Horse power, why do we need so much?

[ericmark]

In the 1970's I towed a 14 foot caravan with a 62 HP vehicle, today I two a 16 foot with a 138 HP vehicle both with low ratio boxes and both seemed to have ample power, the 62 HP Austin Gipsy I used to tow up Sutton Bank and had a couple of gears to spare in low ratio, today caravans banned from that road.

But even for light cars, the Morris Minor 27.5 HP, Standard 8 about the same in 1950's the British cars could do around 60 MPH at 40 MPG except for the fords. The French were getting 60 MPG with their 2CV cars. Today one odd one at 17 HP the G-Wiz but most cars even the early Agila was 64 HP that is more than the old Austin Gipsy however would not like to tow a caravan with it.

The Mini was 33 HP now 189 HP why do we need so much power?

 

[Mottie]

When I was young - 15 or 16, I used to do Anglia hot-rod and banger racing. My dad would tow me and my cars to meetings on a home made trailer in his 1500 Ford Corsair GT. One day the Corsair engine threw a rod. We couldn’t get another 1500 engine so we temporarily used one from a 1200 Anglia. That would still tow a trailer with a Zodiac or Zephyr 6 on it and 5 people plus tools etc in the tow car so it ended up staying in the Corsair. I’m pretty sure it was less than 50 HP. I’m surprised the clutch held out!

Me in one of my cars - look at those vinyl racing gloves.

 

[ericmark]

I accept that we tend to drive a little faster today however not sure that is good, but on a non duel carriageway the speed limit is still 50 MPH for a caravan, a bit of a pain as the Kia Sorento engine is running too slow in 5th to have the torque required, even with a camping trailer, at 60 MPH I can put in cruise control and it will sail up the hills on the A55 but at 50 MPH I am playing tunes with the gear box.

Not towed with Jag XE but with an eight speed auto box not even sure I know what gear it is in anyway, the towing limit is higher with auto than with manual with that car.

So it says I can tow 3 ton with Sorento not a clue with Gipsy I know my father-in-law towed a boat which had ballast still in it which he didn't realise had been left in, so likely around 5 ton, I will not say no problem, dropping into low range is not what you want to do on a normal road.

But I am considering giving up caravanning, and the Jag is wife's, so have started looking around for new car, the Agila and Yaris we had were about right size, the Jazz is too low want a more upright car, and clearly want better MPH to the Jaguar XE diesel so that is 46 - 50.7 in the books, the Honda Jazz is about the same as Petrol so looking at around 75 MPG to be worth running second car, even the G-Wiz would do what I want, normal run out less than 20 miles, also do 50 miles to one daughters and 100 miles return to other children so the 75 miles range is a problem.

Milkman across the road from us got a Kango electric claimed range 100 miles his round was 64 miles, and some times he did not make it, so it seems electric cars don't do the range claimed, and unlike my ebike you can't pedal when battery goes flat. The ebike actually has a better range to the G-Wiz.

But it seems each manufacturer makes huge strides then sits back for 10 years, so in 2002 when we looked the Kia seemed around the best, and Jaguar was well down, but in 18 years Kia has not changed, but Jaguar has, so today the Jag comes out on top. So smallest Kia the Pacanto claims 42.2 MPG, the Jaguar XE is better than that. Kia did do no cost extra diesel that seems to have gone.

Toyota Aygo says 53.2 - 56.4 it is not much better than the Jag. It was 68.9 when fitted with Ford diesel but that means second hand. And they seem rare, so what was wrong with them?

The Morris Minor was 39.3 MPG seems we have not improved much over the last 40 years or so.

 

[Munroast]

I think the whole concept of modern cars is a result of some mental aberration, we are paying vast amounts of money for stuff we simply do not need.

We currently have a car full of pointless crap, one of its many useless add-ons is an engine performance display, I doubt in my normal driving I have used more than 40 of its 170bhp We have undoubtedly paid a lot of money to have an engine capable of rapidly accelerating a car full of extremely fat people up a very steep hill. I'm sure a 50 or 60 horse motor would have been more the sufficient

It would be really interesting to know how many mpg cars would be capable of if we had kept to the same proportions and engine outputs of 50 years ago - 100+ mpg ?

 

[EddieM]

Modern cars are much heavier than cars from say the 60's and 70's, a lot of it due to safety measures, as to them being filled with junk technology, well certainly a truism, but some things like ABS, and ESC are mandatory.

 

[bernardgreen]

but some things like ABS, and ESC are mandatory.

But in days long gone motorists ( as opposed to car owners ) could manually perform the functions of ABS and ESC to a reasonably acceptable standard.

While this car may not be optimum for normal use it does prove that economy is possible,
https://www.businessinsider.com/prototype-car-gets-2713-miles-per-gallon-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

 

[EddieM]

But in days long gone motorists ( as opposed to car owners ) could manually perform the functions of ABS and ESC to a reasonably acceptable standard.

While this car may not be optimum for normal use it does prove that economy is possible,
https://www.businessinsider.com/prototype-car-gets-2713-miles-per-gallon-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

All moot I suppose, what with the proposed demise of the ICE. Can't imagine car firms are investing much in ICE technology now.

It's also worth noting that modern cars have a fraction of the emissions of older vehicles.

 

[Munroast]

Modern cars are much heavier than cars from say the 60's and 70's, a lot of it due to safety measures, as to them being filled with junk technology, we certainly a truism, but some things like ABS, and ESC are mandatory.

many of the saftey features would not need be so extensive if we were not so obsessed with going so fast, we are driving faster and faster in bigger and heavier cars, we seem to be in some sort of mad arms race. May be personal transport should have been limited to half a ton and 40 mph.

 

[ericmark]

I think the catalytic converter caused a big drop in MPG, the lean burn engine was far better.

 

[EddieM]

I think the catalytic converter caused a big drop in MPG, the lean burn engine was far better.

Well not to worry, we'll soon be pootling about in glorified milk floats, desperately searching for a charging point.

 

[ericmark]

As to safety my biggest worry is the armourco barrier is my biggest worry, if a car hits me on my bike and pushes me through a hedge I will be hurt, but trapped between car and armourco barrier I am dead, I think where ever a armourco barrier is erected there should be a cycle track on other side of it.

 

[ericmark]

All moot I suppose, what with the proposed demise of the ICE. Can't imagine car firms are investing much in ICE technology now.

It's also worth noting that modern cars have a fraction of the emissions of older vehicles.

I am sure ICE is not image correction and enhancement so what is it?

 

[bernardgreen]

Internal Combustion Engine

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Cars are much heavier, people expect more comfort, many more bells and whistles than the 60's. My car is much better comfort equipped than my home. My home doesn't have climate control, powered memory seats and etc..

My caravan is also quite luxurious and for its size weighs in about 50% heavier than the caravans I had in the 60's.

Material have become much lighter and more efficient, but now we counter than with more materials.

 

[Stivino]

Also;
In Car Entertainment