CTC Review: 2009 Nissan cube

[Rupert]

100 hp is plenty of power for a small car...even here with air. Accent and Yaris here have plenty of go and cruise on the highway with the rest of the traffic with ease. Will they tear up the road and leave black smoldering rubber stripes...no...none of that silliness. I guess I just do not like the Cube...the Scion version I do like though. The view from three quarter right rear and rounded window corners looks strange to me...maybe some people like it though.

[random006]

100 hp is plenty of power for a small car...even here with air. Accent and Yaris here have plenty of go and cruise on the highway with the rest of the traffic with ease. .

Depends how "small" is "small".  My Escort wagon, hardly a big car by any stretch of the imagination, had a 90 HP engine.  When empty or with only passengers, the engine was fine for the job.  When fully loaded and going through the mountains of New England, the car slowed down even with the accelerator pedal pushed right to the floor.  A 120 to 130 HP engine like the 1st generation Focus had would have been far better suited for the Escort.

Your example of the Accent or Yaris might be the only class of car for which I'd recommend a 100 HP engine.

[Winklovic]

Your example of the Accent or Yaris might be the only class of car for which I'd recommend a 100 HP engine.

So, you think my slant-six Volare was a bad idea?   

[Canada Stig]

[[/quote]
So, you think my slant-six Volare was a bad idea?   
[/quote]

The leaning tower of power!

[Rupert]

Come to think of it we had 4 of the slant sixes in various Duster/Demon/Dart cars...yeah about 100 hp and they worked great for us. Did not seem under powered in that size of car but were a bit finnicky with lean burn. These were low revving 3.4L engines though and more lower speed torque. Someone said they did not develop enough power to hurt themselves. Hmm...more then a quarter century ago.

[Winklovic]

After I had installed the 2 bbl "Super Six" set-up, my quarter-mile trap speed went from 67 to over 70 mph.  According to various online horsepower calculators, 97 hp made it to the rear wheels.  Sounds puny by today's standards, but I never felt the car was unsafe when merging on to highways.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I drove my 91 Tercel until 2003 or so. Killer 1.5l with an astonishing 82HP! Fine around town or multi-lane highways, but a pain in the ass trying to pass on a two lane.

IIRC my 2.3L 1984 Ranger had 90hp, and my 1986 Toyota Pickup with the 22R-E had 112HP. At the time I thought they were adequate for what I used them for.

[tpl]

100 hp is plenty of power for a small car...even here with air. Accent and Yaris here have plenty of go and cruise on the highway with the rest of the traffic with ease. .

Depends how "small" is "small".  My Escort wagon, hardly a big car by any stretch of the imagination, had a 90 HP engine.  When empty or with only passengers, the engine was fine for the job.  When fully loaded and going through the mountains of New England, the car slowed down even with the accelerator pedal pushed right to the floor.  A 120 to 130 HP engine like the 1st generation Focus had would have been far better suited for the Escort.

Your example of the Accent or Yaris might be the only class of car for which I'd recommend a 100 HP engine.

Was the Escort an automatic? maybe even a 3 speed auto?

I had an MGB with 100 bhp and a TR7 with IIRC 97 bhp     both fast enough but of course they were light and could not carry much of a load.
Drove UK to Morocco and back in a 48 BHP Morris 1000 4 up and a roof rack.  Certainly wasn't fast on any sort of hill but it got there... in fact it was down to 2nd gear at 25 mph and less crossing the Pyrenees and we didn't pass on two laners for sure.

@Rupert   First NA car I ever drove was a slant 6 Valiant  Mtl->TO and back in 1975.  Really sluggish with its 3 speed auto and emission strangled engine. Those '70s cars were the worst for emissions controls.

[Sival]

Old engines had poor power rating compare to now because they tended to be "peaky", torque was OK down low but the engine lacked power as RPMs climbed. That's where most of the power gain has occurred over the past 20 years, in the high RPM. Twin cam and VVT mostly led to more power high up in the revs, but not much gain down in the low and mid-range.

The Mazda Protege's 1.8L engine in 1990 had only 102 hp, which is basically 25-30% behind some of the 1.8L engines now available (for instance the Caliber's 148-hp 1.8L or the Civic's 140-hp 1.8L), but its maximum torque was 111 lb-ft, that's only about 10% behind what today's 1.8L engines get. Another clear example is the first Saturn sedan/coupé in 1991 with a SOHC engine that got only 85 hp (40% less than the 2007 Civic), but got 110 lb-ft of torque (only 13% less than the 2007 Civic), available as soon as 2400 RPMs. I don't think most people frequently make their engines rev up to 5000-6000 RPMs in normal driving, so the engines most of the time aren't that much more powerful than they were back in the early 90s or late 80s, but when we need to, we do have an edge with being able to play in the high-rev world like it wasn't possible before. Plus, cars were lighter back then, not something I whine about given the structural strength and safety of cars now compared to what it was before.

Addendum:
Remember, Power (hp) = Torque (lb-ft) times RPM of engine divided by 5252.

[Turbo Bob]

I don't think most people frequently make their engines rev up to 5000-6000 RPMs in normal driving

   I used to hit 8.5k rpm about 50 times a day for two years on my 150K commute.  Those were the days... Now I'm old and slow... 

[rrocket]

I don't think most people frequently make their engines rev up to 5000-6000 RPMs in normal driving

   I used to hit 8.5k rpm about 50 times a day for two years on my 150K commute.  Those were the days... Now I'm old and slow... 

I think you have to rev the Lotus that high just to get it moving, no??   

[PJungnitsch]

My pickup had 86 hp when it was new, and had compression and stuff. I'm still in the faster % of traffic in town, having 300 hp doesn't help if grandpa doesn't put his foot down.

A low power vehicle is perfectly fine if you are not afraid to let it rev when it needs to, pick up speed down hills to carry up them etc. It does get aggravating when said grandpa idles his monster SUV down the hill and then only decides to put his foot into it and pull away half way up. That I can't do.

Normally however driving is entertaining because the machine is worked to its limits pretty much all the time. The Weber, header and the nice-shifting manual certainly help, plus a tach to keep an eye on redline.

[Rupert]

Now thats much more like enthusiast motoring. I bet TPL can very much relate to the need for keeping the revs up. The Morris Minor 1000 was a great little car and probably had handling that would easily match todays crop. All with less than 50HP. Set of Koni shocks to control the rear axel...add twin SUs and a better header. oh and polish the ports...not much that you could easily do with the front leaver type dampers. You could fit the larger diameter Wollesley 1500 front drum brakes (pre discs). Gosh even I was young once.

[tpl]

Now thats much more like enthusiast motoring. I bet TPL can very much relate to the need for keeping the revs up. The Morris Minor 1000 was a great little car and probably had handling that would easily match todays crop. All with less than 50HP. Set of Coney shocks to control the rear axel...add twin SUs and a better header. oh and polish the ports...not much that you could easily do with the front leaver type dampers. You could fit the larger diameter Wollesley 1500 front drum brakes (pre discs). Gosh even I was young once.

That's "Koni"  Rupert,  Coney is a sort of wild rabbit native to NA IIRC.    Yes indeed you have mentioned all the things that one did to an A-series engine that did not require much money!     Ferodo linings all round were easier than replacing the brakes... unless you could find a Wolseley in a breakers yard.   Real men with a Pound or two could fit  Dunlop SP41 radials or even Michelin X to replace the OEM Dunlop C41 bias tires... the one we went to Morocco in had Sp41. made a difference coming DOWN the mountains that extra grip 

I am not sure I believe you were young once.   

[Giant Dwarf]

I don't think most people frequently make their engines rev up to 5000-6000 RPMs in normal driving

   I used to hit 8.5k rpm about 50 times a day for two years on my 150K commute.  Those were the days... Now I'm old and slow... 

I think you have to rev the Lotus that high just to get it moving, no??   

You mean "Loyota", don't you?  Or "Lotota"?  I think the local go-kart track is using those Celica engines in their karts now.  Of course, an Exige/Elise is just a go-kart with a ridiculous price tag anyway, isn't it? 

:stick"

[random006]

100 hp is plenty of power for a small car...even here with air. Accent and Yaris here have plenty of go and cruise on the highway with the rest of the traffic with ease. .

Depends how "small" is "small".  My Escort wagon, hardly a big car by any stretch of the imagination, had a 90 HP engine.  When empty or with only passengers, the engine was fine for the job.  When fully loaded and going through the mountains of New England, the car slowed down even with the accelerator pedal pushed right to the floor.  A 120 to 130 HP engine like the 1st generation Focus had would have been far better suited for the Escort.

Your example of the Accent or Yaris might be the only class of car for which I'd recommend a 100 HP engine.

Was the Escort an automatic? maybe even a 3 speed auto?

Yep, auto but it was 4 speed with overdrive.

Even Ford realized it needed a bit of a boost because the Escort got a 110 HP engine to replace the 90 HP in 1997.  A 130 HP engine was apparently an option, appearing a year or so later.

[Turbo Bob]

I don't think most people frequently make their engines rev up to 5000-6000 RPMs in normal driving

   I used to hit 8.5k rpm about 50 times a day for two years on my 150K commute.  Those were the days... Now I'm old and slow... 

I think you have to rev the Lotus that high just to get it moving, no??   

You mean "Loyota", don't you?  Or "Lotota"?  I think the local go-kart track is using those Celica engines in their karts now.  Of course, an Exige/Elise is just a go-kart with a ridiculous price tag anyway, isn't it? 

:stick"

You can't even  as well as RR, and he drove a slushbox!! 

[Shnak]

Hey, my Accent's 1.5L is only rated at 92hp and I find it's got more than enough power with the manual transmission. I've often had 4 passengers in it and never really had a problem with a lack of power. It can easily keep up with highway traffic at 120-130kph. I even had 5 adults in the car for a short trip... sure, it was a tight fight back there, but I was fine in the driver's seat! And power was fine again.

Of course, I've never carried 2-300lbs of lbs of cargo (other than passengers), hauled anything or went through mountains. But honestly, most people don't ever do that, especially not in smaller cars. And if they do, while not ideal, I'm sure a small car like mine could do it on occasion.

For small cars, ~100hp is enough IMO, especially if equipped with a manual transmission. If auto, it depends on the transmission.

[Thinking Out Loud]

I think there is a 'too little' bottom line, however.  I had a new 2000 Daewoo Lanos 1.5l with 86 ponypower and 5 speed manual, no air conditioning. 

In the city with the driver it was fine, and the suspension (tuned by Porsche, don't you know!) was fun and tossable. 

Highway, four average size passengers and you were struggling.  Passing (other than people doing it to you) was unthinkable unless you had 3 lanes and were on a flat or downgrade. 

God helped whose who got them with an automatic and air....

[Shnak]

Well, if you adapt your driving to your vehicle, there's no problem. Of course a 90hp car with 4 adults in it will struggle when accelerating going up-hill... you just don't attempt a passing maneuver in those circumstances.

As long as you don't expect V6 power and understand when it's safe for you to attempt certain maneuvers, I honestly don't see the problem with cars with smaller engines... again, especially if equipped with a manual transmission.