Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi all, for no particular reason other than curiosity I am looking for a list of performance cars and their power/torque to weight ratios.

anyone have such a list?

interested in any/as many as you have or if s0omeone has a site that lists some.

did a fair bit of googling and found none.

just interested as to what else is in the range of

5.75kw/kg..

Edited by CEF11E
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/142739-power-to-weight-ratios/
Share on other sites

Any good with a calculator?

In doing calculations, weight is specified in tonnes (1000kg = 1 tonne); capacity is specified in litres (1000ml = 1 litre); power is specified in kilowatts (kw) and is measured at the engine flywheel.

The weight of a vehicle is the unladen mass specified by the manufacturer for the stock standard vehicle

For example, a V8 vehicle weighs 1382kg with a power rating of 185kw.

Therefore, the power to weight ratio is: 185/1382 x 1000 = 130kw per tonne.

hope that helps :P

I am going to assume you are meaning 5.75 kg/kw not 5.75 kw/kg, since the latter would be the equivalent of a Toyota Yaris with 6,000kw, or a VE Commodore with 10,000kw...

Best bet is Motor magazine - full list of performance cars currently on sale in Australia with their power to weight ratios. I'll chuck some in for an example, for a complete list just buy the magazine!

Sedans:

12.1 kg/kw Audi A4 1.8T Quattro - ouch!

11.5 kg/kw Mazda 6

8.8 kg/kw BF Ford Falcon

8.8 kg/kw VE Holden Commodore SV6

7.5 kg/kw Mitsubishi Lancer EVO IX

7.2 kg/kw Subaru WRX STi

6.9 kg/kw BF Ford XR6 Turbo

6.7 kg/kw Audi S4 V8

6.6 kg/kw VE Commodore SS

6.6 kg/kw Maserati Quattroporte

6.4 kg/kw BF FPV F6 Typhon

6.3 kg/kw BF FPV GT

6.1 kg/kw BMW 550i

6.0 kg/kw Audi A8 W12

6.0 kg/kw Chrysler 300C SRT8

6.0 kg/kw Jaguar S-Type R

6.0 kg/kw Mercedes E500

5.9 kg/kw VE HSV Clubsport R8

5.6 kg/kw Jaguar XJR

5.3 kg/kw Audi RS4 V8

5.1 kg/kw BMW M5 V10

4.7 kg/kw Mercedes E63 AMG

Coupes:

10.2 kg/kw Hyundai Tiburon V6

9.7 kg/kw Audi TT 1.8T

7.9 kg/kw HSV Astra VXR

7.1 kg/kw Nissan 350Z

6.8 kg/kw BMW 335Ci

6.2 kg/kw Lotus Exige

6.2 kg/kw Porsche Cayman S

6.0 kg/kw Chrysler Crossfire SRT6

5.9 kg/kw BMW M3

5.8 kg/kw Mercedes CLK500

5.8 kg/kw Porsche 911

5.7 kg/kw HSV GTO

5.7 kg/kw Lotus Exige S

5.7 kg/kw Maserati Gransport

5.6 kg/kw Bentley Continental GT

5.6 kg/kw Mercedes CL600

5.4 kg/kw Porsche 911S

5.3 kg/kw Aston Martin DB9

5.0 kg/kw Aston Martin Vantage

5.0 kg/kw Mercedes CLK63 AMG

4.7 kg/kw Mercedes CL65 AMG - it takes a LOT of power to get something this heavy so far down the list :P

4.6 kg/kw BMW M6

4.6 kg/kw Ferrari 612

4.5 kg/kw Porsche 911 Turbo

4.0 kg/kw Ferrari F430

4.0 kg/kw Lamborghini Gallardo

3.9 kg/kw Lamborghini Murciellago

3.7 kg/kw Ferrari 599GTB

3.0 kg/kw Pagani Zonda C12 S

...and bored now. That better be what you want coz it took me like 15 minutes to type it all out...

This one copied (not typed!) from Supercar's.net - the top 50 powertoweight supercars:

1. 1000.0 bhp per tonne : 2007 Caparo T1

2. 963.27 bhp per tonne : 2006 SSC Ultimate Aero TT

3. 902.56 bhp per tonne : 2000 TVR Cerbera Speed 12

4. 890.59 bhp per tonne : 2006 SSC Ultimate Aero

5. 862.07 bhp per tonne : 2005 Leblanc Mirabeau

6. 757.89 bhp per tonne : 2006 a.d. Tramontana V12

7. 754.12 bhp per tonne : 2004 Orca C113

8. 747.38 bhp per tonne : 2006 Saleen S7 Twin Turbo Competition

9. 727.27 bhp per tonne : 1991 Koenig C62

10. 724.64 bhp per tonne : 2006 Gemballa Mirage Evolution

11. 708.74 bhp per tonne : 1994 Dauer 962 LeMans

12. 683.05 bhp per tonne : 2006 Koenigsegg CCX

13. 673.68 bhp per tonne : 2005 Ultima GTR 640

14. 655.2 bhp per tonne : 2004 Koenigsegg CCR

15. 650.84 bhp per tonne : 2004 Chrysler ME Four-Twelve Concept

16. 640.0 bhp per tonne : 2003 Radical SR3 Turbo

17. 633.71 bhp per tonne : 2004 SSC Aero

18. 626.09 bhp per tonne : 2002 Laraki Fulgura Concept

19. 625.0 bhp per tonne : 1992 DP 962

20. 615.38 bhp per tonne : 1995 Renault Espace F1 Concept

21. 611.11 bhp per tonne : 1998 Koenigsegg CC Concept

22. 605.0 bhp per tonne : 2005 Radical SR8

23. 595.45 bhp per tonne : 2000 Koenigsegg CC

24. 590.91 bhp per tonne : 2006 Gumpert Apollo

25. 588.85 bhp per tonne : 2006 Sportec SPR1

26. 571.43 bhp per tonne : 2006 Mosler MT900 GTR

27. 560.54 bhp per tonne : 2005 Saleen S7 Twin Turbo

28. 550.09 bhp per tonne : 1994 McLaren F1

29. 550.0 bhp per tonne : 2006 Ferrari P4/5 by Pininfarina

30. 545.83 bhp per tonne : 2002 Koenigsegg CC 8S

31. 531.91 bhp per tonne : 2004 Caterham Superlight R500 Evolution

32. 524.81 bhp per tonne : 2004 Evans 486

33. 524.34 bhp per tonne : 2005 Edo MC12 R

34. 523.08 bhp per tonne : 2001 B.Engineering Edonis

35. 522.45 bhp per tonne : 1997 Dodge Dakota Sidewinder Concept

36. 514.47 bhp per tonne : 2006 Donkervoort D8 RS06

37. 510.2 bhp per tonne : 2005 Pagani Zonda C12 F

38. 507.81 bhp per tonne : 2006 Pagani Zonda C12 F Roadster

39. 504.41 bhp per tonne : 2006 Factory Five Racing GTM

40. 500.1 bhp per tonne : 2006 MB Roadcars EOS

41. 496.14 bhp per tonne : 2006 Carbontech Redback Spyder

42. 496.03 bhp per tonne : 2002 Morgan Aero 8 GT

43. 491.53 bhp per tonne : 1986 Ford RS200 Evolution

44. 488.89 bhp per tonne : 1970 Lamborghini Miura Jota

45. 481.75 bhp per tonne : 2002 Ferrari Enzo

46. 475.0 bhp per tonne : 1998 Westfield FW400

47. 474.15 bhp per tonne : 2004 Fuore BlackJag Concept

48. 470.59 bhp per tonne : 2005 Lotus Sport Exige

49. 470.17 bhp per tonne : 2006 Lingenfelter 427 Corvette Commemerative Edition

50. 468.75 bhp per tonne : 2006 Ascari A10

Edited by Big Rizza

Compare to imports:

8.7 kg/kw 1988 S13 Silvia K's (CA18DET)

8.4 kg/kw 1992 R32 Skyline GTS-T Type M

7.7 kg/kw 1991 S13 Silvia K's (SR20DET)

7.6 kg/kw 1999 R34 Skyline GT-R V-Spec

7.5 kg/kw 1996 R33 Skyline GT-R V-Spec

7.4 kg/kw 1996 R33 Skyline GTS-T Type-M

7.3 kg/kw 1994 R32 Skyline GT-R V-SpecII

7.3 kg/kw 1999 JZA80 Supra RZ

7.0 kg/kw 1993 Toyota MR-2 GT-S

6.8 kg/kw 1998 R34 Skyline GT-T

6.7 kg/kw 2002 Nissan S15 Spec R

6.6 kg/kw 1991 Honda NSX

6.1 kg/kw 2002 Mazda RX-7 Type R

Obviously some of these are misleading due to some models having actual power slightly higher than the quoted 206kw.

I'm tired now... no more typing...

Edited by Big Rizza

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I'd suggest the answer to the first question is at least a qualified "yes". I'll come back to that. Pineapples just don't do a lot to solidify the mounting of the subframe. They do a little bit, and that little bit was clearly helpful to me in the past, but the main thing they are intended to be used for is to tip the orientation of the subframe to try to either dial in more or less anti-squat. You can install them one way to try to increase launch traction, or the other way to try to increase lateral grip (at the notional expense of longitudinal traction). Or, as I did, you install them neutral, which only really offers a little bit of "snugging" up of the subframe. When I did pineapples, that was the only option. No-one had a machined alloy collar like the GKTech ones. There were some other options, but nothing like the slip in collars. And it is clear from looking at them that they occupy almost all the free space inside the rubber bush, so they will do a lot to stop them moving internally. So I thought, "that's the game for me!". Obviously the next/adjacent step is poly bushes, but what's the point in doing that with all the work and hassle required to change them over, when jamming (and I mean literally jamming) some alloy into the rubber bushes probably gives an equivalent, or possibly even superior result? So, to go back to your 1st question, I would suggest, for the investment of <<$100 and a morning spent lying under the car swearing and getting some sore fingers, it is certainly something you should try. Who knows? Maybe your situation is so severe that it doesn't solve it. But it might help a lot. If your problem is as severe as you say it is, the next thing to look at is what the rest of the bushes in the rear end a made from. Things like the Hardrace arms with hardened rubber bushes might be a good thing (for the purposes of having adjustability AND stiffer bushes). Otherwise, just poly bushes throughout could be a help. Or following in my fever dream footsteps and putting a lot of sphericals into the rear? Eliminate undersired movement to avoid the build up of resonances that cause the tramp. Also, if you have adjustable uppers in the rear, and you haven't put effort into adjusting the traction arms to minimise bump steer, there might be some advantage in that. If you don't want to go to the effort of doing it yourself (like I am pretty much forced to in Adelaide, owing to a lack of race alignment specialists) then surely there's a place in Melbs that is able to do it. It will cost $$, But that's life.
    • As someone who has pineapples, and horrible axle tramp... should I change these to collars? Is that what you're saying here? Why did you choose these instead of getting pineapples where you said you had good experiences of? I'd love to even attempt to get rid of axle tramp, I either get complete bogginess or absolute insane wheelspin, anything even remotely in between results in filling-removal axle tramp, to the point where launching the car is just not something I do.
    • Lucky for that, because putting ethanol in fuel only lowers the bulk cost of fuel if it's in 91 Add it to 98, 85% of it even and it quintuples in price. Strange physics. f**k you United, Gouging c***ts.
    • Not noticeably. Arguably, the catless turbo is going to work harder in a different direction, as it will spool up faster, go to higher speeds more easily. Only if it was tuned in the original condition. If it was a stock tune, using the AFM before and after the cat/dump change, then no, no retune needed. If the car is running on a MAP sensor, then it might well benefit from a retune. It might even run a little dangerously without a retune, but it could quite easily be fine.
    • We had this blend that uses 98RON + 10% Ethanol which brought it to 100RON. It's no longer available anymore unfortunately.
×
×
  • Create New...