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

[Fossilthe4x4]

I've never owned or even driven anything with more than around 150bhp per ton so may not be entirely qualified, but part of the reason for not owning more powerful vehicles is that I've just never seen the point.

I'm lucky enough to live in rural Aberdeenshire surrounded by epic A and B roads that have very little traffic on them but I genuinely think that 60(ish) is as fast as anyone should be going.

There are frequent encounters with tractors, cyclists, deer, badgers and various ages of mouth breathers who can't stay on their own side of the road.

So to answer the OP's question, for me it's about useable power all of the time. I have 148bhp in 100kg and the car feels fast at 60(ish). A 400bhp whatever that only comes alive at silly speeds holds no appeal at all.

[Om]

Fossilthe4x4 said:

I've never owned or even driven anything with more than around 150bhp per ton so may not be entirely qualified, but part of the reason for not owning more powerful vehicles is that I've just never seen the point.

I'm lucky enough to live in rural Aberdeenshire surrounded by epic A and B roads that have very little traffic on them but I genuinely think that 60(ish) is as fast as anyone should be going.

There are frequent encounters with tractors, cyclists, deer, badgers and various ages of mouth breathers who can't stay on their own side of the road.

So to answer the OP's question, for me it's about useable power all of the time. I have 148bhp in 100kg and the car feels fast at 60(ish). A 400bhp whatever that only comes alive at silly speeds holds no appeal at all.

That is a light car.

[Gary C]

ecs0set said:

Speed != Fun.

Ah, a C programmer

[Fossilthe4x4]

Doh! 148bhp in 1000kg! ZC32 swift sport.

[Griffith4ever]

To the OP - more than I need.

Sure, I have had most excellent times in a 140Bhp Westfield, wringing it's neck.

Now I have 564 BHP 4WD and I love having the excess on tap, and the abolity to put it down (R8 V10). Overtaking is a hoot, and the raw power is simply intoxicating.

[ecs0set]

Gary C said:

ecs0set said:

Speed != Fun.

Ah, a C programmer

Former, but old habits...

[Leon R]

cerb4.5lee said:

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!

The only people who don't like pops and bangs are the people who can't make them.

[av185]

nickfrog said:

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.

But the mere fact you have to take your hand of the wheel whilst steering in order to change gear means a manual takes far more skill than an auto especially when driving at the limit. This is even before you start factoring the coordination and input required between a physical gearchange and clutch action.

Flappy paddle every gearchange is the same by pulling a lever requiring very little skill and no coordination whatsoever.

[Tommo87]

av185 said:

nickfrog said:

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.

But the mere fact you have to take your hand of the wheel whilst steering in order to change gear means a manual takes far more skill than an auto especially when driving at the limit. This is even before you start factoring the coordination and input required between a physical gearchange and clutch action.

Flappy paddle every gearchange is the same by pulling a lever requiring very little skill and no coordination whatsoever.

I get confused by comments when people say 'Auto' but they actually mean 'Semi-Auto' with flappy paddles.


It would have been better if they were called Manual-clutch and Auto-Clutch.

(Unless some people do drive around the race track, without every changing the gears themselves).

Edited by Tommo87 on Thursday 10th June 18:13

[Leon R]

av185 said:

nickfrog said:

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.

But the mere fact you have to take your hand of the wheel whilst steering in order to change gear means a manual takes far more skill than an auto especially when driving at the limit. This is even before you start factoring the coordination and input required between a physical gearchange and clutch action.

Flappy paddle every gearchange is the same by pulling a lever requiring very little skill and no coordination whatsoever.

Neither is particularly 'skillful' really, one is harder (because you have to do more) than the other but claiming that one is something that only skilled drivers can do is dumb.

I had to drive a car with no syncro about 15 miles a few years ago which was easily the most difficult thing I have had to drive but I wouldn't claim that it took some ungodly amount of skill to get the hang of.

[fido]

Tommo87 said:

It would have been better if they were called Manual-clutch and Auto-Clutch.

(Unless some people do drive around the race track, without every changing the gears themselves).

I switch between the two modes alot. I find it more stressful to use flappy-paddles in town driving than a manual! They don't work with 10-to-2 steering well - prefer using the lever to change gear which some cars don't have. On the track it would be very un-cool at best to use 'Auto'!

[anonymous-user]

CABC said:

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.

And what about muscle cars? Designed to do one thing - go very fast in a straight line. Besides power is the rate of doing torque. Nothing wrong with a flat torque curve that gets you going and keeps accelerating at the same rate no matter what the rpm. That’s why I love big capacity, supercharged engines - for the linear shove in the back.

[CABC]

wormus said:

And what about muscle cars? Designed to do one thing - go very fast in a straight line. Besides power is the rate of doing torque. Nothing wrong with a flat torque curve that gets you going and keeps accelerating at the same rate no matter what the rpm. That’s why I love big capacity, supercharged engines - for the linear shove in the back.

Nothing wrong with muscle cars, yet another category. Many enthusiasts have several types of car in their garage.
I’m just saying that sports cars aren’t necessarily the fastest cars, but ones that ‘need driving’. Imho.

[Kawasicki]

wormus said:

And what about muscle cars? Designed to do one thing - go very fast in a straight line. Besides power is the rate of doing torque. Nothing wrong with a flat torque curve that gets you going and keeps accelerating at the same rate no matter what the rpm. That’s why I love big capacity, supercharged engines - for the linear shove in the back.

I tuned muscle car suspension, they weren’t designed to do one thing. They were road cars, not drag cars.

[nickfrog]

av185 said:

nickfrog said:

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.

But the mere fact you have to take your hand of the wheel whilst steering in order to change gear means a manual takes far more skill than an auto especially when driving at the limit. This is even before you start factoring the coordination and input required between a physical gearchange and clutch action.

Flappy paddle every gearchange is the same by pulling a lever requiring very little skill and no coordination whatsoever.

Still very little skill involved in manual shifting, even at the limit of lat grip (mid corner shifts at the apex are very few and far between on UK circuits) - besides, that's probably where an auto will free up "cognitive skill headroom" (I just made that up) for other skills that are equally crucial and rewarding in terms of engagement.

Never mind that, what I want to know is how you're finding your GT4 on track compared to the GT3!!

[TameRacingDriver]

Leon R said:

cerb4.5lee said:

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!

The only people who don't like pops and bangs are the people who can't make them.

I like it but I am a man child

Saying that though theyre not too loud, just about right. Some of the ones I hear are ridiculous though.

[mrmichaelsankey]

Hmmmm… from previous experience I would rate fun vs power that I’ve had in the following (best at the top)

E36 M3
E46 M3
Impreza 2000 turbo no mods
F10 M5
Macan turbo
E92 M3 (manual)
992 C4S
E36 318is
E93 M3 flappy paddle
E46 330 convertible manual
1999 fiesta 1.4


Wife had a 2006 Cooper S, that was a hoot to throw about
She also had a 1987 Cooper, I mean, go cart on the road and in the above list slots in under the E36 M3!

Power doesn’t always win. The current C4S is great, but way to accomplished for its own good.
The wife’s Macan turbo is far more fun, refined on the run and hooligan when you want to, plus you can wag that tail and control it quite well!

[DB77]

I don’t think the question here is really about what power level makes a car fun. Of my two cars, the more powerful one is far more fun, but that is because it is lighter, with more direct / better weighted steering with some real feedback. I rarely use WOT on the road, but I don’t need to to really enjoy it. My 5 series is too cosseted and heavy to really enjoy in the same way, until you are going some silly speeds. As a long distance cruiser though it is perfect.

So I think, ignore the power level, get the lightest, best handling car that fits your needs / family.

[Lester H]

As the O.P. Of a recent cliche thread, I shouldn’t really be reviving this one, but: “You can drive a fast car slowly, but you can’t drive a slow car fast.”

[Pica-Pica]

Leon R said:

Neither is particularly 'skillful' really, one is harder (because you have to do more) than the other but claiming that one is something that only skilled drivers can do is dumb.

I had to drive a car with no syncro about 15 miles a few years ago which was easily the most difficult thing I have had to drive but I wouldn't claim that it took some ungodly amount of skill to get the hang of.

I used to like trying clutch-less gear changes in my E36. You needed the place and time to do it. Of course, the rev-matching had to be just right. In that case the synchromesh would baulk badly-matched revs for the gear chosen.