What engines can you think of that had a very low specific output for the time they were produced? I'm thinking engines like the Iron Duke...
Growing up on a diet of World Rally Championship highlights and lengthy Gran Turismo 2 sessions, a life in cars was as good as inevitable for Matt.
Comments
My 2.2L duratorq transit…..85bhp. Not sure how that’s possible.
American cars started dropping in hp because of insurance rates climbing crazy back in the early 70s (that was a huge factor for how much is your insurance), so the manufacturers started playing with their engines to make the numbers lower for their customers. First they changed up from gross HP ratings to Net (engine rating without accessories vs with), which made it drop, then came lower and lower compression ratios, I think the way they tuned the carbs had a lot to do with it too. Emissions had very little impact as far as that, which was the implementation of catalytic converters in 1976.
At the same time, an enthusiast can just get high compression heads, high performance carb and cams, and have a real good engine. Nowadays, the lower spec engines for insurance reasons can only be tuned by turbocharging.
Ford’s 4.0L V6. 147 hp. Absolutely pathetic coming from a V6 that large.
I have a 2.7 with 210. Catch up ford.
Massive old muscle engines…
Which ones? The pre-emissions ones where they didn’t have the modern techniques and knowledge used on modern cars, that got a LOT of power considering that they weren’t very advanced yet, or the post emissions ones that actually do suck? (Looks at the late 70’s camaros and firebirds that made 145ish HP from a big V8)
Citroen 2CV (Earlier models with 9 hp and 375cc) i think.
I’ve always been curious about Chryslers Daimler years engines. The 2.7L LH engine (mine, out of a Sebring) was rated at 210bhp, and the power stroke 3.7L was rated at 200bhp. The 4.7 (non high output) was rated for 235bhp in the same year (2004) as my tiny little 2.7. Mind you, the LH had 180ft-lbs and the power stroke had 235 for the 3.7 and 295 for the 4.7, but still, I’m getting way better fuel economy as anyone with a 3.7 with more power. So to answer your question, I’d say Chryslers power stroke engines. I mean, mitsubishi can put out a turbo 2.0L with more power than that. In the opposite answer to your question, I’d say the LH engine is an overpowered engine.
My first car was a 1979 Ford LTD. It had a 5.0L v8 with 139bhp.
The ford 2.3L. The original one from the 80s. My 1989 mustang 2.3L N/A 5 speed makes 88hp at the crank. That’s slow even for a car that weighs 2700lbs. It was originally ford’s tractor engine but they needed a cheap 4 pot for their vehicles so threw it in. Mine has an exhaust leak and let me tell you. It sounds like a damn tractor
a modern attendant would be the 1.9 SDI-engine as seen f.e. in the VW Polo 9N. It produces 64 hp with 1.9 l (produced until 2005) and is indestructible when properly maintained.
33hp/l are insane, especially compared to the 180hp/l you get in a Mercedes A45.
Chevrolet 292ci I6. Had 120hp.