Definition needed:

P71 wrote:

Grtechguy wrote: Underpowered, Definition: Fox body Mustang equiped with the N/A 2.3l and Autotragic transmission.

A-berkeleying-MEN! That POS was soooooooooo slow it wouldn't do 70 if it was pushed out of an airplane at 10,000 feet!

As a previous owner of a 2.3L/auto/convertible Mustang, I can assure you that they will do all of 84mph, thank you very much.

Honestly, the 2.3L was fine. It's the A4LD that was a giant piece of trash.

But man, if you want to be forced to learn how to maintain momentum...

5-Speed N/A 2.3's had enough get-up and go so yeah, it was definitely the A4LD. Rear gears of 2.73/3.08 don't help much either.

how about a first generation Hyundai Excel.. automatic? All 62 hp of it in 2,4,and 5 door trim... just imagine the power with you and three friends and all the stuff you need for a weekend road trip.

Thankfully my excel was a 2 door 5 speed

84 chevy cavalier..

I had one. 2.0 liter and maybe a (3 speed) auto trans).. maybe...

I currently have a 2.3/A4LD/Convertible....it is truly anemic...but it will keep up with traffic.

my current DD (Ford Aspire 1.3 5-Speed) keeps up with traffic just fine around town, but merging onto the highway is a trip...especially when it doesnt have 4th gear...the 3-5 jump is killer.

maroon92 wrote: I currently have a 2.3/A4LD/Convertible....it is truly anemic...but it will keep up with traffic.

How many times has the tranny gone on you?

A car is underpowered if it does not have sufficient acceleration and torque to be entertaining.

IE a car that in almost every turn that you take once you have finished braking and pass the slowest part of the turn, you go full throttle and no modulation is required. That is an underpowered car.

RexSeven wrote: Nearly every 4-banger or below with an autotragic is underpowered. Even if it's rated for the same amount of horsepower in both manual and auto trim.

^^^FTW

4cylndrfury wrote:

RexSeven wrote: Nearly every 4-banger or below with an autotragic is underpowered. Even if it's rated for the same amount of horsepower in both manual and auto trim.

^^^FTW

I disagree. A buddy of mine had a 1.8T Passat a few years ago. With the stock ECU and parts, it made 150 hp and was a joy to drive (it had a 5-speed auto). Then, when he doubled the boost and did a whole host of sweet upgrades, the engine's output probably jumped to 220. That thing used to do fifth-gear-only runs up to 140 or 150. It was fast. It was my favorite of all of his cars.

curtis73 wrote:

confuZion3 wrote: Have you ever driven a car that accelerates as quickly as you want with the accelerator on the floor? I know I haven't. For me, the fastest car so far was C6 Corvette. You can always go faster.

Good point. I just didn't want to spark an argument from autocrossers talking about how there can be "too much power." There is a limit, though. I drove a Hennesey Viper with something like 900 hp and really fat race slicks. The acceleration was insane, if you only used about 1/2 throttle. Anything more and you were liquifying tires through 4th gear.

I'm totally jelous.

OK. Point taken.

confuZion3 wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote:

RexSeven wrote: Nearly every 4-banger or below with an autotragic is underpowered. Even if it's rated for the same amount of horsepower in both manual and auto trim.

^^^FTW

I disagree. A buddy of mine had a 1.8T Passat a few years ago. With the stock ECU and parts, it made 150 hp and was a joy to drive (it had a 5-speed auto). Then, when he doubled the boost and did a whole host of sweet upgrades, the engine's output probably jumped to 220. That thing used to do fifth-gear-only runs up to 140 or 150. It was fast. It was my favorite of all of his cars.

I suppose there are alwayss going to be exceptions...but here is my legacy:

87 2.3 ltr cougar - 4 banger and 3 speed slusher

90 2.2 ltr cavalier - 4 banger and 3 speed slusher

95 1.8 ltr corolla - 4 banger and 5sp manual

99 2.0 ltr G20 - 4 banger and 3 speed slusher

Corolla FTW!!

It was the quickest of em all. I have no dyno graph or accelerometer data to prove this, just my keyster dyno, and it shows a torque curve remarkably left of the rest. I attribute a majority of that to the auto/manual difference...way easier to maintain revs when youre in control, not to mention non slippery shifts versus greasy banana peal shifts

An autimatic transmission is a wonderful thing to waste

my definition of underpowered? when it doesnt have the power to pull the skin off rice pudding! thats under powered!

Underpowered is a matter of opinion and the times. Once upon a time 0-60 in 10 seconds was considered fast. Now such a car could be considered underpowered.

"87 2.3 ltr cougar - 4 banger and 3 speed slusher "

Such a beast did not exist. The fox-chassis Cougar (83-88) only came with the 2.3 in 84-86, and then only in 2.3T mode in the XR7. 87-88 only had 3.8 V6 and 5.0 V8's. No N/A 2.3 was ever shoved into a large fox (Thunderbird/Cougar/MarkVII).

perhaps it was an 86 then...it was a $250 beater with a salvage title...Im admitedly NOT a ford/merc/lincoln fan, so I never learned my genealogy on that one...definitely a 4 cyl, definitely no turbo, definitely no power behind the autotragic

Easier to come at it from the other side. A car is overpowered if it has more power than the chassis and brakes can safely handle.

Obviously this will vary with the chassis. A Nash Metropolitan is probably overpowered at around 100 BHP, a Trabant or Fiat 600 at less than that.

So what is underpowered? A car that has 2 BHP less than it would have if it were overpowered.....

mistanfo wrote: Underpowered is when I cannot, with regularity, merge with interstate traffic.

That's my basic definition as well.

Fussing about 2.3 Mustang or a 300D. Try a Falcon with a 170 and a 3-speed automatic, or an old 1950's Mercedes 190D.

I drag raced a moped with that old 170 Falcon. I had the handicap start, I still lost. Remember well his look of amazement as he passed me.

2000 Accent GL 1.5L SOHC auto is underpowered. 2300lbs, 92 hp and an auto are not a good combo. The wife's 5-spd is better, but still godawful slow.

1980 Dodge Aspen

3300 lbs, 90 hp, 170tq, 3-speed auto

But it is effortlessly underpowered. It goes smoothly at its own pace.

I've never had a V8 powered car, always either 4's or 6's. But the only one I ever felt was underpowered was my first one back in 1961. A Renault 4CV!!

EDIT: Even the Morris Minor 1000's did just fine

My buddy has a 1990 Volvo 740 four-cylinder with an auto. I don't think it's underpowered, but it sure isn't fast. I drag raced him when I had my Mustang a few years back (GT). I beat him. In reverse. Admittedly, though, it wasn't a very long race.

If you've ever owned a standard air cooled VW, you know the definition of underpowered. I don't think my 56 would reach 55, but that's not so bad because it had no brakes.

The 61 was a little faster and the brakes were fine.