Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
The Growing Divergence Between Horsepower and Speed Limits
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
me: No my reasoning adds capability. If the road exists on the other side, 30' is quite adequate. My reasoning to add capability would be - to make it as strong as possible. That's adding capability. There is no advantage to building weaker-than-needed bridges.
In reality you're limited by finances and the strength of the materials you have. But that still does not change the fact that the better bridge is the strongest, one that would never fall down or wear-out.
me: Velocity increase energy and momentum. It does increase risk if you do not have compensating systems to lower the risk. For example, if velocity alone creates risk, then an early 20th century bi-plane, should be much safer than a modern jetliner. Based on the number of miles flown by each, I would guess the opposite is true. While pilots are slightly better trained, the main reason that higher speeds can be obtained and with more safety per mile, is the increase in materials and control technology.
I'm not going to go thru the long-list of performance and safety improvements in cars; but that has decreased the risk of driving faster despite the fact of more traffic these days. On uncrowded roads there is very little risk at high speeds.
I'd suggest a 1 week experiment where speed limits were raised substantially on certain stretches of road that could handle high speeds. By doing this for only a week, and allowing alternate routes for others who don't want to try the high speed road out, there would only be "volunteers" on the high speed road. This would allow use of their car's power, since many supposedly can't use it. I'd bet there would be no statistical death/injury rate difference from any other week.
Sorry better is objective, what one person considers better others will not. You might have the opinion that 'A' id better than 'B' yet someone else can come along and say 'B' is better than 'A'.
You may think that the Toyota Camry with the V-6 is better than the one with the I-4 because it has 56 HP more. Yet I bet you you can find plenty of people out there who will say the I-4 is better than the V-6 because it gets 5 MPG more. You see better is an opinion and therefore is subjective.
Your logic that better (in general) has to be linked to your value is rather out-there.
No its not that rather out there, I could name a few Nobel prize winners in economics that will agree with me. Some even on this thread have agreed with me that more does not equate with better. I have tried to explain it to you maybe I should give a three hour lecture on utility and indifference curves so you might see the light. But I don't think that I would be able to break that engineers fallacy that more is better.
That does bring up the question, then of why didn't you get a Rio or such since that apparently is "all someone needs"?
Me and the wife do have hyundais as daily drives.
It sounds like you have spent more on a car then I have?
maybe, then again maybe not (its good to have a certain type of friends that owe you some favors
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Thank you, thank you, thank you. and in the same vain if 200 HP is adequate why do you need 250 or 300 or 400 or 500 HP?
My reasoning to add capability would be - to make it as strong as possible.
Would it be necessary to build a bridge to support 1,000 tons when the heaviest vehicle that can go over it is 10 tons? Especially if it costs more?
There is no advantage to building weaker-than-needed bridges.
As there is no advantage to building stronger than needed bridges as described above.
But that still does not change the fact that the better bridge is the strongest, one that would never fall down or wear-out.
Then the question is is a stronger bridge that will never fall down or wear out any better than a weaker bridge that will never fall down or wear out? The answer is no since both do the exact same thing and neither will fall down or wear out. If both do the exact same thing and will never fall down or wear out how can one be better than the other?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Good we agree on this. My poor English mislead me in making me thinking you were claiming otherwise. sorry for that
>Of importance, they did not say the roads got safer.
Aren't fewer deaths on the roads an important bottomline?
A prisoner is still free to walk into circles in his cell.
At least, He/she was convicted for something.
Everyone has a different view of what "free" means.
>There are no freedoms in the Constitution or Amendments to be free to pick your own comfortable speed that is beyond posted limits.
I am pretty conviced everyone is aware about this, even my ignorant self. This is one issue we are debating
>Increasing HP of cars and then the ease of attaining post legal speeds encourages violation of speed limits by some drivers.
Maybe it's about time to jump into the 21 st century.
Too many SL are outdated.
They fit very well with my 1978 Citroen Ami 6
http://www.ami8.com/nieuwesite/index.php?page=pictures&SESSID=78062b2bfdd28b3776- dbf6f6a23e7ae9
(32 HP, 602 cc, top speed=75 mph)
but they are inapropriately low for any modern car, even a simple 150 HP one. (I only mention divided freeways SL )
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
However in a pragmatic sense better is a value judgement and with that I happen to agree with you. If this conversation was about computers and all you did was email, a $5,000 high-end, overclocked, water-cooled pc with a dual video card, while in an objective sense might be better than a Dell $299 pc, it is a waste. And so it goes with HP. All this horsepower and no place to drive the vehicle legally using all the capabilities, except on the track.
If one wants to buy the car because they can, that's one thing. But I venture to say that for example, in the middle of Manhattan a Hyundia Excel will pragmatically perform better than a GT3, although it won't get as many stares.
What you forget is that in a democracy, the people CAN change the law... by voting.
That depends on the car, and on how you define "fun".
Here's a theory that I'd bet market research would support -- the average driver of a V6 Camry or some luxobarge doesn't think that having a need to work a motor hard in order to extract its horsepower is very much fun at all. These drivers like the idea of getting a relatively strong response from an easy blip of the throttle.
The fact that some makers use drive-by-wire tells you that they perceive that at least some customers prefer an obvious, stronger response. The general American penchant for low-end torque is also an indicator that the typical American driver who can afford it wants easily attainable grunt achieved with little effort.
Surely there are a few consumers who prefer less powerful cars on more nimble, lighter underpinnings -- you'll find them driving S2000's, Miatas, and old MG's, and possibly a few Mini's. But they are vastly outnumbered by the others, who want a car that can accelerate quickly and smoothly with polish and finesse at passing speeds, while needing minimal drama to get there.
LOL
I agree with you, but you don't need 400 HP (or even 300 HP) to get a quick throttle response...and I'm sure everyone here agrees.
A low rpm torque curve is easy to achieve for that off-the-line punch.
Any car with over 200 ft/lbs of torque will give the neck snap that you are talking about without any effort.
Add to that, any car that can keep that torque curve flat and high into the rpms will be more than enough for most people.
400 HP? BAH! that's for show-offs and ego maniacs...nothing more. It MIGHT be utilized 1% of the engines lifespan.
Keep in mind that the peak HP is most likely up at the extreme reaches of the engines RPM range and most people hardly ever travel into that realm.
me: I'm not speaking of any specific model; nor am I referring to effect on mpg. That should be the designer's goal. I'm simply stating that more power is better than less.
After that yes I agree there a million subjective possibilities of whether you want or think you'll need that power, and whether you are willing to pay for it. That is where economics come into to play. (By the way I do ave an MS in Management, and have worked in Mfg. for 20 years, so I do understand how economics/budgets affect designs, and the final designs).
No matter what you are designing the goals are to make it for the lowest cost, with the most capability, and as quick as possible. What you end up with is based on the skill of the designer, and the current technology.
Aside from the potshots against those who want it, I agree with you that the horsepower won't get used much, at least not directly. Which goes back to the topic question -- why do we have the Speed Kills! crowd crowing on about something that not only can't be linked to danger, but rarely gets used?
Again, while I see an issue vis-a-vis American tastes and the fuel consumption that results (which is more a byproduct about our lack of interest in public transit and walking, and our love of big, bulky cars, than it is a matter of horsepower production), I don't have any concerns at all about horsepower increases and reduced safety on the roads.
And if people drive faster safely because the cars are improving incrementally over time, then so be it. That's what efficient travel is all about, and was exactly the point of building an interstate system in the first place.
No subjectively bigger is better, the simple fact that there are people that disagree with you should tell you that. Case in point a Caravan has bigger capabilities than my daily drive of an Elantra, does that mean its better? Not for me, it uses more gas, harder to drive and park and the excess capacity I will never use. Now if we were a family of 6 yes it would be better since all six would be able to fit in it.
But I venture to say that for example, in the middle of Manhattan a Hyundia Excel will pragmatically perform better than a GT3, although it won't get as many stares.
And sometimes not getting the stars is better.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So true, I can count on one hand of a high school shop teacher the times I let loose the beast. Almost all the time I give nice easy accelerations that anyone with a 195 HP Accord can keep up with with no problem.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But I am because to effectively understand the issue you have to see how differing HP affect the same car where everything is supposively the same except for HP. The effect on MPG is necessary because it affects the decision of if more HP is better. When deciding if more is better you have to take into consideration of how that "more" affects everything else.
In economics there is something called utility, utility is the amount of satisfaction one gets from something. Everyone acts in such a way as to get the most utility from their resources. Since resources are limited to gain utility from one thing we have to lose utility some place else. So if by getting more of something we gain more utility than we use more is good. If by getting more of something we lose more utility than we gain more is bad. Try eating all the chocolate you can, you will eventually get to the point where you will not enjoy any more chocolate, then you get to the point where more makes you sick.
Now lets apply this to the Camry, each person has a certain amount of utility in the additional 56 HP the V-6 has and a certain amount of utility that the additional 5 MPG the I-4 has. Now keep in mind that everyone will assign different utility to these items. Now the person who has more utility in the 5 additional MPG will see that more horsepower is not better. Conversely the one who has more utility in the horsepower will agree with you.
No matter what you are designing the goals are to make it for the lowest cost, with the most capability, and as quick as possible.
Again I disagree, yes I agree that it should be done at the lowest cost as quickly as possible, but I don't agree with the most capacity. Why build with capacity I will never use?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Not making a declarative statement on this, but I think of all the times I had to take evasive maneuvers and/or barely missed hitting someone because they pulled out at the last second. I wonder how many of those was the end result of someone thinking on some level "Hey I got a powerful engine I can make it"?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Depends on needs of driver. If someone likes to burn strips of rubber on the pavement and make a lot of noise, then high HP will give them satisfaction. Is this responsible and adult behavior? Think that police would consider this reckless driving. Legitimate use of high/extreme HP is taking car to dragstrip.
One can find many examples of road tests by Edmunds where high HP does not make for a better handling or safer car.
Compare Pontiac GTO with 400 HP with some 4-door sedans having less than 200 HP and the sedans will outhandle the GTO in slalom and will outbrake the GTO:
Car/HP/Slalom MPH/60-0 braking feet
GTO/400/60.0/130
Sebring/190/62.8/118
Mazda6/192/64.9/124
Suzuki Verona/155/61.0/122
Passat/190/61.3/122
So, how does the 400 HP have any meaning at all in everyday driving when 4-door sedans can outperform GTO? Moderation of HP race by manufacturers will help to bring vehicles potential in line with posted speed limits.
Firstly, you have yet to prove a connection between higher driving speeds and horsepower.
By the way, it's odd that you didn't notice that your own data contradicts the notion that it is even necessary to have a lot of horsepower for faster driving, given that it is quite possible to get good handling, impressive acceleration and adequate top speeds with less horsepower.
Smoother engine performance, better handling and better isolated cabins that reduce the sensation of speed likely contribute far more to higher driving speeds than sheer horsepower. Little horsepower is needed to sustain extra-legal freeway driving speeds for sustained periods, so unless you reduce it to the level of a '63 Beetle, I don't see how horsepower reductions would slow down anyone one whit.
Secondly, you have to establish that higher speed limits negatively impact safety -- you've offered no compelling reason to turn reducing driving speeds into a cause celebre. You had 2,100 posts to do that, and were unable to do it, so no need to try again.
And, there never was any "cause and effect" correlation proven between raising of speed limits and lowering of death rates.
Think that one could probably get historical data showing that teen boy age bracket drivers having high HP vehicles have higher death/injury than same age boys driving moderate/low HP vehicles. Can get this info from one's auto insurance agent.
For the umpteenth time, nobody argued that there was a cause-and-effect relationship between increasing speed limits and improved safety. That was never the point of the discussion, so no need to build a strawman about a point that wasn't being made.
The point being made that reduced speed variance increases safety, and that setting a speed limit at the 85th percentile (which is often above the current levels) can reduce that variance and increase safety. Numerous studies point to this, and highway engineers across the world agree with it. So please bury the strawmen, and move on.
I hate to say this but you were basically arguing that all along the speed limit thread.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It is obvious the GTO was not designed with you in mind, ie you/folks like you are NOT the target market. Also keep in mind the cars that you were comparing them against probably don't even meet the metric/s by which you yourself would decide.
I would not consider the slalom speeds of the sedans to be "faster driving". The Edmunds tests, done on test track/strip, show each car's handling and performance capabilities and potential. No responsible driver would try to emulate a slalom cone test (without cones) zigging and zagging on an interstate.
Maybe GTO is like a paper tiger if sedans can outmaneuver it. All that HP and so what. Also, Edmunds shows that Honda Civic SI with 197 HP comes within a hair of matching the slalom speed of a Corvette Z06 with 500 HP. So, there is 303 HP of overkill. And, the Corvette is more than twice as expensive.
What is all that HP for on US public roads. Can see if someone is doing SCCA road courses, NHRA drag strips and so forth. But if only for public roads, what is the sense?
So would you consider it slower driving?
As for the rest of your post, I am not sure what you are trying to convey. The use of slalom and cones is an attempt to normalize the data and or make it repeatable as a real world comparison. If running a so called "slalom" would result in saving my or anothers life one really has the duty as a "responsible" driver to save ones' or anothers' life.
But actually a 90 hp VW TDI might be tailor made for your logic and buying metrics, 48 mpg, cruise all day at close to xxx digit speeds. At 55 mph, 62-65 mpg is do able.
In the context of the VW Jetta TDI, one could say that fully 95 % on up are truly mis or mal designed for our American roads.
Agreed.
I find that it helps to shut my eyes and to remove my hands from the wheel whenever I need to brake hard. Give it a try sometime, you might be surprised by the results...
Seriously a guy did EXACTLY what you describe right BEHIND me. Before he started this "panic" stop. I sensed he was slow on the uptake.So to keep him from hitting me full square on the rear end of my then SUV tube bumper, I "slalomed" to the right, (I was in the extreme right lane, so I slalomed into the right side emergecy lane) up along side of the vehicle in front of me. Of course, when he (the guy that was once in front of me) saw me on his right side, his glance in the rear view mirror revealed this noisy panic stopping vehicle about to now hit HIM, his eyes got about as big around as saucers. He (the guy that would have SLAMMED into me) did stop just short and I mean JUST SHORT of the guy that WAS in front of me. This meaning, he would have surely fully smacked me in the rear end.
Don't know whether or not percent is 95. But, you essentially agree that there is no need to have increasing levels of HP for US roads. Cars that have 4,5, 10 times more HP than are needed, are overkill.
Understand that cars bought for use in European countries have much less HP than American market cars and those cars are sufficient for transporatation needs. Also understand that fuel is heavily taxed in Europe, so drivers are motivated to buy fuel efficient vehicles, which usually have moderate HP ratings.
1.) Going faster will increase the fatality rate.
2.) Going faster will not effect the fatality rate
3.) Going Faster will reduce the fatality rate.
Every single time someone mentioned that going faster was more dangerous your standard reply was "No its not, we raised the speed limit and the fatality rate went down." So we eliminated you being in the group that holds the top belief.
While you may not have come out and said going faster will save lives, you argued against every other position. So in fact you did argue that point, even if it was in a round about way. maybe you didn't realize it but that was exactly what you did.
yep I read carefully and I figured it out.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
1.) Going faster will increase the fatality rate.
2.) Going faster will not effect the fatality rate
3.) Going Faster will reduce the fatality rate.
Nope -- those aren't the only options. Try reading again, and perhaps you will finally figure that out. (I won't rehash it here -- it has already been explained to death.)
Well that would depend on where you drive. Ever gone to Maui and taken the road to hana? If that isn't a 45 mile slalom I don't know what is.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
And yet they manage to drive more quickly, often have higher speed limits, and have similar or even better safety records than we do. You've pretty well negated both your Horsepower Is Killing Us! and Speed Kills! theses in one shot.
And yet they manage to drive more quickly, often have higher speed limits, and have similar or even better safety records than we do. You've pretty well negated both your Horsepower Is Killing Us! and Speed Kills! theses in one shot"...
Yes, I would totally agree!!
Who was the GTO designed for?
The power in such cars as the GTO ann Z06 and the like is just over kill.
My 140 HP daily drive can keep up with the average speed on any US interstate and can easily do speeds where I will be more likely to pass than to be passed on any interstate. Not only that but since it pulls relatively low RPMs at 55-60 MPH I can pass any farmer Ted on a two lane rural road with ease.
Yet in the urban areas with the 400 HP caddy, I can only go as fast as the guy in front of me. And if I happen to get around him there is always someone a head of him, an so on. Now granted all that HP would come in handy if the lane I am in ends not far after the light. But it really doesn't matter if I am in front or behind the other guy because there will always be someone in front of us.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
In the context of the 90 hp TDI, yours' is a hp power glutton!
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
me: Why do you keep posting this - do you think hp is going to help with handling? Power is for acceleration and speed. You keep trying to infer from the handling, that the Civic Si has the same overall performance as a Corvette? If so your credibility just dropped off the radar.
you: What is all that HP for on US public roads.
me: well since many people think the speed limits are outdated, yes people do use that power. I myself don't have drive on roads where the flow of traffic is more than 80mph, but I bet out west, people do.
I've already stated I like to have as much power as possible to pass oon 2-lane roads. I like to make quick passes with 50 - 75% throttle, and have a power reserve in case I miscalculate vehicle speeds and distances.
I have driven Escorts, a CRX, a turbo Dodge Lancer, a Taurus, a Corsica, a Jeep Cherokee, mid-size sedans, and now a Firebird. The Firebird allows passes that I would not even consider in the other cars I've owned.
In fact I've nearly had 2 accidents because when alongside someone I was passing, the vehicle I was in did not have the power. 1982 in a rented AMC Eagle on a 2-lane in PA, and once here in NH in a Jeep pickup. The 2nd incident oncoming traffic had to swerve into the breakdown lane to avoid me. These are not incidents I like to admit. In both cases I believe the person I was passing sped-up. Those were 2 of the scariest moments I've had driving, and they were due to a lack of power. That is 1 personal reason I keep harping on having sufficient power.
And here you wanted me to apologized for what you are now saying again!
Truth is at 48 mpg and xxx digit speeds, you'd probably have to catch me!
This topic is basically wondering about why the manufacturers are in a HP when the speed limits (and I might add road conditions/congestion) make that extra HP an unused resource for the most part.
me: Why do you keep posting this - do you think hp is going to help with handling? Power is for acceleration and speed. You keep trying to infer from the handling, that the Civic Si has the same overall performance as a Corvette? If so your credibility just dropped off the radar.
My credibility is high. Corvette Z06 vs Honda Civic SI is just one example illustrating foolishness of excess HP.
We could also cite other cars such as Viper, Chyrsler 300C SRT8, etc.
Regards "Handling" aspect of "performance" you mention above, Honda Civic SI (197 HP) is rated as "Excellent" handling by Edmunds while Corvette Z06 is only "Very Good".
Edmunds shows that Civic will reach 94 MPH in quarter mile while Corvette will reach 120 MPH. These are both over any posted speed limit in US. So, Corvette with massive, excessive HP can beat a Civic in a drag race. Is this significant, unless one takes Corvette to drag strip. How can all this extra HP be used on city, suburban, interstate roads anyway?
500 HP in a car is like a guy capable of bench pressing 400 pounds per one of your previous examples. SO WHAT. Probably only people that would care are other weight lifters.
Sounds like the passes should not have been originated to begin with. Was this a lack of power or a lack of judgement?