What engines can you think of that had a very low specific output for the time they were produced? I'm thinking engines like the Iron Duke...

Sponsored Posts

Comments

Anonymous

My old BMC B-series. Bullet proof engine but only 42 horsepower from a 1200cc, and that was 60 years ago.

06/17/2015 - 12:12 |
8 | 1
Dom Templey

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

The bmc b series of engines was a wide range of engines.. the 1.2 being the earliest version.
the 1800 in the MGB is a good engine that is nicely tuneable.

06/17/2015 - 12:52 |
2 | 1
Anonymous

Chrysler’s 4.7 powertech V8 with 230 hp in 2007 !!!!!

06/17/2015 - 12:12 |
5 | 0
Anonymous

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

I can top that. My 96 Grand Cherokee has a 5.2L V8 with 230 at the crank. Dynod at 177 at the wheels, and a Cherry Bomb Turbo muffler brought it up to 184 at the wheels. I think the 5.9 out of the non R/T Dodge trucks had 230 hp too, but more torque.

06/17/2015 - 14:29 |
2 | 0
Anonymous

Golf 2.0 GTi mk4. I mean 115 from a 2.0 when Renault had 190 from a 2.0 four pot?

06/17/2015 - 12:12 |
7 | 2
Anonymous

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

I don’t think that this was the engine they used on the gti, it had a 1.8 turbo. But the non gti had 115 hp 2.0L engine

06/17/2015 - 12:18 |
1 | 1
Anonymous

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

That’s the Mk3 you’re talking about, not Mk4.
Mk4 had two engines on the GTI. 1.8 with a turbo, which developed 150 HP and 2.3 NA, which also developed 150 HP.
The 2.0 was on the Mk3, but there were two versions of it. The one you’re referring is the 8v version. The 16v version developed 150 HP.

06/17/2015 - 12:23 |
2 | 6
Anonymous

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

You’re comparing a newer engine to a engine with 8v. Wat.

06/17/2015 - 12:25 |
14 | 1
Spoolin2liter

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

Yeah and 2 more valves per cylinder. The 8v engine design in is built for durability and simplicity in an ECONOMY car. the design has gone relatively unchanged since 1993.

06/17/2015 - 14:32 |
1 | 1
Anonymous

1976 Cadillac 500ci (8.2L) V8, 190hp…

06/17/2015 - 12:13 |
8 | 1
Anonymous

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

Hard to beat!
The less efficient engine ever built

06/17/2015 - 12:21 |
6 | 2
Anonymous

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

i think we have the winner here!

06/17/2015 - 15:18 |
2 | 0
Anonymous

Old beetle… 1200cc, 34HP.. 28hp/L….

06/17/2015 - 12:16 |
0 | 0
Anonymous

Any Honda??

06/17/2015 - 12:17 |
2 | 7
Anonymous

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

Not a chance. If Honda wasn’t innovating with their engine technology, you could at least be assured their units made 100HP per liter. In the late 80s/early 90s. I mean look at the S2000 engine, a 2.0L with 240HP? That was unheard of. The only reason they were limited to 276HP in the NSX was Japan’s “Gentlemen’s Agreement” not to produce anything with more than 276HP.

06/17/2015 - 12:39 |
3 | 0
Anonymous

mazda mx5 1.6 n/a with 100 hp, when at around the same time honda and toyota 1.6s n/a were around 160+hp :(

06/17/2015 - 12:17 |
0 | 0
Anonymous

Daewoo Matiz 37.5kw.

06/17/2015 - 12:18 |
0 | 0
Anonymous

Any 70s and 80s american made engine

06/17/2015 - 12:20 |
1 | 1
Anonymous

Rolls Royce 6.75 v8 which produced 220hp, but loads of torque and very unstressed,
but now the same engine with a couple of turbo’s as in the mulsanne produces 500 odd horsepower and all of its torque at about tick over.

06/17/2015 - 12:21 |
0 | 0