The Alfa Romeo 164 2.0 T.S. is placed 8686th out of all cars with a four-cylinder engine, having 144 hp. We have compiled a special ranking system to show you which vehicles are the best on the market in terms of power – why not check it out?
Top 10 most powerful four-cylinder cars in automotive historyWith its 117 hp engine, the Alfa Romeo 164 2.5 TD takes 8961st place in our ANTI-rating of cars with the lowest power. We analyzed all vehicles with four-cylinder engines and listed the top 10 slugs among these cars.
Add a couple of horses. Four-cylinder cars with the lowest horsepowerIn our rating of the most powerful six-cylinder cars, the Alfa Romeo 164 3.0 V6 takes 4479th place. Its 192 hp engine is the reason for placing it here. Want to know more about its competitors? Just read our Top 10!
Most powerful six-cylinder cars currently on the marketIf you want a car with a big engine, you might consider the Alfa Romeo 164 3.0 V6 with its 192 hp. But before choosing, pay attention to the fact that it’s ranked 1787th in our rating of six-cylinder cars with the lowest power. Check out which cars made it to the first 10 places!
Why do these cars need six cylinders? Vehicles with the lowest horsepowerThe Alfa Romeo 164 3.0 V6 weighs 1470 kg, so it falls into the category of vehicles weighing 1000–1500 kg. Among such cars, the Alfa Romeo takes 1688th place in terms of engine power. Look at our rating to find the most powerful cars in this category.
Top 10 most powerful cars weighing 1000-1500 kgWeighing 1320 kg, the Alfa Romeo 164 2.5 TD falls into the most popular weight category on the market. Its 117 hp engine ensure 7102th place in our ANTI-rating of cars with the lowest horsepower weighing between 1000 and 1500 kg. Want to see the leaders? Check out our top 10 vehicles!
Top 10 cars weighing between 1000 and 1500 kg with the lowest horsepower| Vehicle | Power (difference from average) | Power to torque ratio | Power per passenger | Power to 1 cylinder | Power to consumption rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.5 TD |
117 hp / 86 kw
(-32%) |
+55% | 23 hp / 17 kw | 29 hp / 22 kw | 46.8 points |
| 2.0 Turbo |
175 hp / 129 kw
(+1%) |
+34% | 35 hp / 26 kw | 44 hp / 32 kw | 87.5 points |
| 3.0 24V QV |
232 hp / 171 kw
(+34%) |
+17% | 46 hp / 34 kw | 39 hp / 29 kw | 77.3 points |
| 2.0 T.S. |
144 hp / 106 kw
(-17%) |
+23% | 29 hp / 21 kw | 36 hp / 27 kw | 72 points |
| 3.0 i V6 24V |
230 hp / 169 kw
(+33%) |
+19% | 46 hp / 34 kw | 38 hp / 28 kw | 76.7 points |
| 3.0 V6 |
192 hp / 141 kw
(+11%) |
+25% | 38 hp / 28 kw | 32 hp / 24 kw | 64 points |
| 2.5 V6 |
163 hp / 120 kw
(-6%) |
- | 33 hp / 24 kw | - | - |
| 2.0 V6 Turbo |
201 hp / 148 kw
(+16%) |
+26% | 40 hp / 30 kw | 34 hp / 25 kw | 100.5 points |
| 3.0 i.e. QV |
200 hp / 147 kw
(+16%) |
+26% | 40 hp / 29 kw | 33 hp / 25 kw | 66.7 points |
| 3.0 24V |
210 hp / 154 kw
(+21%) |
+21% | 42 hp / 31 kw | 35 hp / 26 kw | 70 points |
| 3.0 24V Q4 |
228 hp / 168 kw
(+32%) |
+19% | 46 hp / 34 kw | 38 hp / 28 kw | 76 points |
| - | - | - | - |
| Vehicle | 2.5 TD |
|---|---|
| Power (difference from average) |
117 hp / 86 kw
(-32%) |
| Power to torque ratio | 55 % |
| Power per passenger | 23 hp / 17 kw |
| Power to 1 cylinder | 29 hp / 22 kw |
| Power to consumption rate | 46.8 points |
| Vehicle | 2.0 Turbo |
| Power (difference from average) |
175 hp / 129 kw
(+1%) |
| Power to torque ratio | 34 % |
| Power per passenger | 35 hp / 26 kw |
| Power to 1 cylinder | 44 hp / 32 kw |
| Power to consumption rate | 87.5 points |
| Vehicle | 3.0 24V QV |
| Power (difference from average) |
232 hp / 171 kw
(+34%) |
| Power to torque ratio | 17 % |
| Power per passenger | 46 hp / 34 kw |
| Power to 1 cylinder | 39 hp / 29 kw |
| Power to consumption rate | 77.3 points |
| Vehicle | 2.0 T.S. |
| Power (difference from average) |
144 hp / 106 kw
(-17%) |
| Power to torque ratio | 23 % |
| Power per passenger | 29 hp / 21 kw |
| Power to 1 cylinder | 36 hp / 27 kw |
| Power to consumption rate | 72 points |
| Vehicle | 3.0 i V6 24V |
| Power (difference from average) |
230 hp / 169 kw
(+33%) |
| Power to torque ratio | 19 % |
| Power per passenger | 46 hp / 34 kw |
| Power to 1 cylinder | 38 hp / 28 kw |
| Power to consumption rate | 76.7 points |
| Vehicle | 3.0 V6 |
| Power (difference from average) |
192 hp / 141 kw
(+11%) |
| Power to torque ratio | 25 % |
| Power per passenger | 38 hp / 28 kw |
| Power to 1 cylinder | 32 hp / 24 kw |
| Power to consumption rate | 64 points |
| Vehicle | 2.5 V6 |
| Power (difference from average) |
163 hp / 120 kw
(-6%) |
| Power to torque ratio | - |
| Power per passenger | 33 hp / 24 kw |
| Power to 1 cylinder | - |
| Power to consumption rate | - |
| Vehicle | 2.0 V6 Turbo |
| Power (difference from average) |
201 hp / 148 kw
(+16%) |
| Power to torque ratio | 26 % |
| Power per passenger | 40 hp / 30 kw |
| Power to 1 cylinder | 34 hp / 25 kw |
| Power to consumption rate | 100.5 points |
| Vehicle | 3.0 i.e. QV |
| Power (difference from average) |
200 hp / 147 kw
(+16%) |
| Power to torque ratio | 26 % |
| Power per passenger | 40 hp / 29 kw |
| Power to 1 cylinder | 33 hp / 25 kw |
| Power to consumption rate | 66.7 points |
| Vehicle | 3.0 24V |
| Power (difference from average) |
210 hp / 154 kw
(+21%) |
| Power to torque ratio | 21 % |
| Power per passenger | 42 hp / 31 kw |
| Power to 1 cylinder | 35 hp / 26 kw |
| Power to consumption rate | 70 points |
| Vehicle | 3.0 24V Q4 |
| Power (difference from average) |
228 hp / 168 kw
(+32%) |
| Power to torque ratio | 19 % |
| Power per passenger | 46 hp / 34 kw |
| Power to 1 cylinder | 38 hp / 28 kw |
| Power to consumption rate | 76 points |
| Vehicle | |
| Power (difference from average) | - |
| Power to torque ratio | - |
| Power per passenger | |
| Power to 1 cylinder | - |
| Power to consumption rate | - |
