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
When converting energy from one source to another but not in processing one energy source.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So you would rather spend the extra $'s to purchase power you will not use?
When we ride in my Firebird, I DECIDE who I pass and IF someone passes me.
So you're that type of driver. Personally I don't decide if someone passes me, I let them decide. If they want to pass me its no skin off my nose.
If I don't want to follow a tractor trailer or other slow drivers on the 2 lane road (except on hills where there is a passing lane), I do not follow them.
Nor do I regardless if its in our 400 HP Caddy, my 140 HP Daily drive, or my wifes 100 HP daily drive. Of course the Caddy gives an easier pass but either one of the Hyundais are able to pass the semi-truck or farmer Ted on a two lane road with ease.
So in my driving environment, my car's power allows me to decide my pace, and not be decided by the slowest vehicle on the road at that time.
Same with me and I decide my pace in my 400 HP Caddy and my 140 HP Hyundai. That is unless I get behind some idiot in a Firebird that decides that I don't rate passing him when I am in my Hyundai.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
OK! How is below for starters?
Excessive - 400 HP GTO
Massive - 505 HP Z06
Excessively Massive - 600 HP car of kernick cousin
Grossly Excessively massive - 1000 HP Bugatti
We can further refine these brackets with more/other descriptors and also introduce descriptors for pound/HP ratios which would be the "precise language" suggested.
So, a 3200 LB sedan with 200 HP would have a 16 pound/HP ratio and might be called "Adequate".
At the other extreme, a Bugatti, with a ratio of approx 4 might be called “Obscene”.
It is really about what the market/s is/are willing to pay and why. So for example while a Prius/HCH has very high epa ratings, a significant portion of owners/buyers do not achieve them.
Another example is a "old technology" V8 that has epa of 19/28. So in effect why are the V6 and V4 cylinder engines needed who do not achieve at least 19/28 mpg?
The other thing that might get dialed out, if a strict enforcement is followed, are things like a TDI with 90 hp that are epa rated between 42/49 mpg with a top speed of 120-125 mph, whose EPA is relatively more easy to achieve.
So another example is natural gas and hydrogen. If you take hydrogen at 16 dollars per gal (actually weight wise) that gets 22 mpg, why would that even remotely make ANY kind of economic sense? This is especially true when you can "home brew" one form of biodiesel for .46-.75 cents per gal!
The last comment is I would not be for ANY mandatory CAFE standards. Look how incredibly long it has taken to get a 42/49 mpg vehicle!!!?????? In fact in CA who "allegedly" has a high affinity for higher mileage vehicles has all but banned new car sales of the TDI !!! PRECISELY the car that achieves its stated goal.
It is still economics and market driven. If we build coal plants to make diesel at say $50 per barrel equivalent. All the Saudi's will do is sell us oil at $45 per barrel. I like having the coal in reserve for future generations. Use up the middle eastern oil first and then start on our own reserves. Canada is still our biggest oil importer. Mexico is big.
Back to a 100 HP car that is practical. Diesel comes to mind. The Jetta TDI is 100 HP and is more than adequate in that 30-70 MPH range. Cannot think of a 100 HP gasser that compares to the TDI.
In fact, I live with both side by side. The gasser is a 115 hp. The two epa's are 42/49 and 29/38. The ranges are 44-62 vs 36-41. In the same commute the ranges are 47-52 vs 36-39.
So over say 250,000 miles I will use app (7,143 gal @ 35- 5,319 gal @ 47=) 1824 gals less with the diesel over the gasser. The SAVED 1824 gals @ 47 mpg converts to 85,728 miles.
me: aso where do you get the hydrogen from? You do know there isn't free hydrogen floating around; hydrogen has to be manufactured, and that requires more energy than the hydrogen will yield.
Excessive - 400 HP GTO
Massive - 505 HP Z06
Excessively Massive - 600 HP car of kernick cousin
Grossly Excessively massive - 1000 HP Bugatti
Well, I guess you'd say goodbye to the motorcycle industry, now wouldn't you? (I guess the fuel efficiency of bikes doesn't impress you, since it's the horsepower or HP/weight ratio that counts.)
You just granted titles to some numbers, you just haven't provided the logic behind them, or why it's anyone else's business. Since we know that the correlation between horsepower and fuel consumption is indirect, and since you've conceded that anyone not driving a hippy Microbus has enough horsepower to terrify you, I don't quite see what you're accomplishing here.
me: it is rather ridiculous of you to tell everyone, that you know what I do better than I do? Don't you think? Would you like to tell everyone what I eat too, or what my favorite music is?
you: Of course the Caddy gives an easier pass but either one of the Hyundais are able to pass the semi-truck or farmer Ted on a two lane road with ease.
me: Glad to see you agree that more power makes passing easier. And since more power means quicker passes, and quicker passes allow for more error in determining factors concerning oncoming traffic, it is safer. No one doubts you can't pass in a Hyundai with little concern, if there is no oncoming traffic.
you: That is unless I get behind some idiot in a Firebird that decides that I don't rate passing him when I am in my Hyundai.
me: I'm sure you'll also agree that the idiot who is trying to pass doesn't have a right to pass. I would guess the idiot in front has more of a right to position than the idiot behind.
Maybe at some point you can base your posts on what you do, know, and reliable data.
Not quite -- diesels create a lot of particulate matter, which often exceed our emissions requirements. Until we have cleaner diesel fuel, which is coming soon, it's not a great alternative to gas, at least from an environmental standpoint. With the new diesel fuels, though, this gap should be closing fairly soon.
Also, keep in mind that we don't get many of the smaller gas-engined and diesel cars from Europe because nobody wants them. If there was demand and a profit could be made by selling them, the makers would make the effort to make them DOT and EPA compliant.
That old technology car would get 16 mpg or less in my daily commute and pollute more with more CO2 than the 4 cylinder you were referring to. It's easy for any car to get high gas mileage going down a hill with the foot off the gas. But have the same car go up a hill and the story is very different.
But the overall trend in all forms of transportation, whether rail, air, ships, and autos is to shorten travel times; which naturally means more speed. Better technology has allowed us to continue to increase speeds without increasing the rate of people killed in accidents, despite the obvious that higher speed is going to hurt more.
Whether technology improves the strength of my car or the power or the safety, or the handling, that's great. An advance in 1 area may allow another improvement to be made.
Now as I said before, I don't see why I wouldn't the future-trend be that a better off-road vehicle couldn't be capable of flying or travelling on/under water. There is no reason not to want that. In fact right now I'd like to fly down to Boston for some fish and chips. So no I am not enamored with poking along at 55mph in a 100hp car for the eons to come. I want as much power as I get, to go to places that are inaccessible to vehicles now, and to travel as fast as possible. That'll probably be 100 years until, vehicles are powered by little fusion generators; but boy would that be a sweet-ride.
I will have to disagree with that notion. How can you know what people want if they are not offered. VW sells all their diesel cars quicker than their gas comparables. Mercedes brought back the diesel and outsold their estimates by 50% in 2005. Jeep has sold far more of the diesel Liberty than was expected. All this without being offered in the largest car market in the USA. I think if the new diesels are offered for sale they will sell very well. I would never trade my Passat for the gas version.
Volkswagen now makes a 'Twincharger' engine for their European Golf GT. It is a diesel engine that is both supercharged and turbocharged.
It gets:
168 HP
177 lb-ft Torque
0-62mph = 7.9 seconds
Top speed: 136 mph
and the big news is:
30 MPG (city) 48 MPG (highway)
Though, I'm pretty sure many on this forum would rather sacrifice the fuel efficiency because it either has too much power... or it's a diesel.
Ahh, irrationality.
:shades:
me: Yes I get 2-3 mpg better on flat interstate at 75mph, approx. 28mpg than on my 2-lane hilly commute. That's in my V-8 Firebird. Now a Vette being a few hundred pounds lighter ... It is really congestion which is a factor of long commutes and our population that is affecting mpg in many areas. The only traffic I ever sit in is when there is an accident or blizzard.
Also many V-8's are going to DOD (an example of the technology improvements I refer to), which allow them to operate as a 4-cyl. just as you want. In fact I believe GM large SUV's that are going hybrid will totally shutdown the V-8 when not needed - fuel economy + power.
My goodness it is amazing it took the critics going on a generation or 30 years to now to tell us the EPA estimates that have been touted as religious mantra are not a good mirror of the real world.!!
In fact the country that is scheduled to consume more fuel, CHINA sells cars that DO NOT meet any of the current European tiered standards,unlike diesels (the TDI example that I used) that of course do!!
But there are problems with conserving such that they go against growing our economy and raising peoples' living standards. Conserving is not good for the economy, as we need to keep production of goods and services growing.
The only solution to our growing population, economies, and improved lifestyles (like Chinese middle-class now becoming car/scooter owners) is that we find new energy sources or technology to power things. Every bit of fossil fuel we can get our hands on will be burnt, unless we get some other source. And human nature being what it is, you'll never get sufficient masses of people to conserve. I really can't imagine for example, how anyone could argue that the burgeoning Chinese middle-class should not exist, while we typically live a level or 2 higher. So I really can't see the point of conservation, if the result is we run out of fossil fuels in 99 years or 100 years.
With demand almost as high as supply can go (?), people had better resign themselves to a bidders' market, where you'll get fuel if you can afford it.
you: Of course an all electric car would use zero-gas.
me: yes, I'm for covering the south and southwest in solar panels, and building windmills around the country. Also sign me up for directing my tax money to a Manhattan Project size project for nuclear fusion.
Just as a small aside and not to get bogged down into this path, but the increased waste of energy does zero for our economy as all it does is line the coffers of...well you know who with petro-dollars.
Our city (which is probably typical for urban/city areas) for a small example has a VERY small % of city employees who live where they work. Since they belong to a "regional committment" to support public (regional) transportation, the city kicks in app 36,000 per year for app 300 employees for free passes to use ANY public transportation. Not even 3 employees (people) use it!!!!!!
Sorry for my impaired English. What do you mean by "all"?
You won't fall in the trap of judging someone by the brand of his/her car will you?
If you insist doing so, pls also include the other brands I drive :
Mercedes, BMW, Honda, Peugeot, Nissan.
Waiting for your kind enlightment.
Boy, I bet YOU would hate to run into YOU on the highway!
:-)
....Imagine if everyone thought as you did....
Thanks for the reply. I was surprised that that comment hadn't stirred the pot more. But that comment probably originates from my history of having had to drive in Boston where "driving is war".
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Well you have to admit some of those "rice rockets" are way over powered. Plus why do you need 502 HP on a motorcycle, or 355 HP even?
Since we know that the correlation between horsepower and fuel consumption is indirect,
How is it indirect? You increase HP you increase fuel consumption, sounds direct to me.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Examples provided never mentioned motorcycles. This topic board and messages has not talked about motorcycles.
Who is "we"? What does "indirect" mean? Have you done a regression?
But thats not what I am doing now is it? Just stated that if you don't use it you paid for something you don't use, thats all.
I've told you before I've had the pedal to the floor, which in my car, is the way to apply all the engine power.
No its not, the way to apply all the engines power is to maintain the RPM's where the engine produces the most power. Stay under it, or go over it and you don't get all the power. Plus how you shift also determines how effectively you use that power.
Glad to see you agree that more power makes passing easier.
While I do agree with you that it makes it easier I don't think it makes it that much safer, maybe even more dangerous by giving the impression that an unsafe pass can be done. Say I am following Farmer Ted doing 60 MPH down a two lane road, my caddy will make the pass maybe two seconds faster. So if a 7 second pass is unsafe then a 5 second pass is unsafe. Regardless of your misguided belief.
I'm sure you'll also agree that the idiot who is trying to pass doesn't have a right to pass.
No I don't agree, if you have the right to drive a road at a particular speed you have the right to pass anyone going slower as long as it is in a passing zone and is safe to do so.
Maybe sometime you can base your post on something other that idiotic justifications of things.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So motorcycles are granted an exemption in your universe? No reason for them to be, given your point of view re: Horsepower = Death.
Also remember that early on roads were mostly dirt roads very muddy with deep ruts that most cars wouldn't get 50 feet down before getting bogged down. It was improved roads that allowed higher speed.
So no I am not enamored with poking along at 55mph in a 100hp car for the eons to come. I want as much power as I get, to go to places that are inaccessible to vehicles now, and to travel as fast as possible.
Then buy a helicopter.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
No one needs to do a regression to know that horsepower is but one component of fuel consumption. Aerodynamics, gearing, vehicle weight, condition of the motor, tire pressure, wheel size and driver behavior, among other things, all impact fuel economy.
I certainly don't deny that more powerful engines do consume more fuel -- in fact, I was one of the first people to bring this up -- but the relationship is not linear, as examples in this thread have shown.
If you are genuinely concerned about fuel economy, then focus on fuel economy, and be done with it. Horsepower is a function of how much peak power can get to the wheels, it's not the only determinant of how much fuel gets used.
A sport bike can outrun most any car, while getting better fuel economy than a Honda Civic, yet you would prefer punishing the owner of the bike rather than that of a car with higher fuel consumption. That makes no sense, given your alleged line of reasoning.
Don't understand above. Individuals and enterprises can do things, make decisions that will lessen need for energy and still be prosperous. That is conservation.
I am not to sure about that, a Civic is rated at 30/40 and some of those sports bikes get in the mid to low 30's.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You are the first poster to bring up motorcycles. No one else has talked about this. I have never posted any examples of excessive, massive or obscene HP using motorcycles. Apparently you are knowledgeable about motorcycles. Maybe you are so inclined to give examples of motorcycles that have way too much HP for common sense. Go ahead - make sure it ties to board topic.
IIHS is not the only one. Others have been quoted as well
I think everybody agrees that any crash occuring at higher speeds will have more disastrous effect than those at low speeds.
However, Fatalities stats do not allow to conclude that speed, altough playing a role, is the key major cause. Many other safety measures need to be tested or enforced.
> IIHS has high credibility.
Not everyone agrees over this.
I think all the contributors gave some interesting arguments and that the debate would need its dedicated thread imho.
We have diverging views on this and I think our Host invite us to agree to disagree.
I don't buy into your belief that there is such a thing as "too much horsepower". It's a bit like judging whether a car has "too much color" or "too many radio presets".
It's simply a matter of opinion, and the consumer will decide by voting with his money. If the marketplace believed it was "too much", then there would be no consumers to purchase these cars, but the fact that some people are willing to purchase tells you that not only everyone agrees with your position.
If above statement were valid, then auto insurance companies would not be charging more on premium for higher HP.
I didn't realize that actuaries were tastemakers. Next time I have a night out on the town, I'll call my insurance agent to find out all the latest hotspots. (I'd hate to do anything that might be considered "massive" or "excessive.")
In any case, the insurers obviously are insuring these cars, so they don't consider them to be "excessive" -- they simply charge a higher price. "More costly" may be "excessive" to you, Comrade, but for the rest of us, it's simply an economic tradeoff between money and utility.
I have a simple method : make the US Gallon Price double to 6 USD! The more one burn, the more one pay.
Why would the owner of an Escalade pay for huge taxes if he/she makes 2K miles a year with it?
One contributor made a good remark on the fact that this would hurt low income households.
My view is very different : Why would a lower income make one eligible to pollute more than one with higher contribution to the GDP?
The polluter should pay the bill or find ways to pollute less.
if 3 people are car-sharing/pooling a gas guzzler Escalade to commute, this will still pollute less than 3 separate average cars on the same stretch of roads. Those traffic jams with 80% of cars with one driver/no passenger are ridiculous.
The excessive oil consumption is the side effect of the American way of life (sorry for the cliche) where everything, expecially in the west, is car-based. Keeping with low posted SL will only partially alleviate the issue
Everyone should lobby for more railroads and electricity based transports.
www.commutercars.com : maybe one alternative
"Simply"? You missed the point or are evading it. "WHY" are insurers charging more for higher HP? This question needs to be answered.
If I can guess at your logic, insurers "arbitrarily" charge more for higher HP. They chose higher HP to charge more by using a dart board showing: higher HP, exterior color, number of knobs/dials on dashboard, number of cupholders, etc. The dart just happen to hit higher HP.
http://www.bosshoss.com/view_bike.asp?x=BHC3502&CID=848969207.608699
Yep thats insane.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The economics is that a lower income household needs to pick what they choose to spend money for. It's not society's problem to protect them whether it's in taxes or cost of material things. The concept of "hurting low income" or "hurting women or children" is a political tool.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Lets be realistic, if a car can perform all your driving needs with a 255 HP engine then a 400 HP engine is to much HP. If you don't use any of that additional HP then its too much.
Now if you want it knock yourself out, but don't go around telling everyone you need it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Just because they insure them doesn't mean that they don't think they are excessive. remember they do charge a (sometimes hefty) premium to cover them, that alone should tell you something.
"More costly" may be "excessive" to you, Comrade, but for the rest of us, it's simply an economic tradeoff between money and utility.
While there is a trade off between utility and money the question is is the extra utility worth the extra money? If you will never use the extra utility, or don't need it to perform your duties with the item, then its not worth the extra money regardless of the cost.
Again if you want it fine, but don't try to tell me you need 400 HP when 255 HP is more than enough.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Because there is an alleged correlation between those who buy high powered cars and the costs that the insurance company expects to bear.
Of course, the greatest alleged risks to an insurance company are based upon demography (driver age/gender/etc), mileage driven, driving history, and the location where the car spends most of its time. A fifty-year old married male with a clean record will pay less to insure a Corvette than will an 18 year-old to insure a Honda Civic. Obviously, behavior and location are considered to be more important, otherwise the driver of the higher-powered car would always pay more than the driver a less-powerful car.
Still the 50 year old male with a clean driving record will pay less to insure a civic than a Vette, as will the 18 year old
So you're still evading the issue.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I spoke to your issue directly, so enough of your empty allegations, please. Read my response again and comment if you like.
If you want to express the viewpoint that you don't like horsepower and provide some cogent reasons why, then that's cool and you're welcome to do it. But don't pretend that you're doing anything more than just expressing a preference. Some prefer more, others prefer less and you hold one opinion on it.
If consumers found it to be excessive, then they wouldn't make a point of buying it, plain and simple. If you don't agree, then don't buy it. If you want to address the politics of fuel economy, then that sounds like another thread to me.