Our Community is 705,000 Strong. Join Us.


power to weight comparison


zx2guy
02-27-2006, 07:42 PM
ive been trying to figure out for a while now, which is better: big power and big weight, or good power low weight. one of the ways im trying to put it into perspective is. say a 69 chevelle (massive power.... but its also nearly 2 tons of sheet metal), and a built.... for shits and giggles.... a turbo 3000gt. (less power, however it also has less weight) pulled to the line.who would win? i know this kinda ranks up there with the viper v metro. but im trying to figure out if power to weight plays as big a role as i think it does. to use an example lets say the chevelle makes 1 pony for every... 100 lbs( which is wrong its just a top of the head figure), and the gt has 98lbs per pony. does that mean the 3000gt would win? or am i missing something that should be added to the mix?

TatII
02-27-2006, 07:48 PM
hahah a 3000GT wouldn't weight much less then a chevelle. those things weights 3800 lbs. so its almost 2 tons.

the main rule is this, weight is more of your enemy from a dead stop. so if you weight two tons, you better have a shit load of tq and good gearing to get that initial weight moving.

a 3000Gt makes good tq and has AWD so on the street traction is not an issue. i'm sure hte chevelle with suspension work done and slicks or drag radials would out launch it. but once you get rolling its all about aerodynamics and power.

to double your speed, you need 8X's the power. so if your as aerodynamic as a brick, you'll be limited fast.

bikes are considered to be aerodynamically bad, a 600cc bike with a pro rider can run the 1/4 in 10 second @ like 130mph. however they only have a top speed of 165mph.

a high 12 second 1/4 mile C6 vette has a higher top speed. this is becasue it has more grunt and is sleeker.

so it depends on what type of racing you do, and how long the race is gonna go for.

SuperHighOutput
02-27-2006, 09:23 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the Chevelle is actually the lighter of the two cars.

One thing you're forgetting is gearing.

TatII
02-28-2006, 12:16 AM
yeah i mentioned gearing when i was talkin about the chevelle.

clawhammer
02-28-2006, 01:09 PM
If you want to compare power to weight, look at these:

4000 pound 400 horsepower Chevelle (roughly)
vs.
2000 pound 200 horsepower Elise (roughly)

Same power to weight ratio.

zx2guy
02-28-2006, 07:03 PM
If you want to compare power to weight, look at these:

4000 pound 400 horsepower Chevelle (roughly)
vs.
2000 pound 200 horsepower Elise (roughly)

Same power to weight ratio.

then in a race it would be pretty much the drivers and not the cars? thats what im trying to get at.

BlackGT2000
03-01-2006, 05:53 AM
There is alot more that goes into it than just a formula between power and weight and gearing. It would really be hard to tell who is faster just from seeing a few simple stats on a car.

drunken monkey
03-01-2006, 09:08 AM
i'm thinking chassis set up and handling/behaviour of the car plays a major part too.
going back to the examples given, you'd have to assume that both cars behave in the same manner (even given their differerent transmission set-up) for it to be a meaningful sample study.
of course, we all know that they're not like that so the examples don't really mean much.

blakscorpion21
03-01-2006, 01:57 PM
lighter is always better. better handling, acceleration, brakind and fuel economy. heavy cars can be fast with alot of power but will never handle as good as a light car. the 400hp chevelle may run on par with an elise on the drag but would get absolutley slaughtered on a real track. thats why most old muscle cars are not that impressive acceleration wise. they just weigh too much. sure it may have ungodly power but still does 0-60 in 6-7 seconds. fast, but not THAT impressive by todays standards. thats why little civics can put up decent times with less that 200hp while it will take a muscle car 350-400hp to pull off the same times.

BlackGT2000
03-01-2006, 02:53 PM
Well there was also alot more to it than their "heavy weight", many of those old muscle cars really only weighed in around 3000. there were a few that were actually under that. Most had sloppy suspensions and they all had inferior tires compared to todays vehicals. Not to mention those were the days of 3 and 4 speed manuals.

blakscorpion21
03-01-2006, 03:09 PM
really that light? then again they did have very few of the things todays cars have. there is just no excuse for 4000lb cars today. look at the charger, it is a discrace imo. a true sports car shouldnt weigh more than 3k although there are some good sporsts cars that do.

zx2guy
03-01-2006, 08:29 PM
you forced me to get my big book of american cars out... there are actually lots of chevelle variations but here are 2:

the 69 (chevelle) 300 Del coupe v8 weighs 3,165 lbs (the greenbrier wagon version v8> 3,740) heres a fun fact for you the difference between the htp cpe v8 (hardtop coupe) and the inline 6 was 105 lbs.
it also had one hell of a motor selection:
i4: 153 ci
i6: 230, 250 ci
v8: 302, 307, 327(2 versions), 350 (2 versions), 396 (3 versions), and the god above them all the 427

but there must be an error in my book it says chevy didnt use a v6 til '78

deadbolt_35
03-02-2006, 05:33 PM
really that light? then again they did have very few of the things todays cars have. there is just no excuse for 4000lb cars today. look at the charger, it is a discrace imo. a true sports car shouldnt weigh more than 3k although there are some good sporsts cars that do.

for one thing, the charger was meant to be a true sports car, and i'm not surprised that old muscle cars are that 'light'.

it's incredibly hard for modern carmakers to make light cars. all of the safety regulations today compared to back then add lots of weight, and now people need their cars to be so stiff and rigid, as far as the cars chassis goes, and that adds a lot of weight. still more, today cars have cd players and complex climate controls systems and computers and sound deadening material all throughout the car and whatever else, and that adds weight too.

the 400hp chevelle may run on par with an elise on the drag

an elise hits 60 in 4.4 seconds, so i doubt it. even if a 400hp chevelle has a better power to weight ratio then an elise, like blackgt was saying, there's a lot more that goes into acceleration then just power to weight ratios, the quality and width of it's tires along with the suspension and chassis, and i bet the elise has better gearing for acceleration too

Fuzzy_C
03-02-2006, 10:11 PM
power to weight doesn't really matter when you have gearing and torque on your side, take me for instance, i got my 80 trans am, 301, bone stock, 150hp, 3700lbs, yet i can humiliate a 250hp honda civic from a solid launch or rolling start, i actually heard one guy after a race say to his friend "he must have a 454 in that thing" lol, very, very few people know what i actually got under my hood, but if they found out it's a stock 301, they'd go trade in their mustang in a heartbeat.

and the 150hp is just what a book said the engine should have stock, so it probly has even less than that.

kman10587
03-03-2006, 12:37 AM
Muscle cars in general from the 1970's were heavy as shit, but in the mid-60's, before they got all glitzy and glamourous, most of 'em didn't weigh much more than 3000 pounds. It's not like they had seatbelts, airbags, overhead camshafts, or electronic equipment to weigh them down, and they actually weren't very big compared to a lot of cars today. I'd wager that a V8 Chevelle from anywhere in the 1960's weighed less than any twin turbo 3000GT.

zx2guy
03-03-2006, 07:21 PM
3000 gt's weighed 1740 kilos.... anybody body got a conversion ratio and a calculator?


edit: it equals out to be 3157 lbs.

deadbolt_35
03-03-2006, 07:29 PM
just go to www.onlineconversion.com

it 3836lbs......which has already been established

zx2guy
03-03-2006, 07:40 PM
HA oops, the site i checked out with the poundage must not have been the turbo awd.

kman10587
03-03-2006, 08:25 PM
Yep, those twin turbos and AWD system (not to mention all the bullshit gizmoes and gadgets that come with the VR-4) really weigh it down.

zx2guy
03-04-2006, 08:43 PM
did the same to the dsm's my laser (1.8 stick) me and 4 or 5 good sized friends could pick it up (not high but the wheels were off the ground) but those awd dsms were heavy and you could really feel it in the corners... sure they had the handling but you could feel the extra 700+ lbs. that includes the extra sound material, extra reinforceing, the equipment... and all those extra doodads.

blakscorpion21
03-06-2006, 01:44 PM
power to weight doesn't really matter when you have gearing and torque on your side, take me for instance, i got my 80 trans am, 301, bone stock, 150hp, 3700lbs, yet i can humiliate a 250hp honda civic from a solid launch or rolling start, i actually heard one guy after a race say to his friend "he must have a 454 in that thing" lol, very, very few people know what i actually got under my hood, but if they found out it's a stock 301, they'd go trade in their mustang in a heartbeat.

and the 150hp is just what a book said the engine should have stock, so it probly has even less than that.

theres no way a 150hp 3700lb car will beat a 250hp 2600~lb car. and i doubt a 301 is only putting down 150 horses, thats pathetic. but i dont care how much torque you have, you will NOT beat a car with 100 more hp and over 1000 less lbs.

sportscar35
09-11-2009, 10:20 PM
a lighter car with less horse is a better idea it takes way less hp to go as fast in a light car and with a smaller engine the car will weigh even less so you will end up paying less for a lighter can and still go just as fast plus you get better handleing breaking and acceleration

Add your comment to this topic!