125 bhp v 90 bhp...much difference?

DragonQ

Stigy wrote: »

Although different units of measurement, PS and BHP are pretty much the same in terms of numerical value. PS is a German measurement, and for some reason, Ford has always used PS for some reason.

PS is metric I believe. Wouldn't be surprised if it was designed to be close to BHP on purpose.

bod1467

1 metric horsepower (ps) = 0.98632 mechanical horsepower (hp).

bhp is subtly different again, but in modern vehicles the difference is minimal.

https://www.carwow.co.uk/guides/glossary/what-is-horsepower

A horsepower is a totally arbitrary measurement – dreamt up by James Watt when trying to compare the effectiveness of his steam engines against the horses they were replacing. One horsepower was deemed to be the equivalent of one horse lifting 33,000 pounds over one foot in one minute on the surface of the Earth.

Other measures are just an attempt to modernise this Victorian measurement. Brake-horsepower is, in car terms, effectively the same as horsepower and simply indicates that an engine’s energy loss due to friction has been taken into account – though, because horsepower usually includes this anyway, they are effectively the same.

PS (pferdestärke), CV (chevaux vapeur) or DIN metric horsepower are exactly that – an attempt to make horsepower metric. A metric horsepower is the equivalent of 0.986 horsepower – this is why the Volkswagen Golf R is advertised with 300PS but only has 296hp. Equally, 300PS sounds better than 296hp simply because it’s a bigger number

- See more at: https://www.carwow.co.uk/guides/glossary/what-is-horsepower#sthash.HGgHVwyX.dpuf

bigjl

To get back to the OPs query.

I would go for the 125bhp unless they have test driven a 90bhp version on faster roads with a couple of people in.

Nothing worse than buying a car that you are going to own for several years only to discover it is sluggish and tiring to drive.

And 35bhp is a fair chunk of power to miss.

Anybody that drive a 115bhp diesel Mondeo and then drive a 130bhp Diesel Mondeo will understand my point, the 130bhp was a much nicer car to own, quicker and more flexible.

Silver-Surfer_2

bigjl wrote: »

To get back to the OPs query.

I would go for the 125bhp unless they have test driven a 90bhp version on faster roads with a couple of people in.

Nothing worse than buying a car that you are going to own for several years only to discover it is sluggish and tiring to drive.

And 35bhp is a fair chunk of power to miss.

Anybody that drive a 115bhp diesel Mondeo and then drive a 130bhp Diesel Mondeo will understand my point, the 130bhp was a much nicer car to own, quicker and more flexible.

I found the Peugeot diesel the other was round, once on the open road it wasn't much of an issue, it was once you lost revs and momentum you notice the difference.

agrinnall

bigjl wrote: »

I would go for the 125bhp unless they have test driven a 90bhp version on faster roads with a couple of people in.

...

And 35bhp is a fair chunk of power to miss.

Just to clarify, the OP has already confirmed my suspicion that the lower powered engine is indeed the 99bhp one. Several posts made since that confirmation was given have repeated the initial error, so clearly people are not reading the thread properly.

bigjl

agrinnall wrote: »

Just to clarify, the OP has already confirmed my suspicion that the lower powered engine is indeed the 99bhp one. Several posts made since that confirmation was given have repeated the initial error, so clearly people are not reading the thread properly.

Whatever.

Pedant

I read the thread title

Haven't read your other posts though, life's too short

prowla

Well, it's a Ford, so that's a bit of a warning label and at "from" £15k it's not cheap.

As for 90 (or 99) vs 125 bhp, the performance ain't a lot unless you are pootling about and the 0-60 time of the 125 isn't going to have you revving at the lights, though you will likely beat a Citroen 2CV at least. (My XR3 in the 80s had 96 bhp and did 0-60 in 9 seconds, so that's progress for you!)

agrinnall

bigjl wrote: »

Whatever.

Pedant

I read the thread title

Haven't read your other posts though, life's too short

Not sure why you think being accurate is pedantry, but as you say, whatever...

FreddieFrugal

prowla wrote: »

Well, it's a Ford, so that's a bit of a warning label

Why?

Also 0-60 time of under 10 seconds is perfectly acceptable for a mini-mpv! Very different sort of car to your XR3.
The OP is not after a performance car - they just don't want to be caught short on the motorway or slip road.

Just don't expect to get miracle mpg from the EcoBoost engine. They're not bad at all for petrol engine but way off the official figures - more similar to a conventional 1.2L in terms of mpg but with much higher performance.

spikyone

prowla wrote: »

Well, it's a Ford, so that's a bit of a warning label and at "from" £15k it's not cheap.

As for 90 (or 99) vs 125 bhp, the performance ain't a lot unless you are pootling about and the 0-60 time of the 125 isn't going to have you revving at the lights, though you will likely beat a Citroen 2CV at least. (My XR3 in the 80s had 96 bhp and did 0-60 in 9 seconds, so that's progress for you!)

You're comparing a hot hatch against an MPV. An MPV with modern safety (and comfort) technology. An MPV that meets Euro VI emissions regulations. The Escort had a 1.6 engine that gave 27mpg, whilst the B-Max will return 57mpg from a 1.0. Even allowing for a few extra mpg because the test is rubbish, it does around twice as many mpg.
The Escort weighed less than a tonne, the B-Max is at least 20% heavier. And your Escort only hit 60 in 9 seconds if you pushed it off a cliff, test figures show that the 0-100km/h time (0-62mph) was 10.8 seconds versus 9.7 claimed by Ford. Coincidentally, the 0-62mph of the B-max is 10.9 seconds. The B-Max will do 117mph, whereas the Escort could only manage 110 (same figures as before).

So you can buy a modern family car that is safe, comfortable, and fairly refined, which gives the same performance as a 1980s boy racer's wet dream whilst using half as much fuel from an engine with ~40% less displacement. Inflation-corrected, the B-max is cheaper too. I'd say that's progress.