[realfan87]

Don't compare it to your sports car, but compared to the average car...

Would a 2800lbs., 110 hp car be considered "slow"?

[Bejemoelemymn]

I'd put it on the low end of economy cars. 25 lbs / HP is pretty high (where lower = better)

A 4 cyl Accord / Civic is ~20 lbs / HP for reference.

[JesikaFclq]

Not if you point it downhill.

[realfan87]

Reason I ask is in another car-enthusiast forum, I said my '90 Accord is "not fast, but not slow", at which some people said "anything lower than 200hp is slow".

I lawled.

[d1Bc25UP]

They are prolly from the school of thought of american muscle cars. Where 300+ HP is the norm. So to them anything under 200hp must be a snail to them.

[BqTyG9eS]

My girlfriends Escort is like 2400lbs and has like 110hp, something like that and that thing is slow. You can't pass people, or even get on the interstate with good speeds. It is ridiculous. My S10 is 3000lbs with 125hp and it is slow. Daily driving it does me fine, but still slow. Once I am in 3rd gear, even if I wait till 45mph to shift into it, the performance just drops off like a rock. Only 1st and 2nd pull nicely, but the others are just boring and take forever to get me into 60.

[Bejemoelemymn]

They are prolly from the school of thought of american muscle cars. Where 300+ HP is the norm. So to them anything under 200hp must be a snail to them.

I heard the same thing in highschool, anything under 200 HP is slow. Of course the reality is that it depends on the weight of the car. Look at the lotus elise. 189 HP (must be slow!) but with a weight of 1900 lbs it lb / hp ratio is very low and the car is very quick. It will out accelerate my 300+ HP car, and go on to drive circles around it.

[d1Bc25UP]

I heard the same thing in highschool, anything under 200 HP is slow. Of course the reality is that it depends on the weight of the car. Look at the lotus elise. 189 HP (must be slow!) but with a weight of 1900 lbs it lb / hp ratio is very low and the car is very quick. It will out accelerate my 300+ HP car, and go on to drive circles around it.

Exactly. That just goes to show that when looking at a new car, it's important to look at more info then just how much HP it has, engine size, and what "perks" are included with the car.

[SasV7ReJ]

I drive a lowly 90hp tdci small transit connect and while that sounds utterly **** the fact its very small and is very light empty (which it nearly always is) along with a tight gearbox means it definately isnt slow

All weight to power and a decent set of gears helps too (a 3 or 4 speed auto would kill it)

[ZesePreodaNed]

I wouldn't say it's slow, but it's definately not fast...

My sister drives a 135hp peugeot 206GTi, my girlfriend a 150hp New Beetle turbo and I a 240hp BMW 330Ci.

These are all, in my opinion, reasonably fast cars.

110Hp for a 2800lbs car is a little low, but if it's a diesel, then you'd have plenty of torque. That would make up for the "lack" of horsepower.
You could also consider chiptuning it (if it's a diesel/turbo), that would give you some extra power.

[andrekuper]

/hugs his 2005 E46 M3

[ZesePreodaNed]

/hugs his 2005 E46 M3

That answer is useless without pics of you sitting in the car!

[EspnaConCam]

It's subjective to power/weight ratio. In terms of average user cars:

VW Polo 1.8 turbo = 150bhp
VW Eos 1.8 turbo = 150bhp

The polo is a relatively light car (~1300kg) so it's not slow. The eos weighs close to 1700kg so it's way slower.

I don't think anything under 200bhp is slow... it depends



EDIT: oh and in reply to the poster's question, depending on gearing and torque, that car should be in the 9-10 seconds 0-60 area so it's kind of slow by today's standards :-/

We are now spoiled with sub 8 seconds cars and they are becoming cheaper, more widely available and readily factory semituned.

[sestomosi]

It's all relative really, I got as much enjoyment from my 96BHP Citroen AXGT as my 306 GTI6 @ 187bhp, both I considered quick but the Citroen felt more so due to its compact dimensions and skittish handling.
And anyone that claims cars below 200bhp are slow are just moronic or inexperienced.

Just sounds like typical internet nerd talk to me.

I'm in the Market for an Mx5 at the minute, it's only a 1.8i with a touch over 130bhp but the fun factor is 10+ and it's certainly not slow.

I also ride 2 Motorbikes and they make most motors look slow but I can still appreciate the experience and speed of a lesser powered car.

[Chooriwrocaey]

It's not a Gremlin, but it's definitely not a "quick" car by today's standards. My 91 Prelude was a quick car at 2700 lbs, 140 hp, and close gear ratios (8.4s 0-60, 16.3 s 1/4 mile)... but even with today's standards it was becoming quite average.

As to the "under 200hp is slow" crowd, thats bollocks. My SE-R Spec V has 175hp/180 lb-ft torque, close ratio six speed manual, and weighs 2800 lbs. Runs respectably quick 0-60 MPH time of 7.1 s and 1/4 mile time at 15.2 s. If that's "slow" then I must be mistaken.

[petrarkaponye]

yes thats slow. by todays standards, atleast in north america, the average car will go to 60 in around 7.5 seconds. hell even minivans will do it in 8.

but in the end who cares. if the car is fun to you then whatever. my summer car is 2500 lbs and 280whp and thats starting to feel slow to me now. usually i go for a drive in my truck though and that fixes it. feels like an f1 car after my truck haha

[Bejemoelemymn]

yes thats slow. by todays standards, atleast in north america, the average car will go to 60 in around 7.5 seconds. hell even minivans will do it in 8.

It really is.
A number of 4 door family sedans will do 0-60 in under 6.5 seconds.
A few will even do it under 6 seconds (Nissan Altima for example).

Cars are getting faster.

[realfan87]

It really is.
A number of 4 door family sedans will do 0-60 in under 6.5 seconds.
A few will even do it under 6 seconds (Nissan Altima for example).

Cars are getting faster.

Obviously it's slow by today's standards. It's a 20 year old car!

I was trying to get an objective answer. Like, ignoring everything else.

I don't think it's "slow". Just not fast.

[Bejemoelemymn]

It's slow dude [rofl]

At least, based strictly on HP and weight. Could have other factors weighing in (gearing), but even gearing won't help all that much.

I'd have to guess, oh... 0-60 in high 9s?

[edit]
Though I suppose, subjectively, if you ignored all vehicles made in the last 50 years is pretty fast!
But high 9s, compared to modern average vehicles, is slow.

[more edit!]
Because I was curious, and because I didn't know myself, I looked up what the "average" 0-60 time of a modern car is.
This article shows that based on the average of 288 vehicles made in the 2000s, the average 0-60 time is 6.17 seconds. That being said, I'm not sure 288 vehicles is enough, and I can just about guarantee that's not 288 unique vehicles. So there may be 10 of the same model for example, like the 2001, 2002, 2002 SE, 2002 Uber, etc... at least that's my assumption based on their source.
Also keep in mind this is not weighted on the number of vehicles on the road. So it's like Viper + Civic / 2 = average. So the 6.17 number is a very, very raw number based purely on vehicles that exist regardless of how many are actually populating the roadways.

[poekfpojoibien]

I'm driving a Vauxhall Corsa that weighs a tonne (1000KG) and has 80bhp on tap. Now that sounds pretty crap, but for driving around a town (which is what I do here in the UK largely), it's more than adequete enough. It still gets up to speed in a reasonable time and will hapilly cruise at any speed limit.

Still, a cheap-to-run car like this with a few years down the line will help me pay for an even better car (something closer to 200hp) after some more driving experience with some discount on insurance. [dots]