Curious about HP vs weight

I got 12.3 lbs. per hp; regardless, that's pretty good!

PS- Take all the junk out of the trunk (30? 40? lbs.) and you're down to 12...

If you have a spare as well, you're down to 11.9

About 140 on 1600 lbs

Tom, I would expect that your car probably weighs about the same as mine, which was 1700 pounds on Danny's scales - the same ones that measured Jack's car.  Jack's HP numbers were at the wheels as opposed to yours(140-ish) and mine(125-ish) at the flywheel.  I think he could beat both of us handily.

My weight distribution was 39% front, 61% rear, with a spare tire but no tools up front and about 4 gallons of gas.  It sounds bad, but I believe that a new 911 is worse.

Jack, did you have the T4 engine when your car was weighed?  If not, that might have changed it somewhat.

12-13 lbs per RW HP is a fast ride, buoys, particularly in a very light car. For comparison purposes: A 2013 Mustang GT is about 8.6 lbs per HP. The 2013 Camaro SS is about 9 lbs per HP, measured SAE NET.

If those figures were taken as rear-wheel HP I'd expect to see numbers more in line with your Speedsters. About 10-11 lbs per HP in both cases.

Both those cars run mid-12s in the quarter mile.

I would expect very similar performance from your Speedsters, and probably faster times in 0-60 and 1/8 mile because of the more favorable weight distribution.

I guess my car weights around 1650-1700 lbs and I found I could keep up with a well-hurried 2013 Mustang GT out of a toll gate a couple weeks back. My car computes to about 12.5 lbs per HP, a pretty good deficit to the Mustang in percentage terms, but the kid could not pull away below 80 mph.  

Bottom line: "simplify and add lightness."

That's interesting.

Lane--I believe I still had the 1915 Type I when Danny weighed it.  I think the Type IV is about 20# more so I should add that to my weight. Plus I added an Espar heater since the weight was done so that's maybe 10 more pounds.  I did have a load of parts and tools in the trunk so maybe thats a wash with everyday driving without the trunk parts store..

Ed--a lot of comparisons to other types of cars--thanks for the info! You are a wealth of info.

Jack, you are correct. Those scales are very accurate.

Mine weighs 1450 w/ a half tank of gas. I added a top(10lbs.?) and my Eberspacher which is 11lbs. I have 172 dyno horses at the flywheel(plus a few for GOOD ignition?) which minus the standard 15% for trans losses is about 146 or more at the wheels. Gives me a 10lb. per HP ratio or thereabouts.

Mine runs 45/55 percent front to rear.

Any time you can remove weight from the vehicle, the benefits are many; not only does the power to weight ratio improve (I know, obvious), braking effectiveness improves as well. And at a slightly lighter weight, gas mileage improves and components last longer.

What some people will do to reduce car weight-  

http://cal-look.no/lounge/index.php/topic,5293.0.html

I like my speedster. Fun to tool around in. 92 intermeccanica with a stock 1600 dual port. Dont know rwhp or weight.  My cobra on the other hand is 508hp at the rear wheels and weighs just over 2000lbs. Its 1hp per 4 pounds. I like driving both.

Well, that certainly does take the cake...

Well...

427 Chevette

This guy. He just might win the wack-o contest. I'd love to have either.

Stan, that just might be the sleeper of the century.

That car mashes every button that lights me up. It's a heapin' helpin' of 'merican madness, even when "way-too-much" is "not quite enough".

It is in-stinking-sane (and I mean that in the most positive way imaginable). I like the slush-box, the plaid seats, and the dog-dish hubcaps. I wish the body wasn't quite so straight (or the paint so good), and that he would've run the exhaust through a really restrictive muffler, and put in some electric cut-outs to uncork it.... but I'm quibbling.

I put up a link on FB, and said, "If you don't love it, I'm not sure we can be friends any more."

I'm sorry, Stan, but a car has to have at least some style points before I'd roll it.

C'mon, man, a friggin' Chevette? I'd rather be seen in a VW powered Fiero...

Terry-- the utter lack of style is what makes it so amazing. It's the ultimate sleeper.

13.1 pounds per HP in Pearl.

There's a guy who rides bike with me from time to time - Charlie.  Nice guy.  Runs a eye-glass shop and does a nice job (I have a pair of his specs) but he's a demon when he gets on a bike - On 30-40 mile circuits where I would normally average 15.5-16.5 mph he's hammering us along at around 18 - 20 mph.  The guy's a beast.

Anyway, Charlie grew up at the end of the Muscle Car era and managed to find a '64 Chevy 409.  I always thought those were pretty good sleepers, 'cuz they were totally no-frills (even the carpeting was replaced with a rubber mat to save weight).

Well, it seems as though Charlie never quite totally grew up, but he has this "business man" image to uphold, so now he drives this 5-cylinder, dual turbo beast that he says is a bit quicker than his 409 of yesteryear, eats Vipers in the first 1/8 mile, but looks a bit more sedate:

Gordon

Turbo Volvo wagons are the best of both worlds.  I've had a few, and they really scoot home from the grocery store or lumber yard.

I'm with Terry on this one, Stan. "It's not the Vette you're looking for" LOL!

And aren't we all kids on here?

Speaking of "not the Corvette yr looking for," someone somewhere just has to mash together a '78 Chevette and a '68 Corvair. I guess you could make two awesome cars that way, one "Corvette" with two motors, and one "Chevair" with, I guess, a lot of trunk space. I, for one, would applaud.

I bet my Honda minivan would beat the chevette stop light to stop light and kill it on any kind of road course.  High HP to weight ratio is great but useless without traction. That being said I do think the chevette is cool in a novelty kind of way.