FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 01/14/2003 5:23:21 AM PST by billbears
The Car & Driver magazine top 10 cars of 1985 included Hondas, Chevrolets, a Porsche, and otherwise many of the same makes that are on the list today. What is striking about the 1985 list are the inflation-adjusted prices, especially in the context of weight and horsepower. Here are some examples from the 1985 list with horsepower, base price in 1985 dollars and adjusted 2003 dollars (in parentheses), weight, and horsepower-to-weight ratio*:
Honda Accord: 86–101 hp, $8900 ($15,200), 2220 lbs, 22 lb/hpThe power-to-weight ratios have improved. The results are more dramatic if you look further back in time. Around 1977, the Corvette developed 165–185 horsepower. Today, the highest trim level in the Honda Accord nets you 240 horsepower.
Chevrolet Corvette: 230 hp, $25,000 ($42,500), 3250 lbs, 14 lb/hp
Dodge Caravan: 101–104 hp, $9600 ($16,435), 3300 lbs, 32 lb/hp
Porsche 944: 143 hp, $21,440 ($36,705), 2800 lbs, 20 lb/hpAnd a few examples from the 2002 top 10 list:
Honda Accord: 160 hp, $16,300, 3000 lbs, 19 lb/hp
Chevrolet Corvette: 350 hp, $43,000, 3250 lb, 10 lb/hp
Porsche Boxster: 228 hp, $43,400, 3000 lb, 13 lb/hp
Ford Focus: 110 hp, $13,300, 2600 lb, 24 lb/hp
Looking at the entire Car & Driver top 10 list from 1985 versus 2002, using cars only (no vans or trucks), the numbers are as follows: For 1985, average inflation-adjusted price $28,000, 143 horsepower, 2861 lbs, 20 lb/hp. For today, $32,000, 243 horsepower, 3120 lbs, 13 lb/hp. This comparison is exaggerated, as Car & Driver’s selections in 2002 were more biased toward sporty cars than were the 1985 selections. Nonetheless, standards have changed.
Looking at a single car over time parallels what we see with the 10-best lists. The Nissan 2-seat sports car was called the 300 ZX in 1985. Then, it developed 200 hp with the help of a turbocharger. By 1992, the same car developed 300 horsepower, weighed 3600 lbs (12 lb/hp), and cost $37,845 ($49,800 today). Due to low demand for sporty cars, the 300ZX was among the cars that weren’t produced by Japanese companies through most of the 1990s – the Mazda RX-7 and Toyota MR2 also disappeared – but Nissan decided to bring back the Z this year as the 350Z. For 2003, the base price is $27,000, horsepower is 287, and weight is 3200 lbs, for just over 11 lb/hp with no need for a turbocharger.
Notice the Honda Accord for 1985 and 2003, above; while the price has moved slightly more than inflation would predict, you’re getting 50% more car: Not only is it heavier, it’s faster, much larger and more luxurious inside, and offers as standard equipment features not usually available at any price in 1985, including anti-lock brakes, air bags, a CD player, remote keyless entry, anti-theft devices, 18 years of improvements in crashworthiness, and so on. That dinky 2200-lb Spartabox from 1985 cost $15,200 of today’s dollars, and today’s costs $16,300. Today’s car is much more of a bargain than was 1985’s: Anti-lock brakes, when first offered as an option in the 1980s, raised the price of a vehicle $2000. With that, 1985’s vehicle already would be more expensive than the 2003 model – and it would still have the tiny engine and interior, no CD player, etc., etc.
The horsepower wars have picked up tremendously in the last three years. The Honda Accord V-6 is $26,000, and offers 240 hp. The Nissan Altima, also in the middle of the $20–30,000 range, offers just over 240 hp. Acura, at just under $32,000, offers two models at 260 hp; one of them, the four-door TL-S, is a spacious mid-size sedan, and has pressured its competition by providing such features as heated seats, high-intensity-discharge headlamps, seat- and mirror-adjustment memories for two drivers, and more all as standard equipment. Other cars with all these features topped $40,000 two years ago (some of them still do), but with their TL and CL automobiles, Acura will force Lexus and Infiniti prices downward.
SUVs and minivans are showing the same improvements as cars. There are many American and Japanese SUVs that accelerate from 0 to 60 today as quickly as the Corvette did in the early 1980s. Then there’s my favorite new car, a Dodge station wagon (pictured), perhaps to be introduced in early 2004. At $33,000, the wagon (Dodge prefers "sports tourer") has a 354-cubic inch V-8 with a supercharger producing 430 hp and 480 lb-ft of torque. Acceleration to 60, at 4.7 seconds, is better than today’s 350-hp Corvette with the wagon weighing a beefy 4000 lb. If this machine ends up on the market with that engine, that look, the huge 4-door passenger cabin, the 20-inch aluminum wheels, the bench back seat that comfortably holds a 5th passenger, and the wide-opening tailgate, I will buy one. I have always preferred the quiet, inconspicuous competence exemplified by Acura, but sometimes you just want to make a stomping, noisy spectacle on the way to 170 mph.
Just for fun, I decided to compute a bottom-line, inflation-adjusted dollar-to-horsepower index. Car & Driver’s top 10 of 1985 showed $199 per horse. In 1992, it was $169. In 2002, it was $122. My station wagon from the picture: $76. Again, this figure omits that today’s cars have as standard convenience, luxury, and safety equipment things that were often not even foreseen in 1985 or 1992.
Now, as soon as the government allows me to have a car without airbags, relaxes its CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) requirements so I can have a strong roll cage, and gives up on that antiquated speed-limit notion, I’ll have some real fun, and it’ll be affordable. And as soon as they quit inflating the money supply, it’ll be easier for me to compute how much more fun I’m having now than drivers did in past years.
*Horsepower-to-weight ratio is as good as any for predicting flat-out acceleration. Based on a sample of 32 vehicles, the correlation between horsepower and weight ratio and 0-to-60 acceleration is .95, while for torque-to-weight the correlation with 0-to-60 times is .86. Adding torque and horsepower actually hurts prediction, dropping the correlation to .94. Torque helps acceleration from 0 to 30, and horsepower rules the roost at higher speeds
Secondly, there is nothing wrong with the 4.6L Ford modular engine except this: Ford wusses out on exploiting it.
Well yes there is. A 4.6L is around 281 ci. That's not a V8. That's a hopped up 6. Chevy did the same thing back in the early 80s if I'm not mistaken with the Camaro. The one thing you can give Chevy credit for is that they discontinued that engine in the Camaro after a time. Ford hasn't.
It might not have the displacement you expect in a V8, but it is most certainly a V8.
What's that in today's money?
WRX is not a SUV. Its a small 4 door.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.