and £1,819 doesnt seem that out of the way for an extra 80BHP?

[legless]

Nanook said:

Apart from the 4 wheel drive system you mean?

And, despite appearances, there are some fairly large differences in the engines too. Different pistons, injectors, rods and turbochargers for a start, and internal cooling jets for the underside of the pistons.

[culpz]

daemon said:

Porridge GTI said:

Here’s the example I had in mind when I started this thread. I bought my Golf GTI for about 25 grand new, full option. If I’d wanted the Golf R it would have been 33 grand, full option. So I asked myself whether the extra horsepower was worth £8,000 and the answer was easily no. But I did wonder why it was £8,000 as there aren’t any other material differences between the cars.

You're working on the assumption that VW have priced the car based on what it costs for the extra BHP (and AWD system), however they'll have priced the car at whatever they think they will pay for a Golf R. Also, you said the Golf R was (full optioned)?

List price Golf R 3 door is £32,850. Discounted price on Broadspeed is £27,775

List price Golf GTI 3 door is £28,460. Discounted price on Broadspped is £23,956

So £3,819 difference. Factor in say, £2,000 for the AWD system / spec variances and £1,819 doesnt seem that out of the way for an extra 80BHP?

Exactly. It's silly to believe that the extra power and torque is the sole reason and purpose as to why VW charge extra for the R over the GTI.

[otolith]

Incremental costs over the base model tend to represent what manufacturers think they can charge more than how much more it costs them to make them. Profit margins usually get wider up the range.

[daemon]

culpz said:

daemon said:

Porridge GTI said:

Here’s the example I had in mind when I started this thread. I bought my Golf GTI for about 25 grand new, full option. If I’d wanted the Golf R it would have been 33 grand, full option. So I asked myself whether the extra horsepower was worth £8,000 and the answer was easily no. But I did wonder why it was £8,000 as there aren’t any other material differences between the cars.

You're working on the assumption that VW have priced the car based on what it costs for the extra BHP (and AWD system), however they'll have priced the car at whatever they think they will pay for a Golf R. Also, you said the Golf R was (full optioned)?

List price Golf R 3 door is £32,850. Discounted price on Broadspeed is £27,775

List price Golf GTI 3 door is £28,460. Discounted price on Broadspped is £23,956

So £3,819 difference. Factor in say, £2,000 for the AWD system / spec variances and £1,819 doesnt seem that out of the way for an extra 80BHP?

Exactly. It's silly to believe that the extra power and torque is the sole reason and purpose as to why VW charge extra for the R over the GTI.

Particularly given theres spec changes and its a revised engine too as well as the drivetrain changes

[daemon]

otolith said:

Incremental costs over the base model tend to represent what manufacturers think they can charge more than how much more it costs them to make them. Profit margins usually get wider up the range.

[Porridge GTI]

Ah yes, what a difference four wheel drive makes on dry city roads. Silly me.

There are clearly differing views on this thread. I'm with those who say you pay a lot more for extra horsepower because you're prepared to, not because it costs proportionately more to manufacture.

[Shakermaker]

Porridge GTI said:

Ah yes, what a difference four wheel drive makes on dry city roads. Silly me.

There are clearly differing views on this thread. I'm with those who say you pay a lot more for extra horsepower because you're prepared to, not because it costs proportionately more to manufacture.

That whole 4wd thing was because of something that Yipper stated about the Golf R. We can ignore him.

No, it doesn't cost much more (if any more) to manufacture, but as you say, people are prepared to pay more for the higher power.

I have a Superb 2.0 TDi 170bhp. It is nearly exactly the same as the 140bhp version of the 2.0 TDI engine but with a couple of minor tweaks.

On the new market, it will have cost a bit more, less so on the used market.

It will be a significantly small amount "per month" though, that new buyers will have been tempted towards it because "its only a few quid more for the extra 30bhp"

[SonicShadow]

In before someone rolls out the cliche 'torque is how far you move the wall'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eZyXp1i4GU

[daemon]

Porridge GTI said:

Ah yes, what a difference four wheel drive makes on dry city roads. Silly me.

So 4WD isnt for you, does that mean it isnt for everyone?

300+ BHP and i'd rather have it going through all four wheels.

Very effective on our 380BHP A45 which would wheel spin all day if 2WD on dry city roads.

Silly me.

[daemon]

Porridge GTI said:

There are clearly differing views on this thread. I'm with those who say you pay a lot more for extra horsepower because you're prepared to, not because it costs proportionately more to manufacture.

Firstly, your O/P didnt state that you were talking about new cars, and not adding extra horsepower to a car.

Secondly, as has been said, relative to your GTI / R example, you're getting a lot more than just 4WD.

Does it cost proportionately more to manufacture an R compared to a GTI? No. Probably not. What odds. If someone wants to pay it great, if they dont, thats great too.

[fido]

daemon said:

Does it cost proportionately more to manufacture an R compared to a GTI? No. Probably not. What odds. If someone wants to pay it great, if they dont, thats great too.

Also the cost of the car might not reflect that attributed cost of that component to that vehicle - for example many of the components are shared but engineered to work reliably in the higher powered variants. Once you've designed the basic 2.0 engine block - that's a fixed cost that can be shared with a whole range of vehicles. Most people don't care what's behind the badge and will pay VW/Audi money for something engineered for a Skoda.

[TwinExit]

Porridge GTI said:

Ah yes, what a difference four wheel drive makes on dry city roads. Silly me.

There are clearly differing views on this thread. I'm with those who say you pay a lot more for extra horsepower because you're prepared to, not because it costs proportionately more to manufacture.

Your FWD Golf would not put down the power a Golf R makes on a dry road, let alone in the wet.

At the end of the day, the Golf R is not only more powerful, it is more capable, more desirable car and the price difference new and used will reflect this.

[culpz]

Porridge GTI said:

Ah yes, what a difference four wheel drive makes on dry city roads. Silly me.

How naive. It translates to being able to put it's performance down all the time.

Are you related to Polo Joe? You clearly have that whole self-justification thing going on. I think you really wanted the R but now you're trying to make yourself feel good by saying the GTI is almost just as good but cheaper

[Section 8]

As well as engine and haldex I would wager the active exhaust on an R isn’t cheap. That alone must cost a grand or more to replace from VW.

After driving an R compared to my GTI I can say that the extra power, grip and sound are worth the additional money one would have to spend.

[Ahbefive]

Danxr46 said:

HP isn’t necessarily what you want to chase but more Torque..... I had my 330d mapped to 290hp and is now putting out 600nm of torque which is 20 less than a GTR. The car 0-60 has dropped a few tenths to 5.9 and 100 in around 12.5 which is focus Rs/Golf R area but in gear the 330d due to torque will be away in no time. Torque matters more than hp

Surely you are arguing the opposite. Your 330d may have similar torque to a GTR but the GTR will eat it for breakfast due to having much more power.