The Growing Divergence Between Horsepower and Speed Limits

ruking1

I realize this is your opinion (and oppositely mine also) but I am a bit hesitant to address some of the issues due to the fact it might be further afield than the thread topic.

Suffice to say that GM and Ford have those "lower hp" cars but either can/will not sell them in the USA.

It also does not explain why Ford GM are doing pretty well in the world wide markets.

xrunner2

Suffice to say that GM and Ford have those "lower hp" cars but either can/will not sell them in the USA.

I saw your statement that "regulations" were the problem for GM and Ford. How so? How have regulations held GM and Ford back but somehow allowed Honda, Toyota and Nissan to continually gain share with a wide variety of offerings. Offerings that don't have any ridiculous HP amounts?

snakeweasel

In fact that is one of the reasons why the suv market is only 12% of the passenger vehicle fleet,

Are you sure its that low? I see an awful lot of them drive by my window.

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.

Other than supposive off road capabilities what purposeful requirements does an SUV have that an alternative doesn't?

In some cases, suv's take the place of (having to buy) 3/4 CARS.

Explain please?

I found it funny that my son-in-law asked to borrow my Elantra station wagon because what he wanted to transport wouldn't fit into his SUV.

socala4

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.

But what you miss that is that "utilization" is in the eye of the beholder, it's a matter of each consumer's opinion. For a driver who drives at 3/10ths but wants to be make less effort to drive the car, he is effectively using that horsepower, albeit not to achieve peak horsepower. (Think home audio example -- you don't buy wattage just for peak/ max performance.) Another may want it for ego, another for that rare emergency when it would help, etc.

You may not like it, but in fact each consumer feels that he is utiizing it in some way, and he gains utility from it (or at least he believes that he will before purchasing it.) Not really my problem at all.

And you are the classic provider of strawman arguments, so feel free to cut it out. A intelligent discussion isn't possible with you if you spend so much time fixated on your rebuttal that it doesn't even touch on what some of us have said. (Anyone reading the thread knows that I never made the argument that high horsepower figures were critical to safety, that's a position held by others on the thread that I don't share.)

snakeweasel

But what you miss that is that "utilization" is in the eye of the beholder,

Huh? Its either utilized or its not, it cannot be utilized in one persons opinion and not in another. It is either used or not used, no subjectiveness here.

Again I stand by my statement if its not used its useless and you have too much. Why can't you grab that concept?

Where you work if they have a job that takes 5 people 1 day to complete do they put 8 people on it and tell them they have 2 days? No, because thats waste.

No matter how much you try to twist things around it is a simple fact, if you don't use it, its not needed and its to much. But as I said, if you want it go for it, just don't sit there and tell me you need it.

BTW this is a perfect example of your arguing the "more is better" argument.

imidazol97

The bonds don't actually pay for the necessary road construction for the benefit of all people. The bonds supply the money in the form of a loan and the actual money is paid by the taxpayers. The people who loan the money in the bond earn interest on their loan.

ruking1

"Are you sure its that low? I see an awful lot of them drive by my window."

Yes, and the "massive growth" was something like a pop of 2 % @ or so, 25 years ago or app .4% (less than half of one percent GROWTH per year.

NHTSA figures of 230.2 M PVF/27.1 M SUV's= 11.7%

(ok, I rounded up, )

ruking1

..."Explain please?

I found it funny that my son-in-law asked to borrow my Elantra station wagon because what he wanted to transport wouldn't fit into his SUV."...

Without knowing your SIL, the situation at hand, and his SUV, it would be hard for me to speculate! If anything you have the data.

kernick

you: 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.

me: first Dodge's performance division is SRT not STR. Second a GC SRT8 is not going being better in the snow than a regular GC, as the SRT8 was designed for on-road performance and not off-road. The SRT8 I believe is lowered and performance tires for instance. Those are significant design changes, with a different purpose in mind.
But let's look at the V-6, the standard V-8 and the Hemi. That is the order they increase cost in. That is the order in which they will be able to put power down in. The hemi is used exclusively with the Quadra-Drive II traction system. That system sends power to more wheels then a standard 4WD or AWD; I know at least 3 but maybe all 4 wheels. If you want to power all 4 wheels you need a certain minimum amount of torque to turn each wheel and move the potentially stuck 5,000Lb loaded mass of the GC.

you: FWIW that extra HP is only good for flat out acceleration and maintaining very high speeds.

me: yes that power will mainly be used for fast accelerating; as very few people have the opportunity to drive at high speed.

I believe that is what most people use high-power for, is accelerating, and not high-speed. I think it was maybe the "cons" here who want to somehow validate a point that if you don't use high power for high speed you're not using it. As you seem to agree, faster acceleration is a use of higher power.

socala4

Huh? Its either utilized or its not, it cannot be utilized in one persons opinion and not in another. It is either used or not used, no subjectiveness here.

That's your opinion (and not a terribly well-considered one at that.)

Again I stand by my statement if its not used its useless and you have too much. Why can't you grab that concept?

I don't grab it because it's wrong. "Utilization" is defined by each consumer. Going balls out at 150 mph is not everyone's definition of "use", obviously, or else you wouldn't see people buying it who have other reasons for buying it.

BTW this is a perfect example of your arguing the "more is better" argument.

That's a perfect example of a strawman argument. I never argued once that having more horsepower is better than having less horsepower. What I said is that it is up to each user to define what "better" is, and to act accordingly. I leave it to consumer choice, rather than foisting my viewpoint on the carbuying public. (In fact, I bought a less powerful car than I could have because it had other traits aside from horsepower that I valued.)

kernick

you: (Anyone reading the thread knows that I never made the argument that high horsepower figures were critical to safety, that's a position held by others on the thread that I don't share.)

me: I've been accused of that "critical to safety" thought when critical is not my position at all. My position is that it is "better" to have more power than less in a driving situation as you have more options and capability to compensate. This iis along the lines that it is better to have $1,001 in your pocket than $1,000, or it is better to be capable to run a 6:00 minute mile than a 6:30-mile.

snakeweasel

first Dodge's performance division is SRT not STR.

I stand corrected.

Anyways You are not going to get very much more performance in the GC when you get above a certain HP so in reality the SRT* is pretty much a "Hey everyone look at me" type of SUV and in almost every case the V-6 will suffice over the larger more powerful V-8's.

snakeweasel

Again it is not subjective. It is not an opinion that if you use item 'A' and you bought 100 units of it and only used 50 units, you had 50 units to much that was not needed. So if I have a 500 HP car and never used more than 250 HP then I had unused HP that I didn't need and therefore I had to much HP. Your opinion that it may not be to much HP goes against stated facts.

I don't grab it because it's wrong. "Utilization" is defined by each consumer.

Again wrong, if you utilize 250 HP you utilize 250 HP. The utilization would not change from person to person, it still is 250 HP. These are cold hard figures that don't change because of someones "perception".

Going balls out at 150 mph is not everyone's definition of "use",

Don't complain about strawmen arguments when you present your own. This has nothing to do with the conversation, we are not talking about how the HP is utilized just if the HP isn't anywhere near fully utilized at all.

That's a perfect example of a strawman argument. I never argued once that having more horsepower is better than having less horsepower.

In reality when anyone presents the argument that maybe there is to much HP in some cars out there you argue that fact. You must hold on to that belief if you argue against the notion that maybe there is to much HP out there. You are arguing a position yet you claim not to hold it. This whole line that we are in you are arguing against the proposition that there can be to much HP in a car. Tell me what is your position if its not A.) there can be to much HP in a car or B.) More HP is better.

Please no dancing around the issue, tell us whats your position.

socala4

Snake, seriously, are you just pulling my leg, or are you really this much of a black-and-white kinda guy? It never occurred to you that we don't live in a true/false, yes/no universe?

Perhaps I should ask you a question -- how do you define "utilization of horsepower"? Is it strictly based upon horsepower output at a given moment as read on a dyno, or does it go beyond that?

xrunner2

you: FWIW that extra HP is only good for flat out acceleration and maintaining very high speeds.

me: yes that power will mainly be used for fast accelerating; as very few people have the opportunity to drive at high speed.

What are some examples of "fast accelerating" done in a car with excessive or massive HP (GTO, Chrysler/Dodge hemi, Z06, M's, AMGs's, etc.) compared with a Honda Accord or Camry 6-cylinder engine (which are already somewhat powerful) or a Honda/Camry 4-cylinder. Besides the obviously quicker 0-30 or 0-60 elapsed times, just what more does a GTO or Z06 accomplish in "fast accelerating"?

I have owned Honda 4-cylinder cars in past and have logged many tens of thousands of miles on all types of roads, including rural 2-lanes. Never had a problem in passing on rurals nor merging onto interstates. What did I miss by not having a car with massive HP?

socala4

I've been accused of that "critical to safety" thought when critical is not my position at all. My position is that it is "better" to have more power than less in a driving situation as you have more options and capability to compensate.

Apologies if it seemed that I misinterpreted your posts, I believe that you are claiming that very high HP cars are inherently safer because of the availability of greater acceleration. I'm pointing out that in the real world, horsepower often comes with trade-offs, such as a heavier front end and greater weight, that aren't always beneficial for other attributes, such as handling.

Safety isn't always best accomplished by being able to accelerate in a straight line more quickly. I personally prefer a more nimble car that is a bit lighter on its toes (and gets better fuel economy as well.) While there may be some situations in which the HP would make the difference, there are many others in which it is either irrelevant or else the accompanying baggage of that power is a bit detrimental. In any case, performance is a matter of a combination of factors, horsepower being just one of them.

kernick

This is excerpts from the Toyota website n the Highlander Hybrid:

"Its all-new high-speed electric motor operates at twice the speed and delivers more than twice the power as the motor used in the Prius, producing 165 horsepower alone. The gas and electric motors combined produce 268 peak horsepower. The Highlander Hybrid has a standard towing capacity of 3,500 pounds."

"There are two motor-generators in the 4x2 models and three motor-generators employed in the 4WD-i models."

"In conventional 4WD vehicles, the weight and friction of the additional drive components reduce the vehicle's acceleration performance compared to the same model with 2WD. Not so with the Highlander Hybrid. The innovative electric 4WD-i system employs a separate 50-kW electric motor (MGR) at the rear that provides up to 96 lb.-ft. of additional drive torque as required. The system electronically varies front and rear torque distribution depending on driving conditions."

"The Toyota hybrid technology also allows extended electric-mode operation during low speed or stop-and-go driving conditions. The permanent-magnet front electric drive motor (MG2) produces peak torque from zero-to-1,500 RPM, giving the Highlander Hybrid powerful and instantaneous response that will be especially felt and appreciated in low- and mid-speed performance and in merging and passing maneuvers."

explorerx4

have 4 fords. two '04's; escape(v6, 200hp), focus zts(i4, 138hp), '02 explorer(v8, 239hp), '91 mustang gt(v8, 225hp). most expensive to insure is the focus.
here is a real world example of gas consumption. 7 people go out to dinner(4 adults, 3 kids). 120 miles round trip.
which uses more gas? taking the prius(48 mpg) AND passat(30 mpg) or only the explorer(18 mpg)?

vchiu

"You are with us or against us"

I don't remember who pronounced those deep words, but this kind of thinking seem to have influenced quite a few people, for the better and for the worst

xwesx

Whew! That's a heck of a dinner trip.... must have been a great dining experience! :surprise:

explorerx4

there aren't too many restaurants where my sister lives(west-central pa, just off I-80). i am not used to have someone say, 'i know of a good german restaurant we can go to. it is a bit over an hour away.' the food and the setting was pretty good, though.

gagrice

I work with a fellow in Alaska that lives in Long Beach. He has a 36 Ford with a 289 CI engine. He is in the process of taking that engine out and installing a whole new undercarriage with a high performance Corvette engine. Do you think he will ever use that much HP in it? I doubt it. He only cruises down through town with his two pre-teen daughters. Does he need a bigger engine than the 289. No, he just wants to play with it. It is a hobby. Many of the cars on the street are hobby cars. Not so much different than playing golf or building model airplanes. It is what many Americans do with their idle time.

I personally think the HP race being waged by ALL the automakers is counter productive. If they spent the money designing cars that would be fast enough to go with the flow and get great mileage we would all be better off. Remember they are all in this corporate bedroom together. People with enough stock to sway an automaker could also be on the board of Exxon and vice versa. They also own a senator or two.

gagrice

It is not uncommon to drive 50 miles to a decent restaurant. When we lived on my farm in MN it was an hour drive to our favorite restaurant in that part of the state. It was beautiful set on a lake and worth the time, gas and money for the rare occasions that we could afford to go out. And like you we car pool to our favorite restaurants in Southern CA.

grbeck

snakeweasel: So if I have a 500 HP car and never used more than 250 HP then I had unused HP that I didn't need and therefore I had to much HP. Your opinion that it may not be to much HP goes against stated facts.

And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Someone who buys a high-horsepower vehicle can figure out whether they will have the opportunity to use it and if the extra horsepower will boost their insurance rates. If they don't worry about it...neither should anyone else.

The professional busybodies who do worry about it obviously need a hobby to fill their dreadfully dull lives. They have way too much time on their hands...

kernick

you: The professional busybodies who do worry about it obviously need a hobby to fill their dreadfully dull lives. They have way too much time on their hands...

me: maybe a tax on those busybodies for every minute they spend bothering others about what they should do, like, and own.

xrunner2

The professional busybodies who do worry about it obviously need a hobby to fill their dreadfully dull lives. They have way too much time on their hands...

I suppose this means folks who post messages on boards on the internet? Like yourself? Wasting time on message boards rather than doing something useful for humanity or for fun? If you are reading/writing this board, get a life? Is it time to lighten up?

gogogodzilla

Ping ping ping ping!!!

We have a winner!

(Couldn't have said it better myself)

:P

gogogodzilla

Methinks you doth protest too much...

nitromax

here is a real world example of gas consumption. 7 people go out to dinner(4 adults, 3 kids). 120 miles round trip.
which uses more gas? taking the prius(48 mpg) AND passat(30 mpg) or only the explorer(18 mpg)?

Sounds like a special occasion. I'm sure you can read between the lines. :-)

BTW
Prius at 48 mpg --> 120 miles / 48 mpg = 2.5 gallons
Passat at 30 mpg -> 120 miles / 30 mpg = 4 gallons
Total for the two cars = 6.5 gallons used

Explorer at 18 mpg -> 120 miles / 18mpg = 6.667 gallons

It looks like the least amount of gas would be used by the two cars instead of the Explorer.

So what was question again?

nitromax

I work with a fellow in Alaska that lives in Long Beach. He has a 36 Ford with a 289 CI engine. He is in the process of taking that engine out and installing a whole new undercarriage with a high performance Corvette engine.

BLASPHEMY !!!!!

There's nothing worse than seeing a vintage ford with a Chevy engine in it!
There goes it's value...I hope he never plans to sell it.

PF_Flyer

Time to drop the personal commentary and stick to the topic please.

snakeweasel

Snake, seriously, are you just pulling my leg, or are you really this much of a black-and-white kinda guy? It never occurred to you that we don't live in a true/false, yes/no universe?

No I am not pulling your leg and I don't think we live in an completely true/false, yes/no universe. But that doesn't mean that there are not any black/white issues. % is greater than 4, it has always been it will always be there is no grey area there. We are not talking about which version of "The Producers" was better, we are discussing an absolute. That is how much HP a particular car will have unused in its lifetime by a particular driver in normal everyday driving.

Perhaps I should ask you a question -- how do you define "utilization of horsepower"?

I see you're avoiding my question regarding your position on the issue.

Let me answer your question this way, I have a Cadillac CTS-V with the 5.7 Liter V-8 producing 400 HP. With the exception of a very few times when I tested the cars ability and demonstrated it to a friend I never came anywhere near using its full capabilities. I always accelerate nice and smoothly even when passing and entering the expressways around here. My RPM's on the car rarely exceed 3K and almost never (maybe never) exceed 3.5K.

Now the other CTS I was considering has the 3.6 Liter V-6 with 255 HP that can accelerate to 60 MPH in around 7 seconds or so can easily keep up with me in the CTS-V at the rate I accelerate, pass and enter expressways. Now since the 255 HP version is more than enough for the performance that I am asking from my car the extra 145 HP that the V has is in reality too much HP for the car and me.

It is HP thats not used, therefore not needed and therefore its to much.

Now on the other hand if my son ever gets behind the wheel he would most likely use every bit of HP. But the sun will explode before I let him drive it.

snakeweasel

And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

None, they are too big.

Someone who buys a high-horsepower vehicle can figure out whether they will have the opportunity to use it and if the extra horsepower will boost their insurance rates. If they don't worry about it...neither should anyone else.

I agree with you that if they want it buy it. But please spare me the "I really need a 500 HP car" or the "More HP is better" or "Its safer to have more HP" bit.

vchiu

>It is not uncommon to drive 50 miles to a decent restaurant.

That's really America. As a European, going more than 10 miles for a restaurant is already considered a big journey for such a deal.

snakeweasel

That really depends on where you are. I have friends in the country that have to drive 5 miles before they see any signs of civilization, for them going 30 miles or more for dinner is nothing. I also have friends that live in the city of Chicago and have a half dozen good restaurants within a 15 minute walk of them, when they go out to eat they walk.

As for me I am in the burbs with plenty of fine places within 10 miles.

gagrice

BLASPHEMY !!!!!

I think of it as a waste of money. To each his own. Hot-rodders never get back the money they dump into their cars. Then green fees are gone in a couple hours also. We Americans know how to waste money.

socala4

With the exception of a very few times when I tested the cars ability and demonstrated it to a friend I never came anywhere near using its full capabilities.

Well, at least you confirmed my earlier suspicion -- you define "utilization of horsepower" as driving the car at 10/10ths ("full capabilities"). I'm pointing out to you that the characteristics of horsepower and torque carry over to usage below 10/10ths -- the car will likely behave differently when used at lesser levels at performance, not just at peak.

Just drive a 6-cylinder and 8-cylinder Mustang back-to-back, and see how the power comes on differently, not just flat out at 10/10ths but also at lower levels as well. That's one reason why people want it, and why many drivers can desire it without necessarily desiring to drive at ultra-high speeds, because it also affects everyday driving.

All that should be pretty obvious, and I've said this since my first post on this thread.

snakeweasel

Also this is ignoring the enormous utility of biodiesel and natural gas to diesel processes.

I hate to bust your bubble but biodiesel will only be a niche market and will never power anything more than a tiny segment of the vehicles out there.

ruking1

Also NHTSA statistics show the "smaller" cars (hp size etc) are involved in the higher % and volume of fatalities and accidents than big cars and or even SUV's.

kdshapiro

Stating the obvious again. Of course a smaller vehicle will always lose to a bigger vehicle. Maybe we should all be driving around in Sherman tanks.

snakeweasel

Well, at least you confirmed my earlier suspicion -- you define "utilization of horsepower" as driving the car at 10/10ths

No I define utilization of horsepower as how much is used. Don't put words in my mouth to set up strawman arguments.

Just drive a 6-cylinder and 8-cylinder Mustang back-to-back, and see how the power comes on differently, not just flat out at 10/10ths but also at lower levels as well.

Don't need to I have driven the CTS V-6 and V-8 back to back. Not much difference until you start pushing the V series to the limit of the V-6. In other words if I start down the road and softly accelerate to 60 in say 10 seconds you won't have much difference between the two cars. Sure they might shift at different speeds (both road and engine) but other than that not much difference. Now if I did the 0-60 in say 7.5 or 8 seconds yes you will but thats pushing the limits of the V-6.

Again if you don't use it it is to much. Simple concept.

snakeweasel

I would be surprised that the NHTSA keeps stats on the HP rating of the cars in an accident. A small car can have lots of HP and a large car can have relatively little HP. If you say small car in size I will agree with you. but as it is I think your grabbing at straws.

xrunner2

Also NHTSA statistics show the "smaller" cars (hp size etc) are involved in the higher % and volume of fatalities and accidents than big cars and or even SUV's.

But the issue is “increasing” or high HP, not low HP or smaller cars.

Quote from Russ Rader, spokesman for the IIHS:

"In general, vehicles with a lot of horsepower encourage fast driving, and speeding is a leading factor in fatal crashes"

Auto insurance companies charge higher premiums for high HP cars. Drivers of these cars are higher risk and have higher probability of claims.

Have never heard of anyone bringing successful lawsuit in court against insurance company claiming that higher premium for high HP is unfair and rates not established correctly. If there were a successful lawsuit, then auto insurance companies could not charge more for high HP.

ruking1

While that happens, it is far from the other possibilities, such as small car hits small car, small car hits big car etc etc. Congress was so convinced that it voted to suspend making small cars even smaller. To be specific, you will find FEW sub 2500# vehicles.

Actually the size differential exists. Mostly it is tractor trailer rigs on down to Fed Ex type vehicles that play no small part in YOUR (mine also) way of life.

ruking1

As I have posted previously, mine charges me far more for the low hp cars than the high hp cars. Again, it tracks with the tendency of small cars to be involved in more accidents, fatalities, injuries, than your alledgely MORE DANGEROUS higher hp cars. So again to be specific, more premium for 90 hp/115 hp, vs less premium for 385, 212 hp etc.

ruking1

This is also crossed reference by the IIHS, which is more than easy to track. The insurance company really has NO problems tracking this, i.e. unless you have not a clue as to what a Corvette means in terms of hp. It is truly their business!!?? Why do you think they charge more premium for Camaro's and Mustang's? So that we do a bit more than lob mortar shells at each other, one thing that can be down when shopping for insurance is to "pre" buy a specific vehicle in the category one is considering. So for example if you have it down to the top 5 cars ask your/a insurance co how much the insurance would be for each. It might surprize you and in effect save you money over the life of the vehicle.

So I categorically reject that LOW hp is the sole grounds for safety, lack thereof or even insurance premiums. Actually, it is not me that rejects it. It is the insurance companies. I actually wish I paid less for the lower hp cars. I also realize I take more of a risk with low hp cars than higher hp cars. (as per my examples)

socala4

No I define utilization of horsepower as how much is used.

Then surely you recognize that there is a horsepower curve, which impacts performance across the powerband, and not just at peak? This is a car forum, so I would presume that for you, this knowledge should be a given.

snakeweasel

As I have posted previously, mine charges me far more for the low hp cars than the high hp cars.

Yeah so does mine, but thats only because my low HP car is listed on my insurance as a primary car used for commuting and the high HP car is listed as an incidental car that is used primarily for non commuting driving. Thats why they charge me less because their exposure is less due to how little its driven compared to my daily drive. Now if I used the high HP car as a daily commuter car its coverage would go up.

Somehow I suspect thats the issue with you too or something similar.

ruking1

Of course the issues are the same (similar actually) . However, that is just as easy to resolve. Ask them what it would be for example to use your Caddie as a primary and your Hundai as the "other." But I would swag you already know the answer, for that is why you did it that way in the first place. So again what I am saying is given same same, it is still cheaper!!??

snakeweasel

But you mentioned that NHTSA stats and I seriously doubt they take into consideration the HP rating when determining the "size" of the car.

So I categorically reject that LOW hp is the sole grounds for safety, lack thereof or even insurance premiums. Actually, it is not me that rejects it. It is the insurance companies.

Are you saying that insurance companies reject that lower HP cars are safer? If thats the case why, when all things are equal, do insurance companies charge more for higher HP cars? If you don't think so get an insurance quote for a V-6 Mustang then a V-8 Mustang and see the difference.