# Horsepower



## Tucano (Jun 9, 2006)

Could anyone please tell me what size an 86hp engine is in, the more understandable to me  
1.5, 1.8, 2.0 terminology
Apologies for my ignorance 8O 
Norman.


----------



## Tucano (Jun 9, 2006)

ANYONE


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

I think you will find that there is no coversion tables for this, as there are too many variances. it is almost like comparing apples with oranges.

cabby


----------



## henede (Nov 18, 2009)

I have a 1987 Transit which has a 2.5 diesel engine at 85 hp but its hard to answer your question without a lot of further information.
8O  
Henry.


----------



## Tucano (Jun 9, 2006)

Cabby,
Many thanks for that. If I am finding this too complicated perhaps I should NOT be considering going to Germany to view the vehicle


----------



## Tucano (Jun 9, 2006)

Henede,
Perhaps you have already answered the question as I have just read somewhere that 86ps and 85hp are similar. 
Your van being 85hp I will assume the van I am interested in is also a 2.5  
Pity I don't speak German, or French, or Italian !!


----------



## henede (Nov 18, 2009)

Don't know what you are considering buying but unless it is very small and light I would suggest you might find it seriously under-powered. - Just a thought as its a long way to go to be dissapointed.  

Henry


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

Hi Norman

It's an impossible question to answer because there are so many variables. For instance, as henede has already said, an older 2.5 Transit might well be rated at 85hp yet a current 2.5 litre Transit would probably be rated nearer 150hp when suitably tuned.

An 85hp engine in a motorhome is likely to produce quite a "modest" performance by modern standards. :wink:


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

would you like to give us the details and maybe we can work something out that might help.

cabby


----------



## Tucano (Jun 9, 2006)

Okay,
A Hymer E512. Vicdicdoc was selling his, now isn't, but he has got me interested. 
There are a number for sale in Germany and I like them all  
Oaktree had one but it sold yesterday


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

*hp*

Take for example the current Mercedes Sprinter

It used to be in Euro IV *

90 hp
110hp
130hp
150hp

But all these Engines were 2.2 litre 4 cylinder

The 3.0 was 184hp

Now the range of 4 cylinder 2.2 in Euro V are

110
130
160

The latest 3.0 is 190hp

So as you can see, the opposite way around a 2.2 litre can be tuned to varying outputs.

Any Help?

TM

*all hp's quoted are approximate


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

For background information;

a 1963 Morris 1000 Traveller was rated at 30 hp, it weighed 686 kg

in 1971 a Morris TC Ital was rated at 94 hp, the body weighed 957 kg - under a ton,

the Citroen C1 on sale now, has a 1.0 litre engine, produces 68 hp and weighs 750 kg, so as Gaspode says, 86hp for a MH would give a very mediocre performance unless it is a VERY small vehicle......

Dave


----------



## Tucano (Jun 9, 2006)

I shall have to look deeper into this, thanks gents. I know the Hymer is on a 3.5 ton chassis so I find it hard to imagine them being powered by such a piddly engine, but that is what the blurb says.
Further investigation required :?


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

*old*



Penquin said:


> For background information;
> 
> a 1963 Morris 1000 Traveller was rated at 30 hp, it weighed 686 kg
> 
> ...


A lot of older Motorhomes like Talbot and Mercs were 60-90hp

Even Modern Day Fiats like my Brother's 2007 X150 was only 100hp


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Frankly when thinking about pulling power BHP is meaningless.

Which would you rather have in your 4 or 5 tonne motorhome a 150bhp Mercedes turbo diesel engine or a 180BHP Honda Fireblade motorbike engine?


BHP is how FAST you hit the wall - Torque is how FAR you take the wall with you.

BHP - PAH!!! Torques are what matter.


----------



## icer (Dec 11, 2006)

vicdicdoc's is an E510
the turbo version is 85KW which is 116PS
Is there some confusion perhaps as you said that it was 85HP
That same engine was used in the E690 which was 7.7M long and was plated to 4.5 Ton
A robust engine.

Take a look at the examples on mobile.de

The non turbo version was i think 80KW

Ian


----------



## Tucano (Jun 9, 2006)

Ian,

Thank you for that. I am looking at vehicles on mobile.de and the particular van is rated as 63kw/86ps.

Norman.


----------



## Oscarmax (Mar 3, 2011)

BHP (brake horse power) = Torque ( ft Ib) x RPM (revs per minute) divided by 5750.

i.e 200 ft Ib x 2000 RPM divided by 5750 = 69.565 BHP, however, if you were looking for maximum BHP i.e 200ft Ib x 10000 RPM divide by 5750 = 347.826 BHP

For a motorhome you will require torque at the low end of the RPM scale, i.e. torque below the power curve.


----------



## loddy (Feb 12, 2007)

It has been said Torque is the important factor for driveability,
don't forget PS is German and is approx 10% less than HP

Loddy :wink:


----------



## grizzlyj (Oct 14, 2008)

HP per ton is a good way to think about it.

Fully loaded travel weight of course! Engine size then becomes a sugestion of how efficient it is. A small modern turbo diesel will be efficient as long as its not worked too hard.

My 1983 camper has a 5.7 litre diesel pulling 9.5 tons with about 200HP, achieving 10-11mpg.

The figures posted by Teemyob show modern diesels can be powerful, and all he lists would be capable of at least twice the economy of mine, but also won't be installed in things quite so heavy (I think!)

Modern sports bikes will weigh less than 200kg (without rider!), and outputs are heading toward 200HP, so really are fast. 

A Caterham I owned a few years ago had 260HP with 560kg to pull (before driver and passenger!) and was definitely fast.

Many modern cars seem to sit at around 100HP per ton for models you could describe as nippy. 200HP/ton is for a definitely sporty model.

So our camper has about 20 HP/ton and is definitely slow, generally slower than just about every other modern truck on the road by a small amount. Especially on hills.

More HP and less weight (smaller, lighter camper) gives better performance (faster or better mpg) regardless of engine capacity, broadly speaking!


----------



## icer (Dec 11, 2006)

Tucano

Have taken this from wikipedia
It should be a second generation engine for the year 1/97
It looks like it could be the non turbo 2.8D



Ian


----------



## icer (Dec 11, 2006)

sorry 


Engines second generation 1994-1999
Model Type Power
2.0 petrol 100 PS (74 kW; 99 hp)
2.0D diesel 81 PS (60 kW; 80 hp)
1.9TD diesel 82 PS (60 kW; 81 hp)-90 PS (66 kW; 89 hp)
2.5D diesel 100 PS (74 kW; 99 hp)
2.5TDI diesel 115 PS (85 kW; 113 hp)
2.8D diesel 87 PS (64 kW; 86 hp)
2.8TD diesel 139 PS (102 kW; 137 hp)

Ian


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Oscarmax said:


> BHP (brake horse power) = Torque ( ft Ib) x RPM (revs per minute) divided by 5750.
> 
> i.e 200 ft Ib x 2000 RPM divided by 5750 = 69.565 BHP, however, if you were looking for maximum BHP i.e 200ft Ib x 10000 RPM divide by 5750 = 347.826 BHP
> 
> For a motorhome you will require torque at the low end of the RPM scale, i.e. torque below the power curve.


This explains exactly why motorhomes are not fitted with 200bhp motorcycle engines or even 260bhp Caterham engines instead of 120/130bhp turbo diesels.
In real terms BHP is irrelevant unless you know what torque it gives you and the revs range over which that torque is produced.

I'd hate to think what the judder would be like if you tried to restart a 3500kg motorhome (going forwards OR backwards) on a hill if it was fitted with a Fireblade engine.

At least the judder wouldn't last very long ...................... about as long as the clutch I guess. :roll:


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

icer said:


> sorry
> 
> Engines second generation 1994-1999
> Model Type Power
> ...


As said - for this is have any meaningful relevance you need to add peak torque figures ([email protected]) to this table.

Then compare the puny [email protected] revs of the 100 PS petrol with the much better torque @ much lower revs of the 82 PS TD.

A lower bhp but higher torque at lower revs TD is far better suited to use in a motorhome than a petrol engine that needs the nuts revving off it to produce it's power.


----------



## Sprinta (Sep 15, 2010)

my slightly :lol: tuned bike engine only makes 86bhp @ 2000rpm

thankfully it revs to 11000 rpm and 480bhp :twisted:


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

Even more important than power or indeed Torque is tractive effort.

Torque or power at the engine still needs to get through the transmission and be transmitted to the road.

Of all the panel vans the Ducato seemed to have the worse weight distribution which affects the tractive effort. I guess the rear drive vans score best.

One of the highest tractive effort cars was the small rear engined skodas which is why in rally tuned trim they did so well in their day, outdoing all but 4wd quattros etc. (you could also get 200bhp out of their 1200 3 bearing crankshaft which helped)


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Sprinta said:


> my slightly :lol: tuned bike engine only makes 86bhp @ 2000rpm
> 
> thankfully it revs to 11000 rpm and 480bhp :twisted:


So you can hit the wall going quite fast then - but how far would you take it with you?


----------



## dikyenfo (Feb 16, 2008)

The vast range of gear ratios and final drive ratios mean that there is nearly an infinite variety of possible solutions depending on what is required from the vehicle.
I think I am lucky with mine on the 2300 engine the drive ratio of 2700 revs at 60 mph is fine for my outfit pulling a trailer.
Obviously the choice of these is ol=nly of use if you build yourself and specify from the flo-line what gears you want and the final drive .
Got wrong as obviously reading comments some have you are stuck with it so applying weight to a vehicle on a test drive with full tanks and if possible some added interior weight you will never see what performance is really like or the braking and steering.
Lorry tests are always done like this and I carried out many tests to find out road characteristics.


----------



## CliveMott (Mar 10, 2008)

A modern 1200 cc multivalve petrol engine will produce this. 
Mind you the 5.6 litre Bedford TK (330Cu inch) engine only produced 90 HP.

86 HP = 64.156 killowatts if that helps?

C.


----------



## blondy (Aug 23, 2007)

I seem to remember, years ago HP was based on engine size then more clever people decided to use a more acurate system, where BHP was a calculation on lifting X weight X far in a given time,
I have forgot the figures,
But as has been said the toque at usable revs is the most important
measurement.


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

So you can hit the wall going quite fast then - but how far would you take it with you?

I think the wall would be going nowhere.

Where the rider finished would be down to his trajectory and flight characteristics. :lol:


----------



## peejay (May 10, 2005)

Hi Norman,

Don't know bugger all about the technical side of things, but 'PS' is German for 'Pferde Stärke' which literally means 'Horse Strength' ergo 'HP' or 'Horse Power'

But

PS is Metric Horse Power whereas HP is Imperial Horse Power.

PS is a marginally larger figure than HP, 86ps would be (roughly) around 85hp.

A horse is a horse in my book but obviously the Germans think theirs are stronger than ours.

Full of useless info, me.

8)

Hope you find a nice Hymer, which is pronounced 'Hoomer' by the Germans, but that's another story.

Pete

I'll get me saddle


----------



## Tucano (Jun 9, 2006)

People, thank you all for your help, the engine in question turned out to be a 2:5 according to mobile.de.
I am now about to view, tomorrow, the b584 advertised by topsy 07 on the sites classifieds ads.
Funnily enough I have never liked this layout before, needs must :?


----------

