The Growing Divergence Between Horsepower and Speed Limits

vchiu

I saw a paper article in 2002 testing a 2-door BMW 330CD.
The test consumption was 6.9 L/100 overall. The same paper tested a MINI D (1.5 L 4 Cylinder Diesel) and also averaged 6.9 L/100.

While we can't compare both testing conditions as it was not a head on head testing, this is interesting to see how a 3 Liter 6Cyl with 200+ HP could be as frugal as a 4 Cylinder with half the displacement and power. I guess the 330 CD is about 400 Kg heavier.

I also saw examples of a tested 525D being more thirsty than a 530D despite a 40 HP difference in favor of the 530D. Diesel car can get us some surprises.

xrunner2

The economics is that a lower income household needs to pick what they choose to spend money for.

The use of the European model of very high taxes on gasoline at the pump would unfairly burden the poor and lower income classes in the US. It would be cruel to implement this type of tax in US. It would be a regressive type of tax. More funds for needed road construction, maintenance, alternative fuel research should be gotten from those who can afford - those with money to spend on higher HP cars, suvs. But, should not be collected at gas pump.

An example of unfair impact of European fuel tax if applied in US: If a lower income person with family to support drives 10,000 miles/year and gets 20 MPG overall for year, he/she uses 500 gallons. With current gas ($2.50/gal) prices, his/her yearly fuel bill is $1,250. If US were to implement European model, gas might be $5/gal or higher. If it were $5, then fuel bill would be $2,500/year. This would be an EXTRA $1,250.

Poorer families are already stretched to make ends meet. Now, what are they supposed to cut out to come up with $1,250 more for fuel? Medical or clothing for children, food (pick up day-old food at special stores), etc.

xkiddx13

acctually in the case of the civic, yes it is true, more civics are being sold on todays market then most any other vehicle.

imidazol97

The economics is the people need to drive less, own a cheaper car, etc., if the cost is not in their budget. Everyone needs to have responsibility for carrying their own cost of being a part of this country. The truly infirm, handicapped, elderly are a different group and need subsidy.

However most of the lower income are very careless in their budgeting because the government vote buyers don't want them to feel self-reliant; they want them to need the government. The cell phones with unlimited minutes, the cars much more costly to buy than subcompacts, the $200 basketball shoes, the lack of ability to carefully buy basics without splurging seem to be a flaw in much of the working poor that were imaged in the commuting to work cost. Note: I don't even have cell phones on $80 month plans.

socala4

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

That's your opinion, not mine. I choose to be indifferent to other peoples' horsepower choices.

Now if you want it knock yourself out, but don't go around telling everyone you need it.

I never once claimed that people "needed" it, so don't attribute that position to me. What I told you is that the consumer will decide what he wants and then pay accordingly -- their perception of need is not my concern.

xrunner2

The cell phones with unlimited minutes, the cars much more costly to buy than subcompacts, the $200 basketball shoes, the lack of ability to carefully buy basics without splurging seem to be a flaw in much of the working poor that were imaged in the commuting to work cost. Note: I don't even have cell phones on $80

So, the European gas tax model could work in US? The extra $1,250 in taxes/year (10,000 mi, 20 MPG) could be met by poor family by eliminating 1 pair of $200 shoes and 12 months of $80 cell phone. This would reduce $1160 of spending to help pay for extra $1,250 taxes.

gogogodzilla

But then the elimination of $1160 worth of purchased goods X ## number of poor families = a good deal of money not being spent on the economy.

Which equals less money for the companies making the goods. Which means that those companies cut their expenditures... like their employees.

All so the government can get more money. Which won't go to employ more people.

Ie: Higher taxes = higher unemployment

snakeweasel

I spoke to your issue directly, so enough of your empty allegations, please. Read my response again and comment if you like.

First off it wasn't my issue. Secondly you didn't address it directly. The issue presented was that insurance companies assess a premium to higher HP cars (a V-6 Mustang can be insured for less than a Mustang GT for instance), yet you addressed something that wasn't brought up.

So tell us why do insurance companies charge a premium for more powerful engines?

If you want to express the viewpoint that you don't like horsepower and provide some cogent reasons why,

Well I never said I didn't like horsepower, I just question why people think they need it, and I think I have provided cogent reasons why I question the need for massive HP.

But don't pretend that you're doing anymore than just expressing a preference.

Well I am seriously questioning why people have a preference for more HP. I mean the justification for it sometimes gets laughable (remember someone justified having a lot of HP just in case he needed to get to the hospital in a snowstorm?)

If consumers found it to be excessive, then they wouldn't make a point of buying it, plain and simple.

Here is the question what is the HP of the average car? I would be willing to wager its under 250 HP, the biggest selling cars are under that mark. I would suspect that high HP muscle cars are sold only to a very small segment of the population. It would seem that a vast majority of consumers are opting out of the high HP market.

xrunner2

Because there is an alleged correlation between those who buy high powered cars and the costs that the insurance company expects to bear.

"Alleged"? Insurance companies have history/data to support their higher premiums for higher HP.

Seems there are facts to support case that owners of higher HP cars will make more claims. Why would they make more claims? Are they more reckless and/or are higher HP cars inherently more unstable?

snakeweasel

That's your opinion

Thats not an opinion thats a fact, if you don't use it its not needed, if its not needed its to much. Its simple logic.

I never once claimed that people "needed" it, so don't attribute that position to me.

Then why do you defend it?

snakeweasel

by eliminating 1 pair of $200 shoes and 12 months of $80 cell phone. This would reduce $1160 of spending to help pay for extra $1,250 taxes.

Or it could free up $1,160 for other of lifes necessities if it wasn't eaten up by state sponsored extortion.

FWIW we saved more money by keeping the cell phones and eliminating the land lines as the land line was costing us more money.

xrunner2

Ie: Higher taxes = higher unemployment

I take it that you would be against extra high taxes at gas pump in US? You would not want today's $2.50/gal to jump to $5.00/gal with an extra $2.50 in fed taxes?

The fair way to fund more road infrastructure projects and alternative fuel research would be to tax those with the means to pay. Those who buy vehicles with excess HP.

xrunner2

FWIW we saved more money by keeping the cell phones and eliminating the land lines as the land line was costing us more money.

But, if an area has a power outage for more than one-half day, cell phone towers are down. Land line offices always have backup power. Land line phones will work when cell phones are dead.

gagrice

Thats not an opinion thats a fact, if you don't use it its not needed, if its not needed its to much. Its simple logic.

That is pretty simplistic. You don't need a house either. A tent will suffice. Needs and wants are different. I want a different house. I don't need it, just want it. To only supply our needs is a much simpler life than the average American is used to. Even the poorest in this country are doing better than the poor of India or just South of our border.

gagrice

Land line phones will work when cell phones are dead.

Cell phone providers do not have to have the backup systems required of the telephone utility companies. As a cell phone provider myself, I hate the things. Never carry one.

snakeweasel

Never had that problem, another benefit of cell phones is the lack of telemarketers

snakeweasel

Never had that problem, another benefit of cell phones is the lack of telemarketers

kernick

you: You don't "manufacture" hydrogen, you isolate it.

me: I'd like to see a link to that; is that in "Modern Alchemy"? Try reading this: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/facts_figures.html
Hydrogen must be separated from the molecules it is tied up in. Breaking the bond between the H and the molecule to form H2 requires more energy than you'll ever get from combusting that molecule of H2.
Hydrogen is nothing more than a liquid-battery - a storage device of energy; not an energy source of itself.

kdshapiro

"A tent will suffice. Needs and wants are different. I want a different house."

Without getting into details, I think you already know that your analogy doesn't hold water to more hp in a car.

kdshapiro

snakeweasel is correct. Hydrogen is not made, it is isolated or extracted. One cannot "make" hydrogen.

ruking1

I pay 36.4% more for a Honda Civic, than I do for a for a 385 hp 3150# vehicle.

kernick

me (prior): 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.

you: 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.

me: oh sorry, you want to argue semantically? Yes I don't stay at my optimum rpm for maximum torque. But that still does not change the fact that during a pedal-to-the-floor action I do hit that torque-peak briefly.

xrunner2

Never had that problem, another benefit of cell phones is the lack of telemarketers

That will change. Telemarketers are getting cell phone numbers and will start calling cell phones approx Feb 6. You will be charged minutes. To get on US no-call list, 888-382-1222.

ruking1

..."I don't buy into your belief that there is such a thing as "too much horsepower"

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. "...

I am glad you agree with my notion about markets will decide and from a macro view vehicles in America need to be redesigned not further endlessly regulated.

So according to the logic then anything over 90 hp is OVERKILL!!?? So untill the time when oems etc can come up with better designs I personally would like to buy then in some ways all vehicle purchases are compromises. Untill then the RANGE just has to be fine!! So in that sense I am just fine with a 385 hp 3150 # vehicle being purposeful alongside a 90 hp 2950# vehicle although I do wish the Z06 would get 50 mpg vs 26 mpg.

snakeweasel

That is pretty simplistic.

If simplistic works simplistic works.

You don't need a house either. A tent will suffice.

Poor analogy seeing that a house and tent are two different things. A house has certain properties that a tent doesn't have. So saying you don't need a house a tent would suffice is not the same as saying you don't need a 500 HP Cadillac CTS when a 255 HP Cadillac CTS will suffice.

Now if you would have said a couple with no kids don't need a 5,000 square foot house with 6 bedrooms and 5 baths because a 2,000 Square foot 3 bedroom 2.5 bath house would do then I would agree.

I want a different house. I don't need it, just want it.

Thats what I have been saying, if you want it knock yourself out and go for it. Just don't try to justify it like saying something like "oh I might need to get to the hospital real fast one day".

snakeweasel

Hydrogen must be separated from the molecules it is tied up in.

Gee sounds like isolating it to me.

Breaking the bond between the H and the molecule to form H2 requires more energy than you'll ever get from combusting that molecule of H2.

Low voltage can break water into its two components on Hydrogen and oxygen.

xrunner2

I am glad you agree with my notion about markets will decide and from a macro view vehicles in America need to be redesigned not further endlessly regulatated.

But, sometimes manufacturers need to be nudged by govt such as in CAFE and safety standards. If it were left up to GM, Ford, Chrysler, they probably would have not got serious about making more fuel efficient cars in last 3 decades when fuel in US was relatively cheap. Similarly, govt needs to nudge vehicle buyers in US toward vehicles with sensible HP and weight. What might be that nudge? Or, could be incentives. Fed tax code is loaded with incentives that reward certain types of behavior.

imidazol97

>lack of telemarketers

So far... news has ads coming to your cell phone in the future. Business never ceases looking for a way to advertise at your expense.

ruking1

Indeed! That is my "dream" car, the BMW 3 series turbo diesel!!! I also have read it can get 37 mpg or 6.356L/100.

A 37% diesel advantage is hard to ignore, but so far that has been what is happening in the USA if the passenger vehiclr fleet is any indication: 97% gasser less than 3% diesel.

kernick

you: I mean the justification for it sometimes gets laughable (remember someone justified having a lot of HP just in case he needed to get to the hospital in a snowstorm?)

me: Then you shouldn't laugh before you try to comprehend because you miss the point. my point on that wasn't that high hp would get you to the hospital. I was addressing overall MORE CAPABILITY - ground clearance, power to all 4 wheels, and the natural consequence that that vehicle (like a 5,000 pickup) is going to need to have considerable power. Power is needed in vehicles for other things than high- speed. Having the power and traction to "snowplow" with your bumper thru snow is definitely a nice capability I've used.

ruking1

In my case, I pay 36.4 % more to insure a Civic than a Vette.

snakeweasel

But that still does not change the fact that during a pedal-to-the-floor action I do hit that torque-peak briefly.

Now comes the questions, how often do you do this? and is it necessary?

I have a 400 HP Cadillac CTS and I never need to push it anywhere near the full potential of the car. Not to pass, not to enter onto an Interstate. FWIW the only times I ever "put the petal to the floor" was to test it out and to show it off.

Yeah if there is a jerk in a firebird next to me at a light in the lane that ends just after the light I can get in front of him. But then again why should I? It doesn't get me any faster because we both will be stuck behind the traffic that is already in front of us.

Sure I can get up to 60 MPH in like 4.5 seconds but the question is why would I ever need to?

imidazol97

You just answered my thought about the experience on Vette owners at ages past the dangerous driving age. I suspected the Vettes are driven less and driven carefully compared to the experience the company has with Civic owners at the same age. Several Vettes are in garages near me and I haven't seen one speed by on our road; they come out usually on nice weekends.

vchiu

>The use of the European model of very high taxes on gasoline at the pump would unfairly burden the poor and lower income classes in the US.

This would force lower income people to look for alternative ways of transport. The extra funding would go to mass transit systems. Nobody is forcing any one to burn fossil fuel.

>It would be cruel to implement this type of tax in US

a painful medecine, but that may be necessity

Reality will bite more cruelly when the Barrel price will really increase. The current all-car transportation scheme will collapse. Slower SL won't help and won't lower fuel consumption in congested zones.

There need to be a shock so that people realize fuel is really a dear resource to be used with parcimony

It is unhealthy to let some people pollute for cheap and burden others just because of salary slip/Car HP figures. Our planet deserve to go much beyond that.

ruking1

My observation is based on same situations, same coverages, etc. So indeed the insurance company sees the Honda Civic as a much higher risk.

But yes your observation is a good one most vettes are taken out on "weekends"

kernick

"Isolating H2" to me means that you can go outside, use a pump to pull in a container of air, and then separate (filter) the hydrogen you can burn from the O2 and N2. Isolating means that it already exists, and man is simply gathering it.

If your talking about low voltage - electrolysis; that is manufacturing = producing. It is created by the actions of man. http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/production.html

snakeweasel

This is way off topic but thats not true. Telemarketers are not getting cell phone numbers. Not to mention the telemarketers all use automatic dailers and Federal law makes it illegal to call any cell phone number with an auto dialer. So telemarketers couldn't call a cell phone even if they had the number.

So a benefit of cell phones is no telemarketers now or in the future.

snakeweasel

my point on that wasn't that high hp would get you to the hospital. I was addressing overall MORE CAPABILITY - ground clearance, power to all 4 wheels,

Wow thanks for opening my eyes. I never knew that adding HP to a vehicle magically gives it more ground clearance and turns it into 4 wheel drive. thanks for informing me.

snakeweasel

The question I have is how often do you drive the Civic and how often do you drive the Vette? Plus who is listed as a primary driver on either car.

socala4

Snake, post #885 is a good example of your apparent inability to maintain a reasonable discussion.

Firstly, learn to differentiate opinion from fact. Example:

- "Ice cream flavors include chocolate and vanilla" is an example of a fact.

- "Vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream" is an example of an opinion. (And it's a silly opinion at that, as everyone should know that chocolate ice cream is superior to vanilla...)

Secondly, cease attributing viewpoints to me that aren't mine, and discussing them as such. That is what is called a "strawman argument", and is a classic example of logical fallacy.

Unfortunately, my points seem a bit nuanced for you to comprehend, which is unfortunate because you spin in circles rehashing points I never made, and misunderstanding clear syntax that addresses your questions, even if you don't like the answers. You seem to enjoy this tactic of attempting to boil everything down to simple black-and-white arguments, and then becoming upset when some of us don't fall into that trap.

I simply don't view HP as a "good" or a "bad" vis-a-vis safety, I am indifferent from that perspective. If consumers who are reasonable drivers want it, then they can choose to buy it. Whether they "need" it or not is not relevant to my position, anymore than any of the other myriad of consumer choices that they make.

ruking1

Point taken, if you MEAN the sarcasm. However, if it is your response given your understanding, then a GROSS misread either purposeful or inadvertent.

kernick

you: I never knew that adding HP to a vehicle magically gives it more ground clearance and turns it into 4 wheel drive.

me: well I guess then you still don't know why larger, more powerful engines are needed for larger vehicles that have more wheels that are receiving power. Maybe you can suggest to the pickup truck industry that all they need is 2.0 liter gas engines.

gogogodzilla

Yup, I'd be against a higher gasoline tax.

As for road construction and repair, issue bonds dedicated for the contruction and repair. That way, those who can afford the bonds will be the ones who pay for it.

:shades:

snakeweasel

Firstly, learn to differentiate opinion from fact.

I know the difference between fact and opinion. Your instance that I don't doesn't change the fact that when something is not utilized it is not needed, and if you don't need all of it then you have to much. Its like my wife who will pour herself a glass of something drink only half of it and let the rest sit there until its dumped down the drain. She takes more than she needs/wants, since she took more than she drank she took to much. Simple logic.

You may have the opinion that that fact is wrong, but that doesn't make it so.

Secondly, cease attributing viewpoints to me that aren't mine

Than quit arguing those viewpoints.

I simply don't view HP as a "good" or a "bad" vis-a-vis safety,

Yet you argue at every opportunity against more HP being "bad" but never against more HP being "good". Here is a tip, if you don't want a particular argument being attributed to you don't argue that side. If you don't hold that more HP is good, why don't you take to task those who promote it as much as you do those who say its "bad"? You have this little habit of arguing a side then trying to disclaim that you hold that position.

snakeweasel

yes its sarcasim. I was going to say more that wasn't sarcasim but thought the sarcasim said enough.

ruking1

Most of the problem actually IS the regulatory factors!!!! If anybody needs to do the nudging it is the "customers" GM and Ford are where they are today, not because the market has gone down (NHTSA shows RECORD passenger vehicle fleet registrations) But because relatively, they can/do not control their costs and CUSTOMERS are actually NOT buying their products in the way that makes GM Ford/ETC profitable.

The issue of fuel efficiency is also a strawman. All GM Ford etc need do is to let their own NON USA products into the USA !!!!!!!! This is SO obvious as to defy logic as to why no one has ever said this!!!!!

snakeweasel

Maybe you can suggest to the pickup truck industry that all they need is 2.0 liter gas engines.

I am not saying that all cars and trucks should have the least powerful engine around. Just that there is a point where adding any additional HP is pretty much meaningless.

Take the Jeep Grand Cherokee for instance. They have the STR8 with 425 HP. Tell me how does all that extra HP give the STR8 any additional utility over a V-8 with 235 HP or a V-6 with 210 HP in say a snowstorm with 10-15 inches of slush on the road. In reality it doesn't, all that extra HP is meaningless in that situation. FWIW that extra HP is only good for flat out acceleration and maintaining very high speeds. And if you like to drive a Cherokee at those speeds let me know so I can take out a life insurance policy in your name.

xrunner2

Power is needed in vehicles for other things than high- speed. Having the power and traction to "snowplow" with your bumper thru snow is definitely a nice capability I've used.

Think that posters on this board have mainly addressed frivolity with regards to HP. That is, having 400, 500 or 1000 HP cars/suvs. Doubt that people running businesses, farms, ranches, etc., would buy vehicles such as trucks and pickups that don't meet their needs which are to haul/pull things, drive in mud and over fields, etc. Don't think that the types of engines they order are for "joy" or "fun" of having a lot of HP. Unless one is a foolish business manager, every dollar spent on each vehicle in the fleet has to be justified for the business tasks to be accomplished.

xrunner2

Most of the problem actually IS the regulatory factors!!!! If anybody needs to do the nudging it is the "customers" GM and Ford are where they are today,

None of present GM or Ford problems has to do with regulations. How about misguided top management for 3+ decades coming home to roost?

ruking1

In fact that is one of the reasons why the suv market is only 12% of the passenger vehicle fleet, despite them being compared to the invading mongol hordes bent upon death and destruction. If you get past the rhetoric and sometimes holier than thou attitude, you will find the large majority ( of the 12 % or 28M/232M owners) buy it to fulfill purposeful requirements. In some cases, suv's take the place of (having to buy) 3/4 CARS.