Power to weight ratio of your car?

Sin_Chase · 5 Jul 2011 at 10:45

S2000 ~188BHP/Tonne.

Working from a Non-Hardtop quoted weight but unsure if that includes AC/Audio as there is also a reference to a weight with HardTop+AC+Audio on Wiki.

Probably about right as I have a lighter cat back system and no tools or spacesaver.

mjt · 5 Jul 2011 at 10:47

Z3 3.0i Coupe

231/1405 = 164bhp/tonne

tsinc80697 · 5 Jul 2011 at 10:48

Fiesta - 73bhp - 75bhp/tonne
That's when the Fiesta was new, in 1997, so I guess it's nowhere near that now!

350Z - 295bhp - 191bhp/tonne
Dyno'd a few months ago so should be accurate!

Building Candy · 5 Jul 2011 at 10:51

My old Nova was 330bhp/tonne, however my Clio sport is not

Gaygle · 5 Jul 2011 at 10:52

BMW 330i Sport

231/1495 = 155bhp/tonne

PMKeates · 5 Jul 2011 at 11:03

Skeeter said:
Where'd you dig up another 8bhp from? The stock 182 figure is 176bhp.

In the context used here it is 182 HP, as most manufacturers publish metric HP to the EU standard, which is closely related to DIN.

Skeeter · 5 Jul 2011 at 11:09

PMKeates said:
In the context used here it is 182 HP, as most manufacturers publish metric HP to the EU standard, which is closely related to DIN.

The 182 is just a number. They are 178PS or 176bhp. Actually mine is 169PS so only 167bhp (I will edit my post).

PMKeates · 5 Jul 2011 at 11:19

Skeeter said:
The 182 is just a number. They are 178PS or 176bhp. Actually mine is 169PS so only 167bhp (I will edit my post).

I'm fairly certain it's not a number. The 182 represents the metric HP produced by the engine when in conformance to the EU directive standard (or potentially another standard).

Princey · 5 Jul 2011 at 11:25

243.372 bhp per ton.

400bhp
1670KG
1.676 tons

PMKeates · 5 Jul 2011 at 11:28

Doing some more research I think the Clio 182 is 182 metric HP to DIN 70020 rather than EEC 80/1269. Unless we are certain of the power measurement standard for all of the power figures in this thread, he is effectively free to quote 182 HP and you cannot call it out as any more wrong than any other figure.

NathWraith · 5 Jul 2011 at 11:30

I thought the 182 referred to the PS rating so 182PS = 179.5HP?

Skeeter · 5 Jul 2011 at 11:31

Nope. Its just a number thats 10 more than 172, which in its self is just a number used for marketing purposes. I expect the marketing bods decided that 172 sounded nicer than 169, and then the same bods decided that 182 was a nice number for a revamped version.

The 197 and 200 are PS figures however.

cymatty · 5 Jul 2011 at 11:32

Power at Flywheel (BHP) : 312
Weight without Driver (KG) : 1420
Power to Weight Ratio (BHP Per Ton) : 223.25
0 - 60 (Secs) : 4.54
0 - 100 (Secs) : 11.85
60 - 100 (Secs) : 7.32
Quarter Mile (Secs) : 13.23
Terminal Speed (MPH) : 105.62

If only those performance stats were true.

Scythe · 5 Jul 2011 at 11:33

My bike derestricted: 370bhp/ton

Restricted as it is for a few more months: 174 bhp/ton

ng93 · 5 Jul 2011 at 11:33

mk2 polo - 73bhp/ton

although once im finished with it should be more like 167bhp/ton

edit: stock is 55bhp/750kgs. im planning on 100bhp/600kgs. combine that with stiffer suspension and a quick shifter and should be a whole lotta fun for not much cash

NathWraith · 5 Jul 2011 at 11:38

Skeeter said:
Nope. Its just a number thats 10 more than 172, which in its self is just a number used for marketing purposes. I expect the marketing bods decided that 172 sounded nicer than 169, and then the same bods decided that 182 was a nice number for a revamped version.

The 197 and 200 are PS figures however.

Thats weird. Well it is french afterall

PMKeates · 5 Jul 2011 at 11:38

Skeeter said:
Nope. Its just a number thats 10 more than 172, which in its self is just a number used for marketing purposes. I expect the marketing bods decided that 172 sounded nicer than 169, and then the same bods decided that 182 was a nice number for a revamped version.

The 197 and 200 are PS figures however.

I'm sorry but I think you are wrong. Do you think they 'decided it was nicer', or they just used the higher power figure produced by the other measurement and correction standard? There is a difference between 'ISO' (ISO 9429) and 'DIN' power figures that is typically exactly the difference between both 169 and 172 and 178 and 182, and I find that more than coincidental. Renault are known in the industry for publishing combinations of DIN/ISO/EEC power figures and I personally have had to 'negotiate' with Renault in Paris regarding consistent coding of their rated engine outputs so am very familiar with this difference.

Nick1881 · 5 Jul 2011 at 11:43

My Lexus IS300 should be about 155 bhp/ton. Hard to find the weight.

My brothers Supra should be over 260 bhp/ton.

Integra track car estimated at 172 bhp/ton.

Sagalout · 5 Jul 2011 at 11:43

I'll add myself as rider to give the cars a chance:

160 / 0.245 = 653 bhp / tonne

...nope, still no chance

Skeeter · 5 Jul 2011 at 11:43

Good for you, bet that was fun.

But seen as everyone in this thread has written 'bhp' after their figures, I'm going to use the (documented) bhp figures for the Clio's as a case for comparison. Bottom line is, neither car is 172bhp or 182bhp.

If you want to go through and correct everyone power figures using the various measurement standards, feel free, although I think everyone is happy using 'bhp'.