Horsepower is a relic of the steam age, yet it still dominates spec sheets, showroom chatter, and online debates about engines. Even as engineers rely on watts and kilowatts, the car market, motorsport and consumer culture continue to frame performance in terms of how many “horses” an engine can muster.
I want to unpack why that old barnyard metaphor has proved so durable, how it maps onto modern physics, and why some experts argue it is overdue for retirement even as others insist it remains the most intuitive way to talk about power.
From coal mines to car ads: how horsepower began
The story starts with James Watt, who needed a way to sell steam engines to customers who were used to hiring horses. To make the comparison concrete, he watched how much work a typical draft horse could do lifting coal and standardized that output as one unit of power, a benchmark that later became 550 foot-pounds per second or 745.7 watts, as explained in modern breakdowns of what horsepower means in physics. By turning an animal’s daily labor into a number, Watt gave mine owners a simple way to ask how many horses a machine could replace.
That sales pitch proved sticky, and the unit migrated from steam engines to internal combustion as carmakers emerged. Early automotive marketing leaned heavily on the same comparison, promising machines that could do the work of dozens of animals, a lineage that current explainers on how horsepower is calculated still trace back to Watt’s original definition. The result is that a term coined to sell coal pumps in the 18th century still frames how drivers talk about everything from family hatchbacks to supercars.
What horsepower actually measures in modern engineering
In engineering terms, horsepower is simply a way to express power, the rate at which work is done, and it can be converted directly into watts or kilowatts. Technical primers on work, energy and power emphasize that power links force and speed, which is why an engine’s output depends on both torque and rotational speed rather than a single raw figure. When an engine is rated at 300 horsepower, it is shorthand for how quickly it can turn fuel energy into mechanical work at its peak operating point.
Automotive guides that walk through what horsepower is in a car usually stress that the number is derived from torque multiplied by engine speed, divided by a constant, which is why two engines with the same peak horsepower can feel very different on the road. A high-revving petrol engine and a low-revving diesel can both be rated at 150 horsepower, yet deliver that power at different points in the rev range, a nuance that becomes crucial when comparing traditional engines with electric motors that deliver maximum torque from zero rpm.
Why the horse metaphor still resonates with drivers
Despite the availability of SI units, horsepower persists because it offers an immediate mental picture of effort that kilowatts do not. Consumer-focused explainers on why we talk about engines in horsepower point out that people instinctively understand a strong horse pulling a load, while a watt sounds abstract and technical. When a pickup truck is advertised with 400 horsepower, the number feels like a direct, almost physical promise of strength, even if few buyers could translate that into joules per second.
That intuitive appeal shows up in everyday conversations where enthusiasts and casual drivers alike still ask how many horses a car has, a habit that threads through online communities and explain-it-simply discussions such as those on why we still use horsepower. The metaphor has become part of the language of performance, embedded in idioms like “more horses under the hood,” which keeps it alive even as the underlying technology shifts from pistons to batteries.
The marketing power of a familiar unit
Automakers have strong incentives to keep using a unit that buyers recognize and can compare across decades of models. Industry-focused analysis of why engines are still measured against horses notes that horsepower offers a consistent benchmark that lets a shopper line up a 1990s sports coupe against a current electric SUV without learning a new scale. That continuity is valuable in advertising, where a bigger number that sounds familiar is easier to sell than a technically precise but less intuitive metric.
Marketing also leans on the drama of the term itself, which evokes motion and muscle in a way that “kilowatts” rarely does. When performance brands boast about 600 horsepower supercars or 1,000 horsepower hyper-EVs, they are tapping into a century of storytelling that equates more horses with more excitement, a narrative that technical explainers on engine output and performance help decode but do not displace. As long as that story moves cars off lots, there is little commercial pressure to switch the headline figure to a different unit.
Where horsepower falls short as a modern metric
For engineers and some reviewers, horsepower can be a blunt instrument that hides as much as it reveals about how a vehicle will actually feel. Critical takes on why horsepower can mislead argue that focusing on a single peak number ignores the shape of the torque curve, gearing, weight and traction, all of which matter more to real-world acceleration and drivability. A 200 horsepower hot hatch can outpace a heavier 250 horsepower sedan, yet the spec sheet headline still favors the larger figure.
The rise of electric vehicles sharpens those limitations, because electric motors deliver power differently from combustion engines. Technical guides that unpack how horsepower relates to torque highlight that an EV with modest peak horsepower but strong low-end torque can feel far quicker off the line than a higher rated petrol car. In that context, some engineers prefer to talk in kilowatts and torque curves, while still translating the result back into horsepower for brochures and window stickers.
Why engineers still translate back to horsepower
Inside design offices and test labs, power is usually calculated in watts, kilowatts and newton-meters, then converted into horsepower for public consumption. Technical communities that discuss more scientific ways to rate engines often emphasize that horsepower is just a label on top of the same underlying physics, not a fundamentally different measurement. Engineers can design and simulate in SI units, then apply a simple conversion factor so that the final spec sheet speaks the language customers expect.
Educational resources that walk through how horsepower converts to watts show that the relationship is linear and exact, which makes it easy to move between the two systems without losing precision. In practice, that means an EV platform might be developed around a 150 kilowatt motor, tested and validated in kilowatts, then marketed as roughly 201 horsepower so that its performance can be compared directly with a gasoline rival, even if the engineering team rarely uses the horse-based unit internally.
How the unit is taught, debated and reinterpreted
In classrooms and online explainers, horsepower often serves as a bridge between everyday intuition and formal physics. Educational modules on energy and power in real-world contexts use the unit to connect textbook definitions of work with familiar machines like cars and lawnmowers, then gradually introduce watts and joules as the standard scientific language. That layered approach helps students see horsepower as a historical and cultural artifact that still has practical use, rather than as a rival to SI units.
At the same time, popular science videos and enthusiast channels regularly revisit the topic to clarify misconceptions and update the metaphor for an era of turbochargers and battery packs. One widely shared explainer on how horsepower and torque interact walks through dyno graphs and real acceleration tests to show why a single number cannot capture the full story of performance. Those debates keep the term alive by constantly reinterpreting it, turning an 18th century marketing hook into a recurring lesson in how power, force and speed really work.
More from MorningOverview
