HP/Liter is useless to me. I dont understand why everyone gets their panties in a bunch because V8's dont make as much HP per liter as a b16 or whatever. HP/Liter doesnt win any races.
Yes, in 1994-1995 the mustang could barely squeek out a 14.9 stock. Name one import of equal or lesser value that could do that. In 1995, that was fairly impressive. Now, the 99+ mustangs are knocking down high 13 second times bone stock, with the 05 GT's down in the low 13 second range for some people. Cobras are in the mid 12s from the factory floor, LS1's were running high 12's back in 1998 off the showroom floor. I guess since people compare newer cars to older models and think its fair, then the Supra must be a shitty car right? I mean, it only ran what mid 13s?
Besides, just because a manufacture rated a motor at a certain hp doesnt mean that that is always true. LS1's were rated at 300bhp, and then 310bhp. They routinely break 300whp, which if you calculate 15% drivetrain loss, is 345bhp. Same with 03 Cobras, which have put down anywhere from 365whp at the lowest up to 390whp, all completely stock, which puts the motor at 420bhp to 450bhp, whereas the b16 puts down 130whp(?) stock, giving it a whopping 150bhp if paired through the same drivetrain loss (which is usually less for FWD cars, but we'll worry about that later.)
Now lets do some hp/liter calculations from that
345bhp/5.7l = 60.5hp/l
420bhp/4.6l = 91.3hp/l
450bhp/4.6l = 97.8hp/l
150bhp/1.6l = 93.8hp/l
The s2000 i will give credit for having an insane hp/liter.
220bhp/2.0l = 109.3hp/l
These are all based on real wheel hp figures + 15%, so they're far more accurate than a manufacturer's rating.
Either way you cut it, hp/liter doesnt mean shit unless you're racing in a class that has a limit on displacement.