[GTO]

Great thread! I am honestly surprised at how much fun the cheap cars are today. Loved the tune of the 1.0 NA motor in the S-Presso, and enjoyed the Aura / Grand i10's turbo-petrol. Manufacturers are definitely becoming better and better at massaging more power out of their small engines. And it's not just small cars - even in the segments above, we've seen a significant bump up in performance. Who would have imagined an Innova with 172 BHP? That's more power than the C-Class & 3-Series of a decade ago.

Eagerly waiting for 125 BHP / Ton to become the new normal. Although, the democratization of performance will really happen with EVs. Electric cars will give us <10-lakh rupee options that can do 0 - 100 in 7 to 8 seconds.

[Lowflyer23]

Originally Posted by Torquedo

Wawwww, Calls for a party, Yayyyyyyy. A quarter into the 21st century and we are rejoicing 100HP/Ton and most of it contributed to -

Tins cans from Maruti, it's the weight that we are seeing those figures, a 1500 kgs with 100 HP/ton are still few and far between and if there be, an overstretch for a normal Indian.

Would you trade an Espresso for an Ikon or a Wagon R for a Palio 1.6 ?

Well said, people take joy in owning tin cans with low-grade metal and call them fast, of course they would be fast. When you have doors that get dented by simply taking support while standing and bumpers which fall off with a slight brush from cyclists then these cars would be fast even with smaller engines. A baleno weighs only 200 kgs more than the humble 800 and I'm damn sure Maruti is not using carbon fibre tubs or aluminium chassis. It would be better if we rejoice well built and powerful cars rather than going gaga over 100 bhp paperboats.

Originally Posted by turbo

Maruti does make some very refined, decently powerful engines, with very light bodies. Again, a lot of people don't like them, and call them various names, and then go buy a dreadfully slow Tiago, and proudly say "its our country's iron".

And then there are people like me, who buy a swift, refined agile, and light-weight.

No offense mate and I don't want to start a debate here but this is what happens with all that light weight advantages, understand that compromises are made. Also, I have never seen a Tiago crushed and folded like a bisleri bottle: (due credits to the image owners)

[GeeTee TSI]

At the risk of sounding like a pessimist, I lament at the state of Indian car market (motorbikes haven't had it better, on the contrary)

While some of the hero cars of 1-2 decades ago transformed the market by introducing 100 bhp machines with 10-11s sprint times (I believe the norm then was 60-70 bhp and maybe 14+s sprint time), some of the ones being compared to from current breed offer nothing spectacular IMHO.

Engine sizes have remained unchanged for most part, power and torque (but for the exception of turbo petrols) have hardly increased significantly. The cars are supposed to safer and more refined at the expense of added weight (as pointed out in an earlier post, we don't have exotic materials being used to produce RS versions of cars). An original Morris Mini Cooper weighed around 650kg sprinting to 60mph around 10s, while the current Mini Cooper weighing in at around 1350kg does it in 7s - that is progress

A lighter than norm, relatively less safe, less refined car actually leaves us worse off than where we were 2 decades ago! Where we have really made strides is in fuel efficiency where the cars being referred to are best in class

[vinya_jag]

I wouldn't consider Power to weight and feel good about it.

I might be wrong, but these figures are calculated per Kerb weight, and I am guessing Indian Kerb weight figures don't consider a lot of items.

ReDoing the math from two models in the first post.

Maruti Suzuki WagonR 1.2 - 81.8 bhp / 830 kg - 98.6 bhp / ton.
Ford Ecosport 1.5 Petrol - 121 bhp / 1188 kgs - 102 bhp/ton

Add the extra weight to these:
Considering our driving style, a small family of three, 35 Liters of Fuel, spare wheel and tyre, Luggage = An extra 200 to 250Kgs.

The Power to weight figures
Maruti Suzuki - 75.74 bhp/ton
Ecosport - 84.14 bhp/ton

Part 2
Cosider driving with AC always ON.
Did a little reading that it could extract anywhere between 7 and 30% of engine power based on how long AC has been running, and how hard we are accelerating.
A safe 12% drop in power, if we consider, and redo the math

WagonR - 59.15 bhp/ton
Ecosport - 75.8 bhp/ton

Before 96.67 vs 100
After 78.03 vs 100

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by turbo

No surprise almost all the cars in the opening post are from Maruti Suzuki.

Hyundai should have had more cars in the list, but they do not reveal proper weight figures. For example - i20 was excluded because I could not figure out the exact weight, but just saw an owner's post that the RC shows 1096 kg. So that makes another entry (118.3 bhp / 1096 kgs - 107.9 bhp/ton).

Originally Posted by turbo

And then there are people like me, who buy a swift, refined agile, and light-weight.

Arguably - Swift was better when originally launched, thanks to stiffer suspension and better steering. However - when it comes to power to weight - Swift has improved from 87bhp/ton to 101 bhp/ton over the years.

Originally Posted by ruzbehxyz

However I would keep the Marutis out of the equation due to construction material. Won't go down that road, as that is extensively discussed here and online. Can't compare the WagonR to the Palio, obviously due to tougher construction the Palio is heavier.

Poor safety is a cost-reduction choice these companies make. It doesn't have much to do with weight, or the lack of it - as the international counterparts of these cars have proven to us.

Originally Posted by Emvi

Nice compilation!
I believe even the modern day MPVs have improved considerably in this regard, especially Innova and Ertiga.

True. The new Innova is fast for an MPV, especially when compared to the earlier generation!

Originally Posted by anb

In early 2010's powerful D segment sedans were available. Laura, Jetta with 2.0 TDI, Cruze,Laura 1.8, Polo 1.5/1.6 TDI, Vento 1.6 TDI, Fiesta 1.6 etc. There is no such cars available now.

D segment sedans went down brutally - except for the Skoda Octavia (which will be back soon). But Polo/ Vento 1.5 TDI and TSI have a faster replacement in the 1.0 TSI.

Originally Posted by rajivr1612

Along with bhp/ton one needs to look at N-m/ton as well.

Does this make sense?

Absolutely. Torque/weight plays a big role. For example -

https://youtu.be/mfNRhvm1aOw

Power to weight isn't an absolute figure, but taking too many parameters would have simply complicated the thread. Kept it simple for the sake of explanation. With the advent of turchocharged motors - torque / weight is much better than ever before.

Originally Posted by Torquedo

4 wheels is a hopeless situation, till you look at 340i or a polestar, launched and buried.

Please for heaven's sake, there is nothing to rejoice about these figures.

99.9% of people, even on this forum, would never get to own a 340i. Whole different topic if you think anything less than that isn't fun on our roads -

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/india...sive-ones.html (When smaller, cheaper cars are more fun-to-drive than bigger & expensive ones)

[haisaikat]

But shouldn't we rejoice over torque to weight and the early availability of that torque more than compared to peak power to weight ratio? Power to weight ratio does not guarantee a car being faster than another, as gear ratio, torque at wheel, wheel size all matters in elevating a car's status to be fast.

There is a similar thread of TBHP on the same, link is below
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/techn...isleading.html (How BHP, Torque and power-to-weight ratios can be misleading)

[VKumar]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

100 bhp/tonne is not really reflective of solid performance.

This is the comment I have been looking for. These figures of power to weight are just an eyewash IMO and I openly accept that I don't believe in this doctrine of power to weight ratio. Torque to weight makes the difference, the better the torque is delivered, more is the fun. Best example: Older Honda City 1.5 with that 77 bhp motor, heavy weight, low power on paper, still quick enough off the line and 0-100 in 13.xx seconds only.

I find the likes of Alto K10 to be fun, not because they got a very good throttle response, but because they are very chuck-able, I can drive them like a scooter - that's it. That's the fun which starts at 0 kph and ends at 40 kph

Next comes the Swift, Baleno, DZire and all other stuff. No matter what power to weight they have, even an old and poorly kept Honda city with the 77 bhp 1.5l engine has a better in gear response and accelerates as well as these power to weight queens do!

Power to weight ratio is something which looks good only on paper, and the story ends right there. There are several examples in the annals of history where a car with poorer ratio has made the one with better ration disappear in its rear view mirror. What actually matters is the responsiveness of engine, how eager it is to revv, how the torque is delivered - and above everything, how I feel behind the wheel. LAncer Cedia has a poorer power to weight than every single car mentioned in the list, everyone knows the difference.

We are here comparing the likes of the older v-Tec and Baleno 1.6 with these modern day tin cans. C'mon man, no matter what the figure these Hyundai twins have, a Polo with 200 kilo more weight and 10 bhp lesser is enough to show what difference does the power to weight makes. When it comes to those older beauties, I repeat my word:

Leave everything, even the older 77 bhp Honda City is enough to show these 95 bhp/ton kids that what difference does the engine tuning makes. And the 81 bhp Etios will make them run for cover.

Putting mathematics aside, putting all technicalities aside, if we simply talk on the factor of how it feels behind the wheel - the entire equation reverses.

[daretodream]

The data points shared in Original Post are a revelation.
While a good observation, from practicality point of view, those are not very relevant numbers.

As highlighted by others earlier, these peak BHPs are typically obtained at the top of rev range (redlining the engine).

In our regular driving conditions, highway and city, most of drivers will not redline their engine all the time to extract that peak BHP. Sure, there are exceptions who will do 'spirited' drives - redline and extract all BHPs.

What would be more relevant comparison is how has the peak Torque and its RPM band changed. That is better indicator of how relaxed one drives, how much gear shifts are required etc, what RPM at 100/120 KPH.

[turbo]

Originally Posted by Lowflyer23

Well said, people take joy in owning tin cans with low-grade metal and call them fast, of course they would be fast. When you have doors that get dented by simply taking support while standing and bumpers which fall off with a slight brush from cyclists then these cars would be fast even with smaller engines. A baleno weighs only 200 kgs more than the humble 800 and I'm damn sure Maruti is not using carbon fibre tubs or aluminium chassis. It would be better if we rejoice well built and powerful cars rather than going gaga over 100 bhp paperboats.



No offense mate and I don't want to start a debate here but this is what happens with all that light weight advantages, understand that compromises are made. Also, I have never seen a Tiago crushed and folded like a bisleri bottle: (due credits to the image owners)

Tata Motors:





PS: Call cars tin cans, be prepared to called tractors in-return. The hate can flow both ways.

[venkyhere]

Interesting perspective.
However, my premise is that the BHP/ton is a farcical metric for passenger cars, invented by marketing people, rather than engineers. Here's why.

(1) It's "peak bhp". The operative word being - peak. Unless the car is being revved at the peak bhp rpm, the engine is NOT producing that power, no matter which gear is being used and how fast the car is going or how much 'load' is being pulled.

(2) It's "kerb/curb weight". There is always going to be driver and atleast 1 passenger (lets say 70+70=140kg), on average. In super-light cars (<900kg) that forms a non-negligible chunk (>15%) of car's weight, however it forms a less important chunk (<10%) in cars that are reasonably well built (~1400kg or higher).

Far, far, more important is "drivability" , which is a function of
(a) Torque spread, ie, over how much rpm range is the torque output of the engine above 80% of peak torque
(b) Gearing.
And rest-assured, driveability doesn't always refer to closing gaps in city commute or overtakes in single lane highway, it covers "ALL" driving conditions, including a racetrack.

Already "peak-bhp" is a flawed metric to judge the performance of a passenger car meant for the road (nobody drives revving at redline ALL THE TIME) ; this peak-bhp/ton makes the judgement worse.

--------------------

Of couse, what I wrote above, doesn't count (you can still consider peak-bhp as a useful metric) if we compare something like 60bhp with 600bhp (because you cant produce a low bhp with high torque however much you revv less and you cant produce a high bhp with low torque however much you revv more).
I was aiming at comparisons between a 60 bhp car and a 100 bhp car using this (bhp/tonne) metric.

[PrideRed]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Poor safety is a cost-reduction choice these companies make. It doesn't have much to do with weight, or the lack of it - as the international counterparts of these cars have proven to us.

If I have to compare safety with yesteryear cars, I feel todays cars are much more safer. In 2000 when we bought Ikon 1.6 for around 7Lakhs, only safety feature it came was doors and few safety bars. Crash tests were unheard off. I see a 1.2L Dzire has better power to weight ratio and comes with added safety kit too. That said despite lower power/weight ratio, Ikon was a hoot to drive. While the power in Baleno tapers off, Ikon would just pull and pull even after hitting 3 digit speeds, may be bigger capacity engine, I don't know.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by venkyhere

Interesting perspective.
However, my premise is that the BHP/ton is a farcical metric for passenger cars, invented by marketing people, rather than engineers. Here's why.

(1) It's "peak bhp". The operative word being - peak. Unless the car is being revved at the peak bhp rpm, the engine is NOT producing that power, no matter which gear is being used and how fast the car is going or how much 'load' is being pulled.

(2) It's "kerb/curb weight". There is always going to be driver and atleast 1 passenger (lets say 70+70=140kg)

Far, far, more important is "drivability" , which is a function of
(a) Torque spread, ie, over how much rpm range is the torque output of the engine above 80% of peak torque
(b) Gearing.
And rest-assured, driveability doesn't always refer to closing gaps in city commute or overtakes in single lane highway, it covers "ALL" driving conditions, including a racetrack.

Agree with these viewpoints. There is nothing much to rejoice about most of the present-day cars surpassing the 100 BHP/Tonne milestone. I think it would be more interesting to look at how quick these cars actually are. How many of them can do a 0-100 kph within 10 seconds?

One thing I've learned is, you should never make assumptions on the peppiness of a car just by looking at its BHP/Torque figures on the brochure. A majority of them will disappoint you once you test drive them. One should always test drive and get convinced on power & driveability.

[apachelongbow]

Let's analyse using two similarly powered engines with almost similar bhp/ton figures. The comparison is between a discovery sport and a Tata Harrier. Both produce around the same power figures 177 bhp/430 nm versus 167bhp/350 nm. The discovery sport is heavier (4*4) at around 1800 kg versus 1700 kg for the harrier, giving a similar bhp/ton (around 100).

Acceleration results? Discovery sport (0-100) in 8.7 seconds, Harrier in about 12 seconds.
The difference is in the way the torque is produced. The discovery sport engine produces over 400 nm torque between 1500 rpm till 4000 rpm. Even at 1200 rpm it produces over 300 nm of torque! Even the bhp curve is quite similar and linear. The 9 speed gear box is also geared to harness this torque well, infact the first gear is not used unless in an equivalent of 4*4 low.

The harrier too uses a 6 speed automatic, however due to the lack of a linear torque and bhp curve, it is found a bit wanting in acceleration.

[chiranjitp]

Nice thread, it's refreshing to see affordable cars with good power to weight ratio. More than the NA engines in lightweight bodies, I am more excited about the turbo petrols. The turbo petrol engines along with having good power, also have good torque (aided by force induction), which I believe is more important in our day to day driving. The new gen NA petrols might have good power to weight ratio on paper, but surely can't be compared to the 1.6 trio of Palio, Baleno, Ikon. Those car had way better throttle response & low end punch. Driving dynamics were also in a different league.

Though I suppose the scene is better than how it was in 2010 (The likes of Palio, Ikon came in 00s), while considering petrol cars. In 2010 almost all hatchbacks & entry level sedans had wheezing 1.2L NA petrol engines (& weighted over 1000-1100kg), now we at least have turbo petrols in many cars, even the ones with NA engines (especially from Maruti stable) have better power to weight ratio than before (mainly aided by the feather light kerb weight).

The thing I don't like about 2021, is how diesel cars have simply disappeared. Budget diesels didn't have very high power to weight ratio, but they did have abundance of torque, & torque is what matters most while making those overtakes.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

If we look back at the family cars of the 1940s and 1950s most had 30 to 50 bhp engines and they did the job of transporting a family comfortably.

I would beg to disagree with you on this point. I even today have & drive a 37 bhp car, our family's 99 Omni. Omni had a 800cc engine (basically same engine as M800, but in a heavier body with more seating capacity) which made 37bhp & weighted around 750 kg. In an unladen vehicle, power to weight ratio would be around 50 bhp/ton, but load it with 6-8 passengers (Omni has a seating capacity of 8), power to weight ratio would drop to the 30-35 bhp/ton mark. I can tell you from my experience, this much of power is simply not enough for our roads. Every time the speed drops, one would need to drop down a gear to keep the car going. I drive the Omni very carefully & slowly (driving at a speed of 60-70 kmph), even then the low power output makes me frustrated. The fuel efficiency drops as well, as you constantly need to keep the engine spinning in the meat of the power-band. I of course will reach my destination, but the journey would take more time & the driver would be tired at the end of the journey.

As future generations take over who I believe will be more green conscious than we are this trend, in my assessment, will reverse. The interests of enthusiasts may not be in line with the interests of society and mother earth.

While I would agree that the future generation (a 27 year old me also included) are more green conscious than our previous generation, but from what I see people interested in cars (& hence wanting more power) is also increasing. There were fewer people of my dad's generation (he's nearing 60 now) interested in cars, than compared to the current generation's interest in cars (40 & below).

A 47bhp Alto also meets BS VI emission norms, so does a Polo TSi with 105 bhp. It's not that a powerful car is more polluting.

P.S- This is just my personal opinion, don't mean to offend you or anyone. Big fan of your writing .

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I believe we cannot take our one personal observation and apply it to the universe of samples.

But this forum is called team-bhp, so I suppose majority of us here want more BHP.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

From the point of view of conservation of {scarce} energy, limiting dangerous air pollution this trend is counter productive to mother earth and flies in the face of rational thinking. To move 4 humans and 50 kgs of luggage at 80 kmph we do not need 100bhp/ton. Even a regional turboprop airliner needs only 250 to 300 bhp/tonne!!

As future generations take over who I believe will be more green conscious than we are this trend, in my assessment, will reverse. The interests of enthusiasts may not be in line with the interests of society and mother earth.

I reiterate my unpopular point that our cars today are way way way overpowered to feed a few moments of fun or a few minutes of racing. It is a mode of transportation not entertainment. In the last 50 to 75 years every other mode of transport has become more efficient by a significant degree in terms of energy consumed or bhp needed to move a given payload at a given speed. Did I say every, sorry, all except personal cars. It is the same 80-kilo back side that needs to be moved. It needed 45 bhp in 1970 but needs 100 bhp today, doing what? -accelerating faster to the next red light 99% of the time.

In this we are simply imitating the West without thinking what does our nation needs and what our individual road transport priorities ought to be. No point having stricter air pollution standards if cars are spewing out 2.0X the volumes of gases & heat. I opened my 1974 Observers book of Automobiles and took out a few cars that we can relate to today or which were the fathers and grand fathers of models we are familiar with today. Table below. And these were over powered compared to cars of 1960. And it isn't as if we were crawling at 40 kmph in 1960. My grandfather's Opel 6-cylinder 1936 model has been driven by me at 50 mph steady on the Lucknow-Kanpur road when that car was already 45-years old. It had a 2-litre/ 80BHP motor for a rather heavy car. Not that 50 mph is a great speed but the point I'm making is we don't need 100bhp/tonne to drive at a reasonable highway speed or to accelerate at a reasonable pace. We have been fed this how many seconds for 0-100 kmph dose by the media.

If ever we had the data on fuel burnt and gasses emitted per back side transported per kms I am sure the personal automobile will be at the bottom of the list of all modes of transportation. Because it has ceased to be a mode of transport and has become a symbol of expression.

Originally Posted by chiranjitp

I would beg to disagree with you on this point. I even today have & drive a 37 bhp car, our family's 99 Omni. Omni had a 800cc engine (basically same engine as M800, but in a heavier body with more seating capacity) which made 37bhp & weighted around 750 kg. In an unladen vehicle, power to weight ratio would be around 50 bhp/ton, but load it with 6-8 passengers (Omni has a seating capacity of 8), power to weight ratio would drop to the 30-35 bhp/ton mark. I can tell you from my experience, this much of power is simply not enough for our roads. Every time the speed drops, one would need to drop down a gear to keep the car going. I drive the Omni very carefully & slowly (driving at a speed of 60-70 kmph), even then the low power output makes me frustrated. The fuel efficiency drops as well, as you constantly need to keep the engine spinning in the meat of the power-band. I of course will reach my destination, but the journey would take more time & the driver would be tired at the end of the journey.

We each have our own experiences. Those experiences are valid for us but may not apply universally. Having driven the Standard Herald, Premier Padmini & Maruti 800 between 1978 and 1996 I do have a L-O-T of driving miles on those relatively lower powered cars both within cities and inter-city and it is all a function of what you are used to and what you get skilled at.

While I would agree that the future generation (a 27 year old me also included) are more green conscious than our previous generation, but from what I see people interested in cars (& hence wanting more power) is also increasing. There were fewer people of my dad's generation (he's nearing 60 now) interested in cars, than compared to the current generation's interest in cars (40 & below).

Lack of interest in cars or aircrafts or ships may wane for some in later middle age and may get more charged up for others. I believe we cannot take our one personal observation and apply it to the universe of samples.