Some numbers on hp to weight

1994 Saturn SC2
Manual trans
2375 lbs
124hp
122 ft lbs of torque

1994 Mazda Miata
Manual trans
2293 lbs
128hp
110 ft lbs of torque

1994 Toyota Corolla DX
Manual trans
2390 lbs
105hp
99 ft lbs of torque

1994 Nissan Sentra SE
Manual trans
2346 lbs
110hp
108 ft lbs of torque

Ford Focus LX
Manual trans
2419 lbs
88hp
108 ft lbs of torque

and if you were to keep going you'd find the SC2 along with the SL2 to have a very respectable power to weight ratio for it's time.

Yes you could get a high performance version of a couple of those cars. like the
1994 Ford Focus GT that was priced much higher than the SC2 or Focus LX
manual trans
2325 lbs
127hp
114 ft lbs of torque

 

Respectable yes, but a clear advantage no. Like I say, working off of memory and it was few years back. Saturns seemed to be at least competitive for a while but it was not long before as a whole they were hard pressed to end up on the podium and then dropped completely.
Not unusual in competitive automobile racing.
Frankly I think my 1992 Mitsubishi Van with a 1.6 liter 16 valve overhead cam engine and a 5 speed was quicker than the 1994 Saturn that still sits in the driveway.
But again, that is memory speaking.
I have no idea what the weight difference was if any. I do know thought that I have driven both cars over the exact same roads and on steep hills and there is a number of 7% grades I would hit, the Mitsubishi and the Saturn were pretty much even on fuel economy but the van would out perform the Saturn on a 7% grade. Which is about as close as I can come to a performance comparison.
I still wish the Saturn had another 15 hp based on that comparison. But it still was and is a great car. Which reminds me, I need to order tires for it today. Dang, that will make a total of 8 tires I have purchased since the first of September. All due to dry rot.

 

I'd be surprised if the Mitsu EXPO LRV 2.4L sport could run under a 10 second 0-60 time or under 17 seconds in the 1/4 mile, and the Expo SP with the 1.8L was much slower. The SC was in the neighborhood of 8.5 0-60 and 16.3 1/4 mile.

It's funny back then if a car/truck/van ran under 19 in the 1/4 mile it was deemed to be good.

 

My Mitsubishi was the 1.8. And while I never had it on a drag strip, I put almost 300,000 miles on it in 11 years on Arizona interstates.
There are more than an adequate number of 7% grades around here. Something I see on a regular occasion.
The Mitsubishi was capable of pulling them at Arizona Freeway speeds of 75mph. The Saturn wants to down shift to do the same thing.
While neither measure of performance is in itself and end requirement, pretty much I judge things how they run on the open road.
Built for a drag strip, most cars fall on their face at freeway speeds.
I have no idea what either one of those would do on a quarter mile. The LRV I could cruise back from LA with the speedometer set at 105.
The only other car that has seen a quarter mile on any occasion is my built up AMC Spirit and that one has a 4.2 L or 258 Cu In motor running a cam, fuel injection and some compression, enough where it demands premium and here that is 91 octane. A 2.53 Final Drive and P245 60 14 tires. It is geared to run about 32 mph / 1000 rpm which pretty much says it will cruise nicely at the century mark, accelerate going up 7% grades yet at best it is an 18 second car at the drag strip. The only time I get to Speedworld is club nights and I can take it, run all night long as hard as it will run and not break anything and drive it home. It will run consistently at about 78 mph and as it is an automatic, it will still be in passing gear at the end of the strip and turn some where aroun 4000 rpm which is adequate for a long stroke in line 6.
But you are right. Performance criteria as measured at the quarter mile has changed quite a bit in the last 20 years or so. The single biggest contributor to a lot of that has been the use of the computer controlled engine.
I still build carbureted cars because I can. But computer controlled is a significant improvement. Also increase in cost.
The first and last computer controlled car I built cost me about 3 grand for the computer system alone. The last Carburetor equipped car cost me under $100.00 for the carburetor and parts.
For my purposes? The extra $2900.00 isn't worth it.

 

I don't think any of the above 1992 cars were built for the dragstrip. I mean I could be wrong. I think all the cars mentioned are computer controlled and without carbs, points/condersers, distributors.

 

I guess I am confused then. What is the point of using acceleration as measured in the quarter mile as a criteria to determine performance.
Quarter mile times are in deed a measurement of acceleration, but quarter mile times are hardly a standard to choose a road racer from nor to predict overall performance as driven on the street.
As I owned a Expo LRV for quite a few years, it was rather quick on acceleration when pushed, but it excelled on the open road. As it was a 1.8L 16 valve engine. I would say that it dealt with open road characteristics better than my DOHC Saturn did and does.
I don't have any numbers to verify that, but the seat of pants over quite a few years and miles leaves me with that impression.
To me, my Saturn which I don't think changed in power output over the life of the production could use another 15 hp.
One difference though is the manual 5 speed vs the Saturns Automatic.
However even that set in Sport Mode will scare the heck out of a 2bbl v8 Mustang. But once out on the road it still has problems with a long 7% Grade.
As to fuel injection? Most quick cars today run full fuel injection with programmable engine management computers at a drag strip

 

you said. "Built for a drag strip, most cars fall on their face at freeway speeds. "

and I said

I don't think any of the above 1992 cars were built for the dragstrip.

 

I guess than pretty much both statements are true. Cars built for drag strip use pretty much fall on their face at freeway speeds.
And pretty much a list of 1992 economy cars weren't built for much more than basic transportation and generally did that more or less.

 

My only point is .............. The SC2's/SL2's packed a pretty good punch in it's day, and were not so called performance packages like Ford played the Focus GT off to be. That little s-series would have been sweet with 150hp, and double sweet at 175.

One of the main reasons I got into Saturns was the hp to weight along the fuel mileage that came with them.

 

Yuh they did. And frankly the sport setting on the automatic emphasized the quickness of it. Around here it is those long 7% grades that sap it. I don't know if I am going to live long enough to pull the engine down, I don't have to at the present it runs well and consumes no oil. But if I did I would sure want to address the lack of an aftermarket cam for the thing. For my money that is the cheapest way to increased hp and also the most labor intensive. The biggest problem at the moment is the cosmetics and those I need to address.