Feeling a little spicy, a little argumentative? Spoiling for a bit of a fight to break that mid-week monotony? Then, buddy, are you in luck, because you’re currently reading the latest installment of the Autopian’s most combative series, Prove Me Wrong! We’ve covered BMW Bangle designs and James Garner v. Steve McQueen and Sedans v. Wagons before, and now we’re going to tackle something that I feel strongly about: power. Well, really, probably lack of power. Because I honestly believe that you can get by just fine, even in our modern world of laser hats and cellular HAM radios, with just 50 horsepower.
I know this to be true because I’ve done it, for decades, even, in a variety of cities across America. I lived in Los Angeles for almost 20 years, a city full of highways and freeways and overpasses and interchanges and hills and assholes, and my primary daily driver for that whole time was a 50 hp 1973 VW Beetle.
More recently my daily driver for the past few years has been my 1990 Nissan Pao, and that car’s little 987cc engine only makes 52 hp, and, again, I get by just fine.
I don’t avoid any driving situations, either: I merge onto highways with no problem, I can hold 70 to 75 mph for long highway trips, I can break speed limits in probably 75% of my normal driving situations (especially around schools), and I’ve never once been late or had to avoid going somewhere because my car has about a quarter the horsepower of the average car on the road today.
It’s simply a non-issue.
I’m not saying more horsepower isn’t fun – of course it’s fun, that’s why I have my monster Yugo GV Plus, which makes a face-melting 67 hp around! I get the appeal of speed, but I also get the appeal of feeling like your going fast, but in reality you’re just not.
But, that’s a slightly different point – right now I’m just talking about practical concerns, and less about fun. I’m just saying that I personally have driven cars with about 50 horsepower, and I have yet to have that ever be a limiting factor in what I can do or where I can go. Well, I mean, not counting, say, towing a camper full of marble statues. I mean in normal, day-to-day use.
Now, I can already hear some of you: Jay-jay, you’re screaming, stop being an idiot! Those cars you’re talking about weigh, what, 1600 pounds?
Damn, disembodied voice, you’re pretty dead on! Both the Beetle and the Pao clock in right around 1600 pounds or so, and I get that if you want, say, a more modern car with actual safety features besides floormats that will hold your expelled organs without spillage, then sure, what I drive isn’t for you.
So, with that in mind, let’s look at the power-to-weight ratio of the Pao, which is about 30 pounds per horsepower. If we say that a modern car with safety features needs to be at least 3,000 pounds, then I think we can say the equivalent yes-you-can-get-by-just-fine horsepower number is 100 hp.
A 3,500 pound car would need 116 hp, a 4,000 pound car wants 133 hp, and so on. These are still tiny power numbers by modern standards, and yet I still maintain that you can get by just fine.
Maybe that’s the metric I should use: if you have a car that makes at least one horsepower per 30 pounds, I know, empirically, that you can get by just fine in almost any normal traffic situation out there. Will you be able to pass everyone? No. Will you sometimes need to merge or change lanes by ducking behind someone instead of darting out in front? Yes.
But will you be able to merge onto a modern highway? Absolutely. Will you get where you need to go in roughly the same amount of time as anyone else in higher-horsepower cars? Damn right you will.
Again, I’m not saying that power is bad or not fun, because duh. What I am saying is that anyone who thinks they need 300 hp to comfortably merge onto a highway is deluding themselves. Get a car with more power because you want it, but I’m not buying that you need it.
Plus, look at the world outside of America; a VW Up!, a very modern car by any estimation, makes 60 horsepower and is right about 2,000 pounds, which is about 33 pounds per horsepower. But an Up! is admittedly pretty small. A Skoda Fabia is a bigger car, and you can get those with as little as 65 hp, and weighs about 2,568 pounds, which is 39 pounds per hp, and people manage to get by with that. It’s not just me!
Again, I know all this because I live that 50 hp life, and I’m a happy man who can merge onto highways, drive legally on any road in America, and get where I need to go.
So there.
Add a couple of passengers who are more than 100 kilos each (that’s 220 pounds), and all of a sudden the math HAS to change. I had a ’96 metro with a 3 cyl and a 5-speed at one point – and its 60-something hp was more than adequate if I was driving by myself. With a couple friends in there though? Forget it, that was bloody scary.
I can see why turbo diesels for passenger cars were a great option in the 70s-’00s though – they might have dismal hp numbers, but the high torque output at low revs means that adding weight to the vehicle via passengers made them plenty adequate, although passing at highway speeds, and just acceleration in general were always the weak spot here.
I will also mention though, that the actual engine tuning map and the transmission can more than make up for low-hp gasoline engines when done correctly. Such vehicles will never “feel” fast, but they can mitigate some of the scarier elements of driving one. My ’06 corolla with the 132hp 1ZZ is not “fast” by any stretch of the word, but a good tune map and solid transmission (yes, it’s a 4-speed auto), means that driving on hills or overtaking at highway speeds do not leave me with a severe sense of dread – even with heavy passengers in the car.
The scariest low power vehicle I ever drove was an early 80’s Mazda diesel pickup, 58 hp, merging onto the freeway in Detroit cranking it up thru the gears and still barely hitting 40 mph. It was a company work truck, always tried to avoid that one.
I can’t argue with this much. My Mazda 3 has a slightly better power/weight ratio, and it is, dare I say, sprightly.
I do remember going on a long road trip in a circa 1980 Toyota Tercel, and *that* was underpowered. It could manage 62 mph—at 63, it sounded like it was going to rattle itself apart.
As a guy that has driven a Gen 2 Honda Insight from Kansas to Las Vegas purposely going through the mountains in Colorado, I can say that low HP sucks. 98 HP, 2,700 lb curb weight and a CVT(C means crap I think). that thing could not hold speed up a grade for nothing. It was cramped and uncomfortable to drive especially while being hoked at going up the pass at 45MPH top speed. Sure around town these things are fine, they can do highway speeds, but get near a semi on a windy day and those low rolling resistance tires and light weight sure did pucker the old keister a few times.
Ah yes – the 850 Mini. Friend in England came upon a super clean bone stock 850 that I brought in. The only negative about it was the color – that awful mustard yellow.
Drove it from Galveston to Denver..trying to stick to the “back roads”.
It was a hoot.
Gearing is important to consider here. My 1980 Spitfire gets around 71 horsepower, but it does not have an overdrive. It really can’t sustain 65 miles per hour so I don’t dare drive it on the interstate. If I did that popular Toyota 5-speed transmission swap, then it would be more than enough power in that tiny car.
So in theory I agree – Most people drive around with way more horsepower than they need. Just don’t do it with my stock Triumph transmission and rear end.
Whp or tested hp? The cruiser brochure says 4850 for 212 hp (23/lb). I weigh it at 5500 lbs and measure it at 130 whp (42/lb). It gets by in traffic fine, but i do use a lot of throttle.
A lot of fuss is made about acceleration speed, and while a bit of oomph is nice for emergency situations, for the most part we’re talking about seconds here, and usually a very small (tiny) part of the journey. A car like a Challenger Hellcat can never be properly enjoyed in daily use, unless you have the luck of the gods or a lot of friends on the police force. You’ll always know you’re driving it slow. A small less powerful car you’re always at or near the limit, definitely more fun.
SO you are perfectly ok with someone pulling out in front of you and then not being able to accelerate enough to at least avoid you having to brake to wait for the person to get back up to the speed limit?
They could pull in behind me…
but you know they do not. this is the issue actually, we could all be fine with 50HP if that was all we had then we would all be slow, but can you imagine having to loose forward momentum up a hill because someone pulled out in front of you. I know a few hills in Kansas Even that would result in no forward momentum halfway up with Torches Yugo.
I totally agree. Power-to-weight is what to look for if you want to enjoy driving. Super high HP vehicles are still great, but they’re usually less “fun” in day-to-day driving situations, imo. I want to rev it out here in VA without going to jail…
I live in a state that has some 80 mph speed limits, including at least one on a fairly steep incline. It takes all my 139 hp Niro PHEV can do to stay at 85 for that (though it is also substantially heavier than your examples). I’m also rather noise-averse, so something light enough to get by with that horsepower going at full speed would probably be too loud for me.
My first car was a 50 (metric) HP 1993 Ford Fiesta MkIII with the 1.1 Valencia-HCS engine. My girlfriend at the time inherited a 60 HP 1995 with the 1.3. After I crashed and totaled her car (must have been all that extra power) we swapped the engine from hers into mine. 50HP got you ~85mph and 60HP got you ~95mph on the Autobahn. Those MkIII Fiestas were just under 1 metric ton.
I remember how much fun 50HP were, because you could always drive it at full throttle and have a lot of fun without getting into trouble and I was just recently considering buying a small, lightweight, low power vehicle just for fun.
There is the counter argument that a system run near peak capacity for regular work will wear out much quicker than a system that can lope along at, say, 25% capacity.
Even so, my 200hp hybrid sedan, weighing in at 4,200#, is plenty quick enough, and will go all day at 80mph… and get 45mpg to boot.
But one of your tin lizzies with 50hp, while sufficient, would not carry me and the missus in comfort and quiet. I’m old, hehe.
The first gen Scion xB had supposedly 105hp for 2,450 lbs. I thought it was okay at first, but the more I drove it the more I hated it. That just wasn’t enough. Maybe it would be in a totally flat area.
I drive a ’90 Miata (115hp), a ’64 Corvair (95hp), and a ’76 BMW 2002 (105hp), all with manual transmissions. They weigh between 2100 and 2600 lbs each so that is an average around 24lbs / hp. Highway merge is never an issue and each of them can reach 100mph and cruise at 80mph. At times the pedal is floored and I have to use some revs but I never feel underpowered.
Would I be happy if they had 80hp (30lbs/hp), like the first Corvairs and the BMW 1602? Well, probably not but I am sure it would be just fine with a manual transmission.
what happens when a truck passes them lightweights when a strong side wind is present? I think that was the biggest complaint I heard from the Geo Metro owners when they were around.
it’s not bad because the lightweights are also tiny, not much affected by wind. The Econoline with its big-box-on-wheels profile was much worse than the Metro.
89 Metro manual, with a mighty 55hp driving 1653lbs yielding 30 lb/hp, never had a problem with it. The manual helped a lot – slap it in 3rd at the bottom of I70 in Denver and I could get over Loveland without dropping below 55mph. Of course back then in the 90s, 55mph was enough not to get run over by squads of speeding SUVs. Nowadays it couldn’t be done.
You get blown around a little. Driving something like an NA Miata on Atlanta highways is one step above a motorcycle. You are always vigilant for stupid/inattentive/malevolent drivers. But is is worth it when you get outside town on the mountain roads.
My old BMW 1 series diesel had a mode on the screen that showed you how much power the car was actually producing. For general commuting it rarely needed more than 50-60hp when it’s max power was around 180bhp.
I started driving in the 80’s when double digit horsepower was the norm for entry level cars. Many V8’s didn’t even come close to 200 HP. Now, people talk about cars putting out 300 HP as being barely adequate. It’s all in the head.
I think transmissions make a big difference, especially with automatics. Back in the day, we had 3 and 4 speed transmissions that were slow to shift and very clunky. Today, we’ve got computer controlled 6, 8, and 10 speed autos that shift quicker and can even be user modified via various selectable driving modes maximizing performance.
Back then it was about torque. you needed the smog choked torque numbers to get those steel barges to get going without getting side swiped when trying to pull out of a neighborhood, or god forbid you had to pass a someone in a lethargic 80’s rabbit diesel.
I have a 1990 Pontiac Sunbird with a 2.0 OHC four-cylinder as a spare/toy car. It produced 96 HP when new, and partnered with its 3-speed automatic, merging onto the interstate is pretty scary at times. I hardly ever drive it on the highway for that reason. And it is positively strained at anything past 60-65 MPH. But I guess that is due to only have three gears to choose from.
I owned a 115 something hp volvo 850 for a couple of months and I had to change down to forth all the time on the motorway and it used more fuel than my 260 hp SAAB, not enjoyable in real life so no thanks.
But, a 115 hp turbo diesel is another story, the amount of useable torque is the real question here and not horse power.
28 hp in a 2cv is plenty if you are a a tiny french family with a papillon but if you are a large sized swedish family with a 27kg/60 lbs dog you dont really want to do any longer journeys with all in the same car.
(current line up is, -66 2cv, -99 twingo, -05 9-5 aero and -12 fiat 500 so my range of hp is from 28 to 260 depending on need and mood)
I’m fine with 34hp actually. 50hp is for when I want to send it on the freeway.
I am going to have to refer to an old Jalopnik article that stuck with me somehow
https://jalopnik.com/i-have-determined-the-correct-amount-of-horsepower-1821531670
Where Ballaban went on about the 300 horsepower.
For some reason that stuck with me and when I was shopping a German sport sedan for my new daily I wanted 300+hp. At first my budget was for a used something around 15k, but upon learning about the N54 and its inherent issues, I bumped the budget to 20k to find a BMW with the N55 engine with ticks the boxes of 3.0 liters, 300+hp, and 300+lb/ft, topped off with 30+mpg highway.
I’ve owned a 1982 Subaru GL with a whopping 72hp while living in the mountains with a lot of hills, you got used to just wringing it out, having to kick down to 3rd, then 2nd on a speed on I-70 was a pants shitter always.
It was great around town and traffic minus the lack of power steering and manual transmission. Power wise though, totally adequate flat with a max speed of 55.
I forgot to conclude that overall, having some noot in the scoot is a hoot when needed, and damn near a safety feature combined with defensive driving and good reaction time. Being able to get out of your own damn way is a luxury though, I completely understand the difference between nice to have and just getting by.
One of my earlier cars was an 87 Subaru GL koo-pay. While it was reasonably ok most of the time, I have clear memories of it struggling up somewhat steep hills in town when the AC was running. When I say struggling, I mean that it would almost entirely stall out going uphill unless I turned the AC off. I’m sure the 3AT did not help matters, but unless you were standing on the gas for a good while, it wasn’t in any major hurry. I certainly got around in it and managed to get a 90+ MPH speeding ticket in it (took a good while to get going that fast), I also recall many struggles to just get going.
I don’t miss the anxiety of stepping on the gas and that long pause as it would build a head of steam before proceeding.
However, I also don’t think we need 1000+ HP electric Hummers that weigh over 9000 lbs in this world.
I couldn’t imagine trying to drive the slushbox, lawdy no.
While I am willing to agree that many cars are over powered, I think where peak power is available is important here, and also, to be honest Torch, my guess is that both of your cars are ridiculously loud as highway speeds. Which would give me legit headaches to the point of being unable to drive.
By your metric, my 4343lb Lexus would only need 144hp. It has 276. While cruising at 70mph the rpms are about 1800 or so, and I doubt I am using even 144hp at that speed, is that enough for me to accelerate to highway speeds on short ramps or pass at highway speeds without slowing traffic in the left lane? What about when I am using the roof top box and the rear mounted bike rack? Would the smaller engine actually make the vehicle less fuel efficient? (and I am aware it is not really that efficient to begin with.)
I’m not an engineer, but I think 50 might be too low, while certainly acknowledging that 400hp+ in family movers that never get driven above 75-80mph is absurd (like the entire BMW M trims for their X-series SUV/CUV vehicles….600hp? REALLY!?)
My 2000 Honda Insight was fly-weight at 1800lbs, 67hp, 70mpg and I loved road tripping it across the country – and it wasn’t loud. At all. Or more accurately, on smooth pavement it was as quiet as a Lincoln and only ever became noisy on pavement with exaggerated aggregate.
It’s possible to make a modern, low hp car that isn’t a punishment box. Except that nobody does other than the Mitsubishi Mirage, a car that’s needlessly and curiously very ugly.
Pretty close to the reality. I’d propose that 65 hp would do it. My old ’78 Ford Fiesta had supposedly 66 hp and I had amazing fun with it. In a modern car at 1800 lbs, that’d be just fine.
As a driver of a 115 HP 1360 kg (3000 lb) VW Golf Diesel Wagon I wholeheartedly agree, this is my company car, I do mostly highway driving and A LOT of it with a trunk full of work tools (150 kg easy), no problems at all, it has just enough juice not to become a problem. Hell, rev it high before upshifts, like a small NA petrol engine, and it’s surprisingly quick.
That calculation is pretty acurate, I also own a 600 kg (1300 lb) 29 HP Citroen 2CV which tops out at 110 KPH and the only limiting factor here is speed, really. I have used it both as a daily and to travel 1500 km for holiday through some actual steep mountain passes. It’s still fun but it can’t keep up and travel time is genuinely longer.
But this is europe, we’ve been dealing with underpowered cars for ever, it seems.
I would further add to this that small economy cars can make great road trip cars. Last year I drove from Melbourne to Newcastle and back in my 1.25l, 4cyl 83hp Kia Picanto and it did it just as easily and comfortably as the car it replaced (which miss dearly), a 2000 Hyundai Grandeur with its 3.0l V6, 189hp, a car that was plush AF as opposed to the KIA which is a ‘city’ car blinged up on bigger wheels in ‘GT-Line’ trim. Also, 2013 Nissan Micra with a 1.2l 3cyl, 69hp made an awesome long distance car.
I also recently traded my 2010 Kawasaki Ninja 1000 (the fat person sports tourer with 135hp, not the superbike) for a Yamaha Nmax scooter, which has a quote 14.8hp, and it still sits on 100kph fine though it takes an extra 17 seconds to get there!
The only time I ever had a problem in my mom’s 1969 Mercedes Benz 240 D with a whopping 71 horsepower and 101 foot pounds of torque and 3050 pounds empty weight was climbing some hills in San Francisco. Driving up was not a problem but getting going from a dead stop very much was a problem. One foot on the brake, one on the clutch, and one on the “accelerator” and full revs. Let go of the brake, drop the clutch and if the wheels spin you start moving forward. No spin, no forward.
It would drive the length of I-80 at 75mph no problem though.