The Growing Divergence Between Horsepower and Speed Limits

kernick

It's not just the Trailblazer SS that has high hp; of course you have the Cayenne, the Tourareg V-10 (high torque), the new Land Rover sport, the Grand Cherokee SRT (425 hp), and in the mini category they are joined by the 268hp Rav4. And of course you have the sport pickups which is led by the Ram with the Viper engine.

Now those may be overkill as you say under normal circumstances. But is life always normal? No. Pickup the newspaper or look back over your life and review how life can often throw curves at people. Now consider any sort of power - is it better to have more power or less?

My personal goals everyday of my life is to be become faster, stronger, smarter, and wealthier. If I can afford an 8-wheel drive amphibious 2,000hp vehicle with armor plating that can fly I'd take all those features.

lemmer

Sweet. That make me want a TB SS, even though I don't even like the normal ones.

Mr_Shiftright

Yes but that's all just relative...faster than what? Where does it end?

Anyone who does not know what enough is can never be happy.

No, that's not philosophy or zen, it's just logic. Think about it.

nippononly

the TB SS is a joke because it doesn't even get near the go-fast SUVs from the other manufacturers, and in another sense it is ridiculous for the same reason they all are: trying to turn a 5000-lb truck into a sports car is impossible. Physics must prevail!

And of course, the same question arises that is posed by this thread. Where you gonna use all that power, or even 25% of it? What a waste of your money!

Everyone is spurred on by the "professionals" of course. They think the Chrysler 3.7 is "overmatched" in the new JGC. Even with this base engine, it is faster in a straight line than half the family sedans out there, and even a lot of the entry lux models which are in its price range. Full-size pick-ups that "only" have a V-6 as the base engine, or a V-8 under 250 hp, are "wimpy". Absurd.

grbeck

Mr. Shiftright: Anyone who does not know what enough is can never be happy.

Nor will anyone who allows others to define what constitutes "enough."

Most of the advances and breakthroughs that have allowed us to enjoy life were brought about by individuals who were perpetually dissatisfied with things as they found them.

carlisimo

If you go out in a new Accord, even the 4cyl, it's very easy to be cruising down the highway and look down and realize "woah, I'm going 85!"

Now that we've reached that point, where high speeds feel slow and comfortable, it's a lot more difficult to convince people that a 65mph speed limit makes sense.

hpmctorque

"...it's very easy to be cruising down the highway and look down and realize 'woah, I'm going 85!' " How true, carlisimo!

"Now that we've reached that point, where high speeds feel slow and comfortable, it's a lot more difficult to convince people that a 65mph speed limit makes sense."
Yes, that's also correct.

The refinement of many popular new cars, not to mention the luxury ones, both enhances and detracts from the driving experience, by making long drives more comfortable and less tiring, while at the same time isolating drivers and passengers, and diminishing the sensory connection with the road that existed when cars were less refined and reliable.

Mr_Shiftright

Very good points and thanks for a thoughtful response-- but I would counter that the advances and breakthroughs were not made about items for which the dissatisfaction was artifically created. People really do need indoor plumbing and antibiotics but not am/fm nosehair trimmers.

Nobody needs 500 hp, there is absolutely no justification, reason or logical reason other than the artificially created I WANT!!

Since the desire is artificially created, "enough" is never achievable. It is not an outsider who is defining enough, it is the obvious dissatisfaction of the wanter that proves the point.

Or to put in in crude terms, if you don't know what enough is with say food or drugs, you will probably die. So really knowing "enough" can be discussed as common sense, too. It needn't be viewed as an encrouchment on freedom.

rsholland

Last week I rid myself of that old Explorer, and replaced it with a new black WRX Limited wagon, with a 5-speed manual.

I thought long and hard about it, and debated between the WRX and the larger Legacy GT. The WRX won out (besides being cheaper) simply because it's more fun to drive—especially now that it's got a 2.5 turbo motor.

It's a smaller car, and is simply a hoot to drive on country roads. A bigger car would certainly be more comfortable, maybe even faster, but not nearly as much fun. "Fun" won out here.

Bob

nippononly

the larger car would actually be slower, as it has the same engine and weighs more. The WRX is a good example for the purposes of this thread: it is much faster than you "need" a compact car to be, and fast enough that you can employ less than 50% of its abilities under almost all conditions short of the track.

As an alternative, Subaru could have built a 2500-pound WRX (there are "normal" cars in this class at around 2300 pounds, I am presuming the AWD adds a couple hundred pounds) using the NA 2.5, preserving all the performance characteristics of the existing WRX and accomplishing markedly better fuel economy.

Both cars would be capable of well over 100 mph (far above the speed limit anywhere in the United States) and 5-6 second 0-60 runs. Something they could never practically perform anywhere in normal usage, except perhaps for the occasional clear freeway ramp.

Or Sube could have stuck with the NA 2.2 they used to have in this model (updated with 2005 engine management and valve timing technology), lightened up the car for superlative handling as described above, and reached 40 mpg highway while creating a car that while not exotic-car fast, would be tons of fun to drive. And much more realistic given the conditions it is likely to be operated in.

kernick

you: "Something they could never practically perform anywhere in normal usage, except perhaps for the occasional clear freeway ramp." and "And much more realistic given the conditions it is likely to be operated in."

me: I hear what you're saying about "normal usage" and likely conditions - which I agree is adequate for MOST situations. But since there are life-threatening situations that we enter occasionally and people who actually do experience those situations - pickup any newspaper, I for one want a vehicle that is MORE than adequate. I want a vehicle that gives me the best chance to survive any abnormal/accidental/dangerous event. In such a situation MORE power is better than less; and if you're wrong you can be dead or severely injured.

This is the same logic I'd give someone about why I would carry a gun. It's unlikely you'll ever need a gun, but if you're wrong and trouble comes your way (which you can't control or anticipate), you are better off having more power than less.

And if I'm hiking in bear-country do you know what size gun I'd carry? The biggest, most powerful one I could carry.

carlisimo

You really think they could lighten the car?

nippononly

I love your frontier spirit, but it doesn't seem to have a lot of relevance in the 20 mph environment of our urban areas.

"And if I'm hiking in bear-country do you know what size gun I'd carry? The biggest, most powerful one I could carry."

The gun won't cost you an extra $10 grand. And many if not most cars these days are equipped with many safety features like ABS brakes and stability control, features that can help you swerve out of the way of a collision, or stop before one. Why is it that so many supposed safety mavens here at these boards feel that the only solution to every impending "dangerous event" is a healthy dose of throttle? I genuinely don't understand the widespread view that hitting the gas will solve all problems, so we need to have as much engine under that right foot as possible.

carlisimo: I dunno. But consider that Hyundai, Kia, Honda, and Toyota ALL make 4-cylinder 5-doors with A/C that come in around the 2400 pound mark. So why couldn't Subaru come in around 2600 pounds in the AWD Impreza? And in a $25K car, they could probably afford to use more aluminum and other lightweight materials, if they took out the turbo. Anyway, that was kind of a side point. :-)

hpmctorque

I agree with you, Nippononly, about what you say concerning the safety benefits of rocket-like acceleration; it's overrated. I'm not saying there's absolutely no basis for assigning a safety factor to acceleration, but as you say, when is enough, enough to satisfy the safety argument? I just think the safety issue is used as a rationalization to justify super fast acceleration, when the real reason for this type of performance is the fun factor. It's not criminal to like fast acceleration, so why lie about it? I enjoy fast acceleration, but as you and Shifty have expressed, it's not a requisite for driving enjoyment. There are other sensory attributes, such as handling, steering feel, responsiveness, sound, etc. that are just as satisfying as brute acceleration.

bumpy

But consider that Hyundai, Kia, Honda, and Toyota ALL make 4-cylinder 5-doors with A/C that come in around the 2400 pound mark. So why couldn't Subaru come in around 2600 pounds in the AWD Impreza?

They did, about 10 years ago. Along with everything else, the Impreza is larger and heavier these days and Subaru has decided they don't need to sell anything smaller here.

rsholland

With all the government required safety equipment, I doubt that you will see a 2500 pound WRX. At least not with a turbo and AWD. They could increase the amount of ultra-light construction materials (it already has an aluminum hood, and roof too I think?), but that gets expensive, and therefore would take it out of its' current price range.

Bob

rsholland

I have a sneaky suspicion that you will see Subaru bring over a smaller car than the Impreza in the next few years. There have been sightings of the R1 and R2 micro-cars recently at SOA's Cherry Hill, NJ headquarters.

As Subaru's current models move up market, they do need something new to fill the bottom of the range. Honda's doing that with the new FIt, to fill the slot the Civic used to have. Subaru will need to do the same.

Bob

nippononly

What if they took out the turbo and used the savings to build the car with lighter materials? They could reduce the car's weight by perhaps 25%, then if the power is reduced by 25% (by returning to use of the NA 2.5), you end up with the same power-to-weight ratio. Of course, in the context of this discussion, I would submit this model has more power than you can really ever employ on the public roads beyond a moment or two every now and again, so perhaps they could achieve a 10-15% weight reduction, which with a 25% reduction in power would bring it more in line with the reality of the roads today. And bring cost down. And make it better-handling and more fun to toss around corners and whatnot.

rsholland

A 25% weight reduction? I doubt it. They've already got non-turbo models (2.5i and Outback Sport), which are a bit lighter.

Remember, many of these light-weight materials are also expensive. Subaru, as any carmaker, is constantly walking the fine line between content and costs.

Bob

carlisimo

It'd be a lot of fun, no doubt. It'd be a lot like the 2.5RS coupe, actually.

But I bet that most of the people who would appreciate that light weight... would put a turbo back in =].

nippononly

Yes, Bob, but that's why I said take out the turbo. Saves them money to do so, doesn't it?

Weight-saving isn't magic, and I don't see why it has to be costly. The Toyota Matrix, far from a costly model, weighs about 2850 pounds. It is notably bigger than an Outback Sport, yet the OBS weighs 200 pounds more. Given the relative size of the two and accounting for the extra weight of the OBS's AWD, I think Subaru should be able to get the OBS down at least 200 pounds. From there, they could use some of the cost savings from taking out the turbo to knock perhaps another 100-150 pounds out of there by using lighter materials. A 2700-pound AWD Impreza WRX with the NA 2.5 would be quite fast (that would give it the same power-to-weight ratio as the last-gen Civic SI, but with more torque than the Honda). And they could also put some bigger tires on there to improve handling over the base model, to increase the model's value for the customer, and to partially compensate for the long-travel suspension.

carlisimo: there will always be the F-n-F crowd, but it would be a fairly fast car as I have described it, and would already be at the limit of the amount of performance potential one could realistically enjoy on public streets.

rsholland

Actually the Outback Sport is pretty spritely as is. My son just bought one a week before I got the WRX. It has the same engine as Legacy 2.5i and Legacy 2.5i Outback, sans 2 horsepower, and is considerably lighter than those two. It too is a fun ride.

Bob

nippononly

now imagine it 10% lighter still! :-)

Of course, my original idea is still my fave, go back to an updated 2.2L, you would still have a decently fast car and then you might have great fuel economy!

andre1969

is the Boxer engine a heavy design? I'm wondering if that's one area that Subes get some of their heft from? Looking at the Edmund's stats, it looks like the Impreza Outback wagon starts at around 3,067 lb, which seems awfully porky for something 175" long, 67" wide, and only on a 99.4" wheeblase. FWIW, that's about the dimensions of an old '80's K-car, Cavalier, or Tempo...cars at the time, which, at around 2300-2500 lb, were considered hefty for their size!

Maybe the Impreza is just over-built? I'd imagine that they'd have to do some beefing up of the structure to handle the added weight of the 4wd, not to mention the power of the stronger engines.

And cars these days are taller than back in the old days. The Impreza's almost 59" tall, where your typical 80's car like what I mentioned earlier was only around 53-55" tall. So even if they're no wider or longer, a lot more material and weight has been added in making them taller.

carlisimo

The current Impreza looks similar in proportion to the older ones. Back in the 90s, it looked tall compared to the rest. It hasn't changed much, so (along with the Sentra) it looks dated, from the era of small cars that didn't look taller than they are wide.

The boxer engine should be a little bigger than an inline; you need two heads. But it's not that much of a difference. The AWD is much more significant. It's a much stronger and more useful (in racing) form of AWD than most cars use.

The relationship between the Impreza and rallying is important too. In Group N rallying, the cars have to remain almost stock. Or better put, the stock cars have to be close to the Group N cars. That's why the stock STi and Evo have intercooler sprays and stuff. Obviously, the body has to be very strong too, and my guess is that most of the weight comes from there.

(Doesn't mean they shouldn't make a lightweight version, but it might be harder to justify economically.)

andre1969

on the old 1993 Impreza wagon, and they had the 2wd version listed at 2490 lb, and the AWD version at 2760. So it does look like the AWD is an awfully big chunk of the car's relative porkiness.

rsholland

All Subarus are built pretty rugged, which is one reason they get good safety ratings, and their heft too. I'm sure their rally heritage has something to do with this.

Bob

kernick

I still haven't heard any good argument over why an individual is better off having less power, given the choice of "less power or more power". If you have the money to buy the power and fuel the power, why wouldn't you go with more?

People will go for smaller, less powerful cars when their pocketbooks are affected significantly enough to discourage buying size and power. That is the ONLY thing that will do it. Then people with money will be the only ones buying large or powerful vehicles.

bumpy

I still haven't heard any good argument over why an individual is better off having less power, given the choice of "less power or more power". If you have the money to buy the power and fuel the power, why wouldn't you go with more?

Power is no good if you can't use it. There is a point where the the combination of the car's design and the driver's skills reach their limit, and power beyond that point is money flushed down the toilet. Proportionally, there are a lot more wrecked Vipers than Miatas.

kernick

As with any topic in these forums, people try and prove their point by picking certain vehicles and then trying to make a point with it. Picking a Viper which is a known difficult car to handle is rather unfair. Is the car representative of the accident rate of Ferraris, Bentley's and AMG's?

Power is no good if you abuse it, I agree. Driving 100 mph in a 40 mph suburban zone is probably an abuse, and more easily done in a Viper. Pointing a gun at others is an abuse of power. What I am talking about in more power being better is the person who does not abuse power.

More power, is better. A person is better off having a gun when threatened, and a person is better off having a more powerful vehicle if threatened on the road. I do not advocate abusing power. I believe you are talking about people who abuse the power they mauy have.

carlisimo

I'd hate to have a car that I couldn't ever floor. Driving at 1/10 throttle is boring, even if the car isn't.

nippononly

"More power, is better"

Every auto maker in business loves you at this minute. In fact, most auto industry journalists do too. :-)

I disagree. The V-8 is wasted in a Ford GT. The car handles like crap at speed. The incredibly huge 6.1L engine is wasted in the 300C SRT.

There are only a handful of cars over about 250 hp that don't waste their power in a chassis that can't handle it - they would include the BMW M-cars, the STi/Evo, a Porsche or two, and perhaps the Corvette. Barring exotics of course, but I don't think ANYONE buys exotics purely for love of the car - they are always to some extent showing off. And even the exceptions I mentioned are overpriced baubles, as their talents can NEVER be exploited on the road. Obviously, if you are a weekend track racer, like regularly, my remarks do not apply to you.

tpe

"I'd hate to have a car that I couldn't ever floor. Driving at 1/10 throttle is boring, even if the car isn't."

I don't get it. So if you are applying 1/10 throttle somehow being able to push the pedal to the floor would provide some enjoyment. I drove a Fiat 128 in high school, rated at around 50 hp. That throttle never left the floor. In fact, when driving up a grade in 3rd gear I felt like I was trying to push the pedal through the floor. There is something a little boring about knowing that there isn't anything left.

Regardless, I agree that nobody "needs" a car with over 300 hp. So what? Is there something about these people that waste their money on excess power that is bothersome? Is anyone suggesting that they should be able to dictate to others what they need and what they should be able to buy? I find that mentality far more bothersome than the idea of people choosing to spend money on horsepower.

hpmctorque

I have no problem believing that this car was slow, but it also had some positive attributes, including outstanding space efficiency and, for its day, fuel economy. I never owned one, but I wondered whether it was a reasonable car to own. Did you get reasonably good use from yours, or did it justify Fiat's "Fix It Again Tony" reputation?

The 128 was Fiat's counterpart to the original VW Rabbit (Golf outside North America). Like the Rabbit, it featured FWD, which made it technically innovative for its time, but, unlike the Rabbit, the 128 featured a conventional trunk.

carlisimo

"Is anyone suggesting that they should be able to dictate to others what they need and what they should be able to buy? "

Well I'm certainly not, if that's what you're implying.

kernick

I'll give you 2 reasons why I like more power, and the benefits in my drive.

1) Frequently I drive on roads where the lanes converge or reduce down - from 2 lanes to 1 lane. I like having the power to decide whether I will go first or 2nd relative to the car that may be next to me.

2) On those same rural highways, it is mostly 2 lane undivided, with the white dashed passing zones. The safest pass is the fastest pass, which is a function of power. I like to have power to pass safely, and if I miscalculate or the person that I'm passing speeds up, I prefer to have "more power" so as not to be left hanging out in the oncoming lane.

kernick

Having a more powerful vehicle can be useful. But it is also just like many physical items and attributes in our lives. People want the most powerful and fastest vehicle for the same reasons people want the biggest muscles, or to run the fastest or farthest, or to have the nicest watch, or biggest and best boat or house.

People are judged by what they look like and what they have. Plain and simple. This isn't rocket-science.

nippononly

the single best reason to have more power is for image, macho image at that?

I don't buy into that personally, but I suppose we have come rather far afield from hpmctorque's main point, which was that if you DO buy the most powerful vehicle on Earth, it is mostly wasted power because there is nowhere short of the track you could ever exercise it.

Or maybe this discussion is right on point: it's NOT silly to buy extra power we can never use, because we are buying it more for image and social standing than for actual USE, and therefore it serves the purpose we spent 10s of thousands of extra dollars for?

john_324

...if as Americans, we'll ever be able to supplant the "more power" desire as a defining aspect of our national automotive character?

Whether because of geography, resource abundance or history, we're a nation of straight-line speed freaks. Sure, there are types like us here who prize handling, but we're not the majority.

To show how ingrained it is, I've always thought it interesting that the "import tuner" craze centered on trying to make econo cars fast, rather than trying to capitalize on the cars' inherent handling prowess. Yeah, I know the serious types *did* do this, but as the hobby became a mass-market fad, it became all about "I live ma life a 1/4 mile at a time," to quote that inane movie.

Seems as long as we have open spaces and relatively reasonable fuel prices and incomes, we're destined to be power-junkies that won't be able to pass up big-engined vehicles, even if they're just sitting in traffic most of the time and dreaming of the strip... :confuse:

kernick

you: hpmctorque's main point, which was that if you DO buy the most powerful vehicle on Earth, it is mostly wasted power because there is nowhere short of the track you could ever exercise it.

me: And that's pretty much true, when you have to obey speed limits. However as I pointed out if you are in some sort of emergency situation, which I assume would be unexpected and unplanned, it is best to have more power. that is my argument. If you want to assume a Mayberry RFD world exists, encountering no criminals, drunks, , emergency maneuvers, or need for emergency room ... then yes your basic Kia Rio is all you need to maximize your safety.

But it's that sort of Blue Sky thinking, that contributed to the follies of the Titantic, the Hindenburg, and the space shuttle (to name the more popular), which were designed well for normal conditions, but failed miserably when confronted with the frequently occurring exceptions.

Plan for the "worst", and not "normal" and you'l live, not to regret it.

carlisimo

I would need traction and stability control on a very powerful car. And a good chassis but that's a given. Otherwise I'd find myself in an emergency situation, slam the throttle, and spin in place (or into a tree).

That means I should train myself, but I'm not that good. Case in point: I still lock up my wheels now and then, even though I've practiced braking.

I wouldn't want 500hp in a small fwd car. And I think a Miata is more fun with 200hp than it would be with 500hp. It should be an option for those who disagree, but I want my option to be available too.

nippononly

"However as I pointed out if you are in some sort of emergency situation, which I assume would be unexpected and unplanned, it is best to have more power. that is my argument."

Well, OK, but there comes a point of diminishing returns. In 25 years of driving I have never, repeat NEVER, had an emergency situation in which having more power would have helped me in any way. ABS brakes? Oh yes, which is why I look for those now when I am buying a car.

I would also like to reiterate that there are not many emergency situations where having a ton of extra horsepower is what is needed to avoid the collision. And in some of the ones where you think that might be the case, it might be that without sophisticated stability control you would only make matters worse. Or the car's computer would just shut you down if you did have stability control.

kernick

you: In 25 years of driving I have never, repeat NEVER, had an emergency situation in which having more power would have helped me in any way.

me: Well in the last 15 years I have had 2 cars go by me that were being chased by the police. If either of those cars that were being chased side-swiped me and didn't knock my car out of commision, I would have run chased them, rammed them, and run them off the road or whatever necessary, and then showed them what I thought of endangering others. I don't tolerate criminals. They didn't touch me, so I let the police handle it.

I also believe in stability control and ABS. Did you think I'm against that? The more power a vehicle has the more important those are.

fintail

"I would have run chased them, rammed them, and run them off the road or whatever necessary, and then showed them what I thought of endangering others"

You're joking, right? You better hope you have lots of life insurance...

Maybe we should all drive those dopey big International trucks - lots of obese overcompensating size and power (albeit not speed)

carlisimo

He did say he'd do that if they had sideswiped him. I would too, even if I knew it was a dumb idea.

Power without compromises is good. I'm not sure any of us disagree. But in reality, there are: price, fuel consumption, emissions (some of us care), balance, control, laws against "gross displays of speed" which are very open to interpretation, tire limitations, driveability, car and cabin size, etc.

They cause power to give diminishing returns, and for every person and car there's a level that's "enough" and a level that's "too much."

kernick

you: You're joking, right? You better hope you have lots of life insurance...

me: certainly not! I'm not a pacificist. As you can see from carlisimo's reply, there are a lot of people around who will assist law enforcement, as the police can't be everywhere. Too bad on 9/11 that only 1 of the 4 plane-loads of people realized (too late) they needed to be responsible, active participants in life. Our culture seems to falsely teach/train people that only police have the morality to enforce the law, despite the fact the chances of them being there to prevent a crime is very, very low.

I drive a black Firebird w/4" exhaust, and if people are intimidated by that a little, and think I might be dangerous, that's good. And if I could be 6'8" and 325Lb, I'd take that too.

fintail

So you'll endanger god knows who by joining a police chase (or creating one) when you likely have no superior driving credentials? That's scary. Just pray you don't hit anyone when making yourself a deputy, or you'll lose everything you have, if not more.

Maybe I'm different...the only Firebird that would make me think twice would have a light bar on top

nippononly

that came out of the blue. I am with you fin, and the 2 responses above scare me, frankly. I think unless you are a graduate of multiple professional driving courses or retired law enforcement, you have absolutely no place joining a police chase, and in fact I am quite sure it would be a crime in this state. Not to mention you are much more likely to kill yourself or worse some innocent mom and her kids in your pursuit of vigilante justice, than to apprehend the criminal.

Very very scary.

Still, it does address the original question: clearly for some, the purchase of surplus horsepower is important in case of the opportunity of executing vigilante car chases.

and kernick: just for the record, it appears you have never had an emergency situation arise in which extra power would have improved your odds of staying safe either. And in fact the situation you do describe is one in which you would supposedly chase someone, the only definite outcome of which would be that you would damage your car and potentially injure yourself MORE than the original accident did.

carlisimo

Don't worry, I wouldn't be stupid enough to try to help the police. I know I'm not that good. I'd just be in it for revenge =].

kernick

you: just for the record, it appears you have never had an emergency situation arise in which extra power would have improved your odds of staying safe either.

me: it depends on what we define as an emergency. As I said before having more power makes passing on 2-lane roads much safer. It lowers the odds that you will miscalculate the distance or speed of an oncoming vehicle, and have a head-on crash.

But whether or not I have used "more power" in an emergency or not, and whether I shhould have it, is the same as arguing to me that most cops don't need guns because most of them don't use their gun in their whole career. Or should I not wear my seatbelt because I've never had a severe accident?