Do you prefer usable bhp or more bhp than you need?

[idealstandard]

I'm lucky enough to have a few cars to blat about in, and enjoy their different characteristics. Sometimes way too much power / loads in the reserves is great cos you can just bumble around, the manual ones don't need as much work but you know the untapped power reserve is there should you want to drop a cog and fly.

I recently lent my Tesla to my old man, that acceleration experience wasn't for me, too neck snapping and no engagement.

I also have absolute hoot in my old Mazda xedos 6 track day car which has "enough" power for you to absolutely rag the bks off it and not get into trouble out on the circuits. So a mix for me!!

[SturdyHSV]

cerb4.5lee said:

I think in the more powerful cars that I've had you do have to turn a bit of a blind eye to the speed limits(out on open roads) to enjoy them. However I always had loads of fun in the Mini, and I genuinely didn't hanker after much more power(mostly). It was only on the long straights that I fancied a bit more power.

The Mini certainly got under my skin it seems for sure.

So perhaps instead of a Monaro (which is clearly the answer ) what you need is the same mini as before, but fit Nitrous to it.

Same power as normal most of the time, but when you've got a long straight, an extra 50hp at the touch of a button to scratch that itch

I'll echo the earlier comments that an interesting engine (OK, I mean a big V8) makes wafting around at low speed (or sitting stationary with the car rocking at idle) enjoyable, someone mentioned the pleasure in feeling the surge of a big engine with only a small prod of the throttle, this is another thing that I think is perhaps underestimated or under represented, and the difference in engine tone through the throttle inputs etc.

Realistlcally for me the engine is such a huge part of the car so the relationship between the throttle pedal and how it influences everything else, g-forces, sound, volume, rotation of the car etc. it's all part of why a big engine, to me, feels alive and like something you're working together with.

Perhaps one of the truly brilliant chassis would open my eyes to a better way, but I've enjoyed chucking around almost all of the cars I've driven for long periods, from a C1 to the Monaro. Oddly I found the E92 M3 a bit dull, I didn't really like the engine or the gearshift, but the chassis felt so nailed down that nothing was really ever happening. I'm sure if I'd actually driven it for a long period though (as in over a few weeks) then that excellent chassis would shine, but it just feels like a good chassis means you're travelling faster before the car moves about, and so for me that limits the opportunites to enjoy it in public.

I'd love to try an ND MX-5 for a few weeks to really get a feel for the other way of doing things.

[ddom]

idealstandard said:

I'm lucky enough to have a few cars to blat about in, and enjoy their different characteristics. Sometimes way too much power / loads in the reserves is great cos you can just bumble around, the manual ones don't need as much work but you know the untapped power reserve is there should you want to drop a cog and fly.

I recently lent my Tesla to my old man, that acceleration experience wasn't for me, too neck snapping and no engagement.

I also have absolute hoot in my old Mazda xedos 6 track day car which has "enough" power for you to absolutely rag the bks off it and not get into trouble out on the circuits. So a mix for me!!

I made this comment before about EV acceleration, the Taycan Turbo was pretty unpleasant after a couple of goes.

[Level 7 Boss]

I’m actually considering getting an F80 M3 or F82 M4, and would be coming from a stage 1 GTI Edition 30. My preference is exploitable performance, and that has to be across both traction and power. I’ve read that the M cars are severely traction limited in anything but ideal conditions.

The reality is you don’t really need anything over 200bhp, providing the car is not too lardy.

[nickfrog]

Level 7 Boss said:

I’m actually considering getting an F80 M3 or F82 M4, and would be coming from a stage 1 GTI Edition 30. My preference is exploitable performance, and that has to be across both traction and power. I’ve read that the M cars are severely traction limited in anything but ideal conditions.

I only have a humble original M2 with just enough power to slowly rotate the wheels so I don't have that problem.

On a serious note, they do encourage smooth throttle modulation but they are pretty begnine on the right tyre and with the right attitude.

[Chamon_Lee]

I understand what you are saying OP. Had a M6 GC which has around 560-600bhp. Monster car. on a warm sunning gorgeous day and tyres warmed up it was incredible using all the power; or the rest of the other 22 months out of 24 months I found the car annoying.

Have a 15' porsche Boxster S which is around 315 bhp and find it much more fun and usable even in winter no issues. I have never missed the M6 once and have had the current car around 18 months now

I had MPSS on the m6 and heard putting on PS4S tyre would help massively but there were other factors which I found make the m6 a little to sedate for what I wanted.

[J4CKO]

TameRacingDriver said:

Am I the only one who's happy with a 200 bhp car (an old mini in my case). It really isn't slow at all. I've seen lots of people who talk about having stuff like 350 bhp m135is and the like saying they love it as they can rev the balls off it and not be doing silly speeds I don't know what roads some of you drive on but revving the balls off cars with that power will see you either in a field or in prison in very short order round here. I'm also confused about the thought of a previous car of mine, a Z4 coupe 3.0 struggling to overtake a bus. I'm starting to wonder if I live in a parallel universe *shrugs* or is it just Willy waving?

Yeah, the M lites pile on speed ridiculously easily, they are in Lotus Calrton territory performance wise, a car that got MP's and the Daily Mail Frothed up about such ridiculous speed capability back in 1990.

Its easy to get blasé about very fast cars as they are more attainable, there is still faster stuff out there and they are everywhere. I think there is an element of not wanting to appear big headed and fit into the pecking order by downplaying it a bit.

Compare one of those with an older hot hatch, they topped out in the late eighties, early nineties at 150 ish bhp and we didnt think those models were slow, also, nowadays there is a lot more in the way of electronic mitigation, people used to bin stuff like Sierra Cosworths and if I remember correctly a Policeman was killed in a BMW 325 TDS which was a new model in the E36 era but the fact it was rwd and torquier than folk were used to even caught out a trained Police driver.

Now you can get an M140 Cat S (Might be a clue there in the number of damaged repaired ones....) for 15 grand, then spend 2 or so and have a 450 bhp car. Quite a lot of fast German stuff is having massive accidents in town and city centres, An M140i does 100 mph in 9.9 seconds standard, add another 100 plus bhp and put your foot down when already doing sixty, 100 arrives in 4 seconds, 120 comes up around 4 seconds later. Silly speeds are still very much on the menu even in a standard one. Remember when a Ferrari Testarossa was the fastest thing, would get utterly destroyed, then you look where its successors have gone, then you see stuff like the Rimac (Which sounds to me like hair removal for very specific area....) and how things are going, where on the roads could you unleash that ? 186 mph in 11 seconds,

We are getting bailed out a bit, imagine the carnage if the M lites, especially weren't fitted with ESP, but accelerate any car and its driver to speeds it has no business at in a certain scenario and physics takes over, the electronics can only save you to a point, especially if you are just good at planting your right foot, holding on and letting the car do its thing with limited skill (like me...)

[Court_S]

TameRacingDriver said:

Am I the only one who's happy with a 200 bhp car (an old mini in my case). It really isn't slow at all. I've seen lots of people who talk about having stuff like 350 bhp m135is and the like saying they love it as they can rev the balls off it and not be doing silly speeds I don't know what roads some of you drive on but revving the balls off cars with that power will see you either in a field or in prison in very short order round here. I'm also confused about the thought of a previous car of mine, a Z4 coupe 3.0 struggling to overtake a bus. I'm starting to wonder if I live in a parallel universe *shrugs* or is it just Willy waving?

I think there is an element of truth in your post, I got sucked into the numbers when buying my 140i (performance vs. running costs) and ultimately it left me cold in the end. It was the fastest car I’ve owned yet it managed to be the dullest too.

[TameRacingDriver]

J4CKO - Good post, I agree with all of it. Cars are so fast nowadays that it's not really possible to drive the way some people on here are suggesting. Even if I drive my mini to its limits I'm going far faster than is socially acceptable and that's all of 200 bhp and 1150kg give or take. Even if I'm not trying, it's got enough midrange to see me traveling at a fair lick without even using the gearbox, so the suggestion that people are regularly revving out cars like m140s is just wishful thinking or bragging as far as I'm concerned, which leads me to my next point...

@ Court_S my mate actually sold an m140 for an f56 cooper s and insists it's more fun by far than the BMW ever was. Ironically though he has remapped it to close to 300 bhp and I've heard him say a couple of times that he felt sometimes he was happier with a bit less power.

I'm in the process of modifying my mini to my liking but honestly power is the last thing I'm going to upgrade and may not even bother; it's already around 200 bhp I'd have guessed and could get it to a reliable 220 bhp. I think I'd stop there though. It would be possible to get it up to 240-270 but at that point you're sacrificing reliability and basically getting to the stage where you're holding back again on the road. For me, in a relatively light car, 200 is plenty power. Not enough to be frightening but still enough to be amusing.

[av185]

cerb4.5lee said:

Om said:

I was thinking this myself. With a modern 7/8 speed auto/dual clutch you have an additional 1, 2 or even 3 gears over a similar manual so generally shorter ratios.

Certainly for me when I think back to the manual M3 I had...I definitely think that there is a benefit to the shorter ratios that you get with an Auto or a DCT.

The ratios were nice in the manual Mini I had though, and that seemed a nice match to a nice twisty country road I thought.

Parasitic losses and extra weight often mean a semi auto box is actually slower than a manual especially when there is a flatshift option. The ridiculous launch start feature means a semi auto is slightly quicker yes but from rolling starts intermediate performance times are generally as quick depending on the driver.

The icing on the cake of course is that manuals are far more involving than autos and much more skills are required to extract the bestperformance and therein lies the enjoyment.

[Gary C]

cerb4.5lee said:

, I do think that the DCT seems to suit the M4 well
.

Apart from the farty fake change noise

[cerb4.5lee]

Gary C said:

cerb4.5lee said:

, I do think that the DCT seems to suit the M4 well
.

Apart from the farty fake change noise

Mines not too bad in that regard(the noise it makes is still the weak link though) because it has the fun sponge OPF filter on it. It hasn't got any pops and bangs on it either when you use the paddles on downchanges because of the OPF filter.

I'm not quite sure if I'm happy or sad about it to be fair...and secretly I quite liked the pops and bangs on my Mini!

[J4CKO]

av185 said:

cerb4.5lee said:

Om said:

I was thinking this myself. With a modern 7/8 speed auto/dual clutch you have an additional 1, 2 or even 3 gears over a similar manual so generally shorter ratios.

Certainly for me when I think back to the manual M3 I had...I definitely think that there is a benefit to the shorter ratios that you get with an Auto or a DCT.

The ratios were nice in the manual Mini I had though, and that seemed a nice match to a nice twisty country road I thought.

Parasitic losses and extra weight often mean a semi auto box is actually slower than a manual especially when there is a flatshift option. The ridiculous launch start feature means a semi auto is slightly quicker yes but from rolling starts intermediate performance times are generally as quick depending on the driver.

The icing on the cake of course is that manuals are far more involving than autos and much more skills are required to extract the bestperformance and therein lies the enjoyment.

Dont think there is anyone around who can outperform a dual clutch gearbox, even the traditional torque converters have very little in the way of a delay between ratios, plus they have more ratios to choose from and I got the impression mine didnt lift between gears, if it did it wasnt perceptible.

On the second point, I will agree, certain is true for me but can see how some folk just prefer an auto, not right, not wrong, its just a preference.

[nickfrog]

av185 said:

.

The icing on the cake of course is that manuals are far more involving than autos and much more skills are required to extract the bestperformance and therein lies the enjoyment.

I don't find that a manual requires that much more skill, even on track.
I can also see why someone would enjoy the driving experience of an auto more.

I think it's a personal and subjective choice.

[ecs0set]

500mph in an aeroplane is not really interesting. 25mph on a skateboard is very interesting. Speed != Fun.

The sensation of speed is what you are looking for, and the main problem with modern cars is the obsession with reducing NVH. What makes a TVR special is that it has terrible NVH - it's loud, rattley and the windows don't seal , has roof that folds down and a sonorous engine - it doesn't have to be that fast (4-litre Chims are maybe 200bhp/ton) to feel awesome. It combines to give a slight fear factor, even when you are nowhere near the limits of vehicle or law.

As most of us want a car that can be used everyday as well as a b-road blast, the TVR/Caterham/Aerial Atom is not an everyday car. You also probably want something reliable and safe, otherwise we'd all have cars from the 60s. I think you need something modern (to make the local commuting bearable, reliable and safe) and Goldilocks - not too large, not too small, not too manic, not too feable, not 4-cylinders, not 12-cylinders. Think Alfa 147 with a V6 Busso for example, or a Ford RS with the 5-pot. Avoid anything with lots of sound deadening.

I wonder if the Yaris GR fits into this...

Edited by ecs0set on Thursday 10th June 13:47

[Harrison Bergeron]

cerb4.5lee said:

I really liked how much fun it was for almost all of the time.

And that is why I'm keeping my MX5 forever. It's fun on the way to work,it's fun on the way home,it's fun going to the lakes,it's fun on a country lane,it's fun in the snow,i'll even bet it's fun on trackdays.

If you cut it in half you'd just have 2 halves of an MX5 but it should be like a stick of rock and say FUN.

And on motorways it's got air con and bluetooth and sat nav and it's comfy and quiet even with the roof off.

[anonymous-user]

J4CKO said:

Dont think there is anyone around who can outperform a dual clutch gearbox, even the traditional torque converters have very little in the way of a delay between ratios, plus they have more ratios to choose from and I got the impression mine didnt lift between gears, if it did it wasnt perceptible.

On the second point, I will agree, certain is true for me but can see how some folk just prefer an auto, not right, not wrong, its just a preference.

Get a powerful, petrol engine with long gearing and lots of torque and you don’t need to change gear.

[Jamescrs]

I currently own both an R53 Mini Cooper S and a BMW M240i, the BMW is my main car, the Mini is a track car but fully road legal.

I do enjoy taking the Mini out and it always makes me smile when I drive it but after a couple of days I'm always happy to be back in the BMW which as a completely standard car is quite literally twice as powerful as the Mini.

I feel the BMW probably has a little too much power if anything and i have never felt it needs a remap as is popular with others who have these cars.

I have previously owned a 440bhp Ford Focus and that felt too fast for the normal roads to be enjoyable

[s m]

J4CKO said:

On the second point, I will agree, certain is true for me but can see how some folk just prefer an auto, not right, not wrong, its just a preference.

Very much agree Jacko

Always choose a manual, have tried these autos and they’re not for me or my driving. It’s great they suit others though. I’m lucky I’m old enough I’ll never have to have one as there’ll be manuals around for a couple of decades yet…..or older fun cars that generally have them

[CABC]

wormus said:

Get a powerful, petrol engine with long gearing and lots of torque and you don’t need to change gear.

True, but that’s not a sports car imo
Sports cars should have steep power curves and a manual box that needs to be stirred to keep the engine on the boil. They need effort to drive in other words. They’re not easily daily drivers.

A GT otoh can waft on huge torque and turn a decent pace with less effort when asked.

Then we have “sports GT”, “Performance”, “Super” etc

We can sub divide all day. And AutoCar have done. Their “Top 10” categories are over 30 types of car now.

Most people drive torque not hp anyway.