• Hi Guest!
    You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

Found this page about factory horsepower.

Share this page

Good page!
Too bad they didn't get the A series OHC engine worked out.
And, although I am not sure I trust the actual values, they are all at least a useful reference, so various A series engines can be compared with each other.

Keep in mind the following (paraphrased from some SAE literature....I'm an SAE member): Prior to 1972, automakers selling in the US rated their engines in terms of SAE gross horsepower (defined under SAE standards J245 and J1995). Gross hp was measured using a <u>blueprinted test engine</u> running on a stand without accessories, mufflers, or emissions control devices. It therefore reflected a <u>maximum, theoretical value</u>, not the power of an installed engine in a street car. Gross horsepower figures were also subject to considerable adjustment by carmakers: the power ratings of engines were often exaggerated.

Most private owners will not be able to have their engines bench-tested on a dyno, but they can easily get the rear wheel horsepower measured. This can be around 20% less from horsepower at the flywheel.

The SAE just came up with a new rating sytem in 2005. Some cars are actually rated higher with the new measurements.
 
Has anyone come up with power/weight ratio figures?
I tend to think that because our cars can't really be compared to anything on todays roads, power to weight may be a little closer to compare, so to speak?
Just curious....
 
Baz said:
Has anyone come up with power/weight ratio figures?
I tend to think that because our cars can't really be compared to anything on todays roads, power to weight may be a little closer to compare, so to speak?
Just curious....
Click to expand...

Good idea!! I have always felt that this is one of the strong points of our little cars! It would be interesting to have facts and figures on that! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
 
At one time I calculated the power to weight ratio, and I remember feeling unimpressed. However, what makes these cars fun is their handling/suspension (that is not great) but good in the sense that you feel the road and can easily place the car. The driving position is also "right". Plus, the low gearing makes 0-40 mph pretty fast... and 40 mph in a tiny open top car feels fast (fun).

... just my 2 cents
 
Twenty feels preaty darn good here.
 
Just wait until you get a real seat!
 
Maybe I should just not use seats, same kick, less speed.
 
... do you mean the noise and commotion?
 
bugimike said:
Baz said:
Has anyone come up with power/weight ratio figures?
I tend to think that because our cars can't really be compared to anything on todays roads, power to weight may be a little closer to compare, so to speak?
Just curious....
Click to expand...

Good idea!! I have always felt that this is one of the strong points of our little cars! It would be interesting to have facts and figures on that! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
Click to expand...

My Westfield 11 should weigh in at 1200 lbs. (1/4 less than the donor Midget) and a good 1380cc A-series can easily put out 100 rwhp (125 crank hp). That works out to 208 hp/ton. That is equivelent to a 400hp car @ 3840lbs, not a supercar, but still pretty good!
 
aeronca65t said:
Good page!
Too bad they didn't get the A series OHC engine worked out.
And, although I am not sure I trust the actual values, they are all at least a useful reference, so various A series engines can be compared with each other.

Keep in mind the following (paraphrased from some SAE literature....I'm an SAE member): Prior to 1972, automakers selling in the US rated their engines in terms of SAE gross horsepower (defined under SAE standards J245 and J1995). Gross hp was measured using a <u>blueprinted test engine</u> running on a stand without accessories, mufflers, or emissions control devices. It therefore reflected a <u>maximum, theoretical value</u>, not the power of an installed engine in a street car. Gross horsepower figures were also subject to considerable adjustment by carmakers: the power ratings of engines were often exaggerated.

Most private owners will not be able to have their engines bench-tested on a dyno, but they can easily get the rear wheel horsepower measured. This can be around 20% less from horsepower at the flywheel.

The SAE just came up with a new rating sytem in 2005. Some cars are actually rated higher with the new measurements.
Click to expand...
Well, this comes from a UK site. Did the Austin Rover folks use the same stuff they did here in the states to calculate HP. I can see that the HP did not really go up that much using the A series in the later models even with upgrades. Maybe there was a change in there somewhere. The only significant change seems to be the turbo.
 
Baz said:
Has anyone come up with power/weight ratio figures?
I tend to think that because our cars can't really be compared to anything on todays roads, power to weight may be a little closer to compare, so to speak?
Just curious....
Click to expand...
I have always liked small cars since my first one was a big dodge that got 9mpg. I have not had anything but a 4 cylinder in over 10 years. I would say that a very close comparison would be the Ford Festiva. It has 65HP and weighs like 1600lbs. I bought one for my wife who wanted a small car. We bought it in 1993. It was a 1991 model with 60,000 miles on it(someone really put the miles in it for it to only be 18 months old). She still drives the car today and it has around 210,000 on it. I have changed timing belts and regular oil changes, some struts, Its a little hard on mufflers and tires, but still drives as good as it did new, has plenty of power and will really scat and still has the original clutch in it. The speedo only goes to 85 but I have had it all the way around to the "Y" in "unleaded fuel only" and I figure that was close to 100. I love the car, it alwasy get 40mpg(thats average not all highway miles on some trip like people try to bs you with). The wife drives all over with it mostly stop and go. I hope that my midget will produce similar results with the higher rear gear and 5 speed.
 
Some typical HP/ton values:

Spridget (65hp/1600lbs)=81.25 Testarossa 390hp/3320lbs=234.93 911Turbo (300hp/2884lbs)=208.04 Countach (455hp/3320lbs)=274.09
Westfield (125hp/1200lbs)=208.33

HP/weightx2000 = hp per ton
 
Well thats all nice but how does it compare to cars sold today that would be a competitor to it such as the Miata, S2000, Z3-4, SMART roadster, etc
 
Miata: 144hp/2363lbs=118.49
BMW Z4: 225hp/2998lbs=150.1
S2000: 237hp/2255lbs=166.72
 
Completely different cars my good man!! If it weren't for the Bugeyes, midgets, minis, etc... none of the others would exist!!
 
I remember from my school days that a ton is actually 2,240 pounds, ie 20 cwt where a cwt (hundredweight) is 112 pounds. And a cwt is also 8 stone, where a stone is 14 pounds.

So when you hear an antique Brit like me telling you his weight in stones, you know to divide by 14 to get pounds.

Do I have everyone confused? Except my fellow antique Brits... + This has to be the most confused system of weights and measures ever invented, but it did survive for several hundred years before being supplanted finally and thankfully by the metric system, at least in the UK.
 
It's not that hard if you were also raised with pounds, shillings and pence, Chris, Oh, and not to mention, farthings, ha'pennies, guinies, etc. hehehehe!! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/devilgrin.gif The channel used to be much wider in them days!! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cheers.gif
 
Back
Top