What's considered good bhp

HandsomeDan

Asmooh wrote: »

lol... my car does 0-100 in 8,8 sec with a 1.6 and 116hp and for me its "slow" but those are stock specs

Well a car with more torque will feel faster than a car of equal performance, but who's neck needs to be wrung in order to get there. I'd say your car just lacks torque - so in day to day driving it feels slow.

316i is it?

Asmooh

HandsomeDan wrote: »

Well a car with more torque will feel faster than a car with equal performance, but whos neck needs to be wrung in order to get there. I'd say your car just lacks torque - so in day to day driving it feels slow.

316i is it?

lol... i would never drive a crappy bmw

it's a 1992 MX5.

85 kW (116 pk) @ 6500 tpm
135 Nm @ 5500 tpm


and tell me what BMW with 1.6 does 0-100 in 8.8?


because, see the following

1998-2001: Mazda MX5 1.8: 0-100: 8.0, with 140hp and 162nm
2008-2013: BMW 320i: 0-100: 8.2, with 170hp and 210nm
1989-1994: Mazda MX5 1.6: 0-100: 8,8 with 116hp and 135nm
2005-2007: BMW 320i: 0-100: 9.0, with 150hp and 200nm
2002-2012: BMW 318i: 0-100: 9,1, with 143hp and 190nm
2008-2012: BMW 316i: 0-100: 10,8 with 122hp and 160nm

HandsomeDan

Asmooh wrote: »

lol... i would never drive a crappy bmw

it's a 1992 MX5.

85 kW (116 pk) @ 6500 tpm
135 Nm @ 5500 tpm


and tell me what BMW with 1.6 does 0-100 in 8.8?


because, see the following

1998-2001: Mazda MX5 1.8: 0-100: 8.0, with 140hp and 162nm
2008-2013: BMW 320i: 0-100: 8.2, with 170hp and 210nm
1989-1994: Mazda MX5 1.6: 0-100: 8,8 with 116hp and 135nm
2005-2007: BMW 320i: 0-100: 9.0, with 150hp and 200nm
2002-2012: BMW 318i: 0-100: 9,1, with 143hp and 190nm
2008-2012: BMW 316i: 0-100: 10,8 with 122hp and 160nm

I hadn't looked it up. No need to get smart - specially as you drive a car with the torsional rigidity of overcooked spaghetti:

http://blogs.youwheel.com/2014/04/25/car-body-torsional-rigidity-a-comprehensive-list/

6000nm/deg - damn, that's floppy :P

Asmooh

HandsomeDan wrote: »

I hadn't looked it up. No need to get smart - specially as you drive a car with the torsional rigidity of overcooked spaghetti:

http://blogs.youwheel.com/2014/04/25/car-body-torsional-rigidity-a-comprehensive-list/

6000nm/deg - damn, that's floppy :P

Still more than the BMW Z3 :P

Foxhole Norman

Asmooh wrote: »

lol... i would never drive a crappy bmw

it's a 1992 MX5.

85 kW (116 pk) @ 6500 tpm
135 Nm @ 5500 tpm


and tell me what BMW with 1.6 does 0-100 in 8.8?


because, see the following

1998-2001: Mazda MX5 1.8: 0-100: 8.0, with 140hp and 162nm
2008-2013: BMW 320i: 0-100: 8.2, with 170hp and 210nm
1989-1994: Mazda MX5 1.6: 0-100: 8,8 with 116hp and 135nm
2005-2007: BMW 320i: 0-100: 9.0, with 150hp and 200nm
2002-2012: BMW 318i: 0-100: 9,1, with 143hp and 190nm
2008-2012: BMW 316i: 0-100: 10,8 with 122hp and 160nm

Completely different cars though, BMW's are generally about comfort and luxury whereas the MX-5 is a purpose built lightweight sportscar, you can't compare the two.

Asmooh

Foxhole Norman wrote: »

Completely different cars though, BMW's are generally about comfort and luxury whereas the MX-5 is a purpose built lightweight sportscar, you can't compare the two.

both have 4 wheels.. so yes I can compare them..


anyway!

1999-2000: BMW Z3 2.0: 0-100: 7.9, with 150hp and 190nm
1998-2001: Mazda MX5 1.8: 0-100: 8.0, with 140hp and 162nm
2005-2006: BMW Z4 2.0: 0-100: 8.2, with 150hp and 200nm
1989-1994: Mazda MX5 1.6: 0-100: 8,8 with 116hp and 135nm
1996-1999: BMW Z3 1.8: 0-100: 10.5, with 115hp and 168nm

power pants

ones a hairdresser's car the other is a nice car

Foxhole Norman

Asmooh wrote: »

both have 4 wheels.. so yes I can compare them..

:pac:

Asmooh

See the MX5 Gen 1 and 2, vs BMW Z3 gen 1 and 2 and Z4 gen 1 update, all between 1.6 and 2.0

HandsomeDan

Just leave this here:

" I’ve always found the ‘ickle Mazda slow, imprecise and unsatisfying"

Chris Harris

http://community.evo.co.uk/users/Monkey-Harris/blogs/index.cfm/2011/2/7/CHRIS-HARRIS-The-Mazda-MX-5-is-pants-ducks

Asmooh

HandsomeDan wrote: »

Just leave this here:

" I’ve always found the ‘ickle Mazda slow, imprecise and unsatisfying"

Chris Harris

http://community.evo.co.uk/users/Monkey-Harris/blogs/index.cfm/2011/2/7/CHRIS-HARRIS-The-Mazda-MX-5-is-pants-ducks

sucks your link is old, later he changed his statement and yes you can find this on youtube, he said that he likes the MX5 -NA way more compare to the -NB he was driven at time of the statement.

Foxhole Norman

Back to the original topic, I would consider 130+ or so decent power in a modern car, probably wouldn't go below 150 myself unless it was an older car.

Asmooh

Foxhole Norman wrote: »

Back to the original topic, I would consider 130+ or so decent power in a modern car, probably wouldn't go below 150 myself unless it was an older car.

I don't agree, based on weight of the modern car (lets say 1200-1400 kilos) it does require at least 200hp and 280nm to be "decent"

Foxhole Norman

Asmooh wrote: »

I don't agree, based on weight of the modern car (lets say 1200-1400 kilos) it does require at least 200hp and 280nm to be "decent"

Not for your typical run of the mill family cars, especially seeing as most are Turbo'd these days.

Asmooh

Foxhole Norman wrote: »

Not for your typical run of the mill family cars, especially seeing as most are Turbo'd these days.

dunno... I don't like "family cars" but IF.. it would be 1: a Volvo V70R, Volvo S60R or Audi RS4 / RS6

Foxhole Norman

Asmooh wrote: »

dunno... I don't like "family cars" but IF.. it would be 1: a Volvo V70R, Volvo S60R or Audi RS4 / RS6

Yeah that's fair for us enthusiasts but they're not exactly your typical Family saloon :pac: unless you live in Dubai or something.

HandsomeDan

Asmooh wrote: »

dunno... I don't like "family cars" but IF.. it would be 1: a Volvo V70R, Volvo S60R or Audi RS4 / RS6

If you had to do the family car thing it would be an RS6 etc...

???

Can I remind you you drive a 92 mx worth about a tenner...

charcosull

I have a mini with 39hp (Probably less now). Most fun car I have driven. Weighs about 800kg.

Special Circumstances

LOL at the "Japanese/Korean cars must be derided under any heading possible" cracks again. Always good for a laugh in some posters opinion. Cringe fest to others.
Racial slur / national stereotype within 10 posts surely, going on past threads!

dr.fuzzenstein

HandsomeDan wrote: »

Just leave this here:

" I’ve always found the ‘ickle Mazda slow, imprecise and unsatisfying"

Chris Harris

http://community.evo.co.uk/users/Monkey-Harris/blogs/index.cfm/2011/2/7/CHRIS-HARRIS-The-Mazda-MX-5-is-pants-ducks

It might no the the fastest car out there, but:
Bollocks. Nothing more needs to be said to refute that article.

Asmooh

HandsomeDan wrote: »

If you had to do the family car thing it would be an RS6 etc...

???

Can I remind you you drive a 92 mx worth about a tenner...

yeah.. before I moved to Ireland I had a Porsche Boxster S , 986 a MX5 and a civic Coupe.. what's your point?

HandsomeDan

.

frozenfrozen

if you've to worry about the extra person in the passenger seat ruining your power to weight ratio then you need more powah

H3llR4iser

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It might no the the fastest car out there, but:
Bollocks. Nothing more needs to be said to refute that article.

But, if he said the same about a car made by, uhu, an Italian brand from Milan, like he did recently, he'd be considered an authority

Anyway the "how much bhp" discussion is silly. It makes no sense at all - like many said, it's down to the rest of the car; The bhp only make a difference in a straight line. You can have something pushing like a rocket on the straight, but that can't take a corner for saving its own life, or the opposite.

As I always said, some of the funniest cars I ever drove where a 35hp 1984 Renault 5, with suspensions so soft you'd swear you had a flat tire, and a 75hp TDI Skoda. Why? They both have really, really bad chassis/setup, non-existent comfort and you feel on the limit taking a bend at 40 kph

Supergurrier

5 mILLION HORSEPOWERS

Atleast

frozenfrozen

Supergurrier wrote: »

5 mILLION HORSEPOWERS

Atleast

would that be at the wheels or at the crank?

Special Circumstances

frozenfrozen wrote: »

would that be at the wheels or at the crank?

Doesn't matter if it's old. Apparently.

Well, old and japanese is one thing, old and german is obviously in a superlative parallel dimension of course. Apparently. :pac:

CianRyan

MX5's being called hair dressers cars, 316's being called luxury cars.
This thread needs to die.

Mycroft H

CianRyan wrote: »

MX5's being called hair dressers cars, 316's being called luxury cars.
This thread needs to die.

Suppose we may just call them both hairdressers cars then....

EazyD

Mycroft H wrote: »

Suppose we may just call them both hairdressers cars then....

Your suzuki is uber macho though......I jest