HP-to-Weight Ratio & Losing Races question...

Bens95cobra8594

Bens95cobra8594

New Member
Sep 18, 2006
49
0
0
The Empire State
#1
Okay, so self-admitted nerd that I am, I sat down with my friend Excel and made a mini-spreadsheet to figure out some basic calculations, horsepower to weight ratio.

What prompted this is the fact that I have been debating two things:
1) There seem to be loads of recent posts involving losing races recently to seemingly-stock or mildly modified vehicles. Something seems wrong there.
2) I am having an internal debate over yanking the engine this winter and modding it heavily (347 stroker). I just want to make the car move like it SHOULD have from the factory w/o modding the crap out of it to get some decent numbers.

I guess my dilemma here comes from my past with the bike world. I have been riding for about 9 years and loads of miles. I have ridden and owned a lot of sportbikes and have yet to get into a car that snaps my neck and gives me the feeling of acceleration that a bike does. Even little 600s can whoop the a$$ of most cars out there. I am just wondering if it's worth it getting all wrangled up in dumping countless dollars into a '95 Stang when I can grab a bike for roughly the same ca$h (roughly...). I was figuring on a solid $4K for the motor. I love the 'Stang, but just not sure if I want to spend all sorts of money on something that may never really live up to my expectations and still be reliable to drive semi-daily.

Anyway, chart below for anyone who cares.

HP Weight Ratio Comment(s)
240 3567 0.067 Stock
240 3575 0.067 Stock w/subframe connectors
340 3575 0.095 Additional 100hp
440 3575 0.123 Additional 200hp
340 3100 0.110 Additional 100hp and losing 475lbs
340 2950 0.115 Additional 100hp and losing 625lbs
440 3100 0.142 Additional 200hp and losing 475lbs
440 2950 0.149 Additional 200hp and losing 625lbs
500 3100 0.161 95CobraGuy's 'Stang, according to ##s in the electric pump thread (guessed @ weight)
850 2880 0.295 Chrysler ME Quad Turbo V12 mentioned below
Chrysler ME Four-Twelve - .295 hp/lb
McLaren F1 - .251 hp/lb
Bugatti 16/4 Veyron - .230 hp/lb
Ferrari Enzo - .219 hp/lb
1965 Ford GT40 Mk1 - .213 hp/lb
Ferrari Koenig 360 Modena - .174 hp/lb
Lamborghini Countach - .139 hp/lb
Dodge Viper RT/10 - .131 hp/lb
Chevrolet Corvette Z06 - .123 hp/lb
Porsche 911 Turbo - .119 hp/lb
Ford Mustang Cobra R - .107 hp/lb
Ferrari Testarossa - .104 hp/lb
from supercarstats.com

Anyway...thanks for reading and let me know if anyone out there has ideas about my dilemma.
 

  • Sponsors (?)


#5
another thing to remember is that you are using peak HP for your calculations, which is complete nonsense. It doesn't tell you much about the motor's performance.

But yeah, I don't think you will ever get the mustang to snap your head back like it does on the bike. For one, the mustang has a seat, which keeps you in one place, and it cushions you from the acceleration force.

They are two completely different beasts, you can't compare them to each other. It's like trying to compare sex and food. The two are both so great for many different reasons and if you combine the two, it's gets messy :)
 
#6
Ha Ha

I love this thread :D

Its different :nice:

Reminds me of when I had some quick bikes :banana:

Yes ... the hp to weight ratio of a high hp bike is quite a thrill ;)
however
It just ain't apples to apples when you compare them to a car.

Everybody of course has their own opinion
so
here is mine with the focus on weight of the car

I have been in this hobby for a long, long time and my 95 GT is the most heavy car by far I've ever owned that I modded for more power. The need for steeper gears can not be over emphasized when you are talking about this kind of Behmoth sized weight.

It took me a great while to get used to how heavy it really is. My old cars were in the range of 1800 to 2600 lbs.

Now ... Most peeps say on these sites the GT is in a range of 3400 to 3600 lbs.

Using that 95 GT weight reference to base my opinion here .....

My idea of a fun street car
and
the amount of performance from a rwhp perspective

The minimum I want is 300rwhp :)
but
It has GOTTA have a STRONG low and mid range as well

I do think 50 more rwhp would be better :nice:
and
that is my goal when I get back to the modding thing

As I see it ... you are gonna have to ......

1) Go back to the early Fox Stangs for weight savings and move away from the Portly SN series Stangs

OR

2) Look at Power Adders

Either 1 or 2 will skin that ................. Fat Cat ;)

Grady
 
#7
If you think about it the 94-95 gt coupe in the middle of that range is 3500lbs. A 93 fox GT hatch was not too far off that. IIRC the weight diff. is basicly the spare/jack, dog bone, and rear seat delete... Now if we are talking older fox a buddy has a 82 that with full int. no weight reduction other than the TFS alum. heads wieghted like 2800lbs with gas and driver. Now there was a LX and notch that were lighter but even some of the foxes were heavy.

I think for the better breaks, int., handling the 94-95 is still a good option. Now a light fox yes if you want to go all out fast will be the best bet (hope to build a notch with a turbo someday). The power I have now is all I plan or want in this car due to the weight for money spent and I am looking at around 400rwhp on the bottle so thats not bad. Who knows though I may end up with a turbo in this?????? Wanna build a 32 3 window BAD.

My 2nd car was a 1966 chevy caprice (think impala with the verts roofline made hardtop) and that was a HEAVY MoFo at like 4000lbs. With 4 wheel drum and 60's suspension...gimme the 3500lb 94-95 anyday:D .
 
#9
I don't think you will ever get a "good" return on your performance dollar, when you compare a bike to a car. For instance, when I was a teenager, you could get a ZX-10 for about $9K. It was 138hp and the weight with a 200# rider was about 700-750#. (.184 hp/#) With the cars you mentioned, you needed to buy a Viper ($60k, then) a Countach ($140k, then) or something along those lines and that is BELOW the hp/# ratio you give. I seriously considered getting a V-Max or a ZX-10. Quicker, faster, stops better, etc. Then I watched a 25 mph motorcycle accident that caused the rider (who was wearing a helmet and ALL other safety gear) to be paralyzed for the rest of his life. He was 32 years old, at the time. To me, that was along time to lay in a bed and think about the day that changed it all. No safety belts, no airbags, no sheetmetal to absorb an impact. (Even a 25mph one.) I'll take my 3500#, 13 second behemoth, thanks.

PS-I really liked the comparison to sex and food. It was "spot-on". Either are hard to beat but totally different from each other. :D
 
#11
final5-0 said:
Ha Ha

I love this thread :D

Its different :nice:

Reminds me of when I had some quick bikes :banana:

Yes ... the hp to weight ratio of a high hp bike is quite a thrill ;)
however
It just ain't apples to apples when you compare them to a car.

Everybody of course has their own opinion
so
here is mine with the focus on weight of the car

I have been in this hobby for a long, long time and my 95 GT is the most heavy car by far I've ever owned that I modded for more power. The need for steeper gears can not be over emphasized when you are talking about this kind of Behmoth sized weight.

It took me a great while to get used to how heavy it really is. My old cars were in the range of 1800 to 2600 lbs.

Now ... Most peeps say on these sites the GT is in a range of 3400 to 3600 lbs.

Using that 95 GT weight reference to base my opinion here .....

My idea of a fun street car
and
the amount of performance from a rwhp perspective

The minimum I want is 300rwhp :)
but
It has GOTTA have a STRONG low and mid range as well

I do think 50 more rwhp would be better :nice:
and
that is my goal when I get back to the modding thing

As I see it ... you are gonna have to ......

1) Go back to the early Fox Stangs for weight savings and move away from the Portly SN series Stangs

OR

2) Look at Power Adders

Either 1 or 2 will skin that ................. Fat Cat ;)

Grady
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better myself Grady. Once again spot on. I didn't realize how heavy our cars were. Edmunds states 3300 for the gt and 3450 for the vert. I know that is approximate. I can tell you even when I put the nitrous on, the car FELT heavy..I cant quite explain it but I think you know what I mean...it felt like get out of the way..tanker barging through..

Not that I want to keep referenceing my 94 Z :notnice: but it was the same weight as my vert and it FELT light!! Even though it was an auto, the torque curve was phenominal and it was pushing 325ft lbs@2000rpm - ? rpm stock! The 5.0 HAS excellent torque - but it is a shorter peak where as more cubic inches is a wider peak I think.

p.s., I have been thinking the same options as you. I had no idea the 87-93 was soo much lighter. Edmunds for the lx was 2800# with v8 engine.

"For one, the mustang has a seat, which keeps you in one place, and it cushions you from the acceleration force."

Ever have to drive your car with the front seats out? I did. COoKoO I know. If feels a lot faster and you have to be carefult cause it throws you into the back compartment and you look like a 6 year old driving cause yo ucan barely see over the wheel and side windows.
 
#12
Ariel_Atom_2_2.jpg


here's a vid.

http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/technology-and-science/ariel-atom-2-car.asp

220hp at 8200RPM

1000 pounds.

not that I think you guys can't do the math...but...

.220 hp/lb :eek:
 
#13
You need to NOT stop at 89-93 Fox Stangs and go on past them a good bit farther back if you wanna save weight.

The earlier the lighter :nice:

79 to 82 flavor will taste quite diet like lite ;)

Then again .............. if you're gonna make a total commitment to save weight as much as possible

Don't hose around with ANY Fox Stangs
and
go totally ....................... Old School :nice:

You can get a 67-68 Coupe down REALLY light ;)
and
You can easily drop in a big block ... A REAL ... big block :D

We AIN'T talkin Windsor here :nono:

NO pcm needed :p

Just a box of jets for the Carb :)
and
A few springs to recurve the dizzy :)

:banana: Yeah Baby :banana: Those were the days :banana:


Memory Lane Stroll is now over :( ....... :rlaugh:

Grady
 
#15
Pokageek said:
"You can get a 67-68 Coupe down REALLY light"

How light are those Grady?
Click to expand...

24 to 2600 :D

You can find all kinds of fiberglass body parts for em ;)

You might get it down lower if you Lexan it :shrug:

btw ... the Fastbacks were a bit heavier
but
the weight was right where you wanted it :)

Of course you'll have to pay 13 prices for one :bang:

You can thank Barret Jackson and all their rhetoric
and
The Gauld Dern movie industry Elenore :bs:

For those ridiculous prices now a days :fuss:

Grady
 
#16
Therian said:
Ariel_Atom_2_2.jpg


here's a vid.

http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/technology-and-science/ariel-atom-2-car.asp

220hp at 8200RPM

1000 pounds.

not that I think you guys can't do the math...but...

.220 hp/lb :eek:
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: The video gives you an idea of why I like bikes... although your face is squished in the helmet, feels sort of like that sometimes. Start saving for that toy... wonder if they take 'Stangs on trade. :rlaugh:

But seriously, thanks for the input everyone. I guess if I keep in mind that spending that getting a high HP return per dollar may not work out the way it would on a bike...

I'll keep a lock :lock: on the garage for now to save the Stang.
 
#18
I dunno, if it's already been said yet..
A good horsepower to weight ratio is great, especially when going up hill. but in straight line acceleration, it doesn't always equate to accelerating faster. If the motor rev's slow, you are limited to the rev speed of the motor, it's like putting gears that are way too low into the car. lighten it up enough, you gotta lighten up the rotating assemply for a snappy motor, that'll really make it scoot.
 
#19
TheRedBlur said:
I dunno, if it's already been said yet..
A good horsepower to weight ratio is great, especially when going up hill. but in straight line acceleration, it doesn't always equate to accelerating faster. If the motor rev's slow, you are limited to the rev speed of the motor, it's like putting gears that are way too low into the car. lighten it up enough, you gotta lighten up the rotating assemply for a snappy motor, that'll really make it scoot.
Click to expand...

good point about the final drive ratio. however, the primary reason a bike is almost always faster than a car in accelleration, is that it is lighter. high redline, low redline, long gears, short gears...it doesn't really matter (within limits, obviously there are extremes on every end of those variables) - hp/lb is still the most important factor.

edit on the atom, it actually has a supercharger on it also, putting it at >300hp.

= .300+ hp/lb

it ran the track faster than a Carerra GT (600+hp) on that brit show, top gear

check out the video...that thing looks like fun

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1397055679329723134&q=ariel+atom
 
#20
How do you lighten the rotating assembly? Does this really work? Say for example with a supercharger as well...does 300rwhp from a supercharged mustang go faster than from a 300rwhp n/a that is not getting arm jammed down into it at high velocities?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
New
Hot
Menu