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
YOU might be saying that. However, they obviously make projections, gather the risk and actuarial and of course historical data and classify accordingly. The data suggests that indeed smaller cars are "less safe". This is reflected in higher premiums.
Lets put it this way, I pay MORE for the privilege of driving "less HP", so called "small" cars that are so called " more environmentally friendly" but according to the insurance company present more risk that shows up as higher premiums.
So if you are making a case that folks like me should pay less, then thank you!
Again if you don't use it its not needed. Simple fact and easy to grasp.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
A mistake? Don't tell your ins agent about this?
Do the low hp and high hp cars have only one owner/user (you), and are garaged at same address of your home, and have exactly same type of usage and yearly mileage, and same current replacement value, and same repair costs for parts? And what are values of low hp and high hp currently? What are relative ages of vehicle? Is low hp car very very small and old with lack of safety things such as bags, crush zones? Does low hp car have very poor crash ratings per govt and IIHS vs high hp car having excellent govt and IIHS crash ratings Just questions for you. Not asking that you divulge your personal info on internet.
Following is one tip, of many, from insurance.com to try to get low car insurance premium:
"Buy a low-profile car.
Cars are rated on a risk scale for auto insurance purposes. In general, sports cars and other high-performance, flashy vehicles are classified as higher risks because they are common targets for thieves and vandals, and because statistically, the people who own them tend to drive more recklessly. If you own such a vehicle, you will likely pay a higher premium than if you owned a station wagon, sedan, or other low-risk vehicle."
Note that tip says that sports cars and other high-performance cars are classified as higher risk because of theft and people who own them "tend" to drive more recklessly. It also says that you will "likely" pay more for perf than for low-risk vehicle. "Likely" means that there are perhaps some - don't know amount and why - that won't pay more. Perhaps someone with totally clean driving record, no accidents, no tickets and 60 years old and living in far out crime-free suburb, no commuting miles, low yearly miles, only user, etc., gets a good deal on insuring a Z06.
The other way around I know the Caddy would be more expensive, by how much I couldn't say because I didn't run those figures. I did it the way I did simply because thats how the cars are driven. I think the last week we only drove the Caddy 50 miles and that was on Friday night and Sunday afternoon. I would never drive the Caddy in rush hour traffic if I can avoid it seeing that its a manual transmission.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Lets put it this way, I pay more for the privilege to drive more and expose the insurance carrier to more risk, which is exactly what I do by driving the lower HP car as a daily drive. If I drove both cars equally then I pay more for the high HP car.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So, let me get this straight -- you apparently believe that the motor of a 3-cylinder Geo Metro delivers some amount of horsepower (let's say 50 hp, for example) in a near-identical fashion to how a 4.6 liter V-8 from a Mustang delivering the same amount of power.
Somehow I have a feeling that our fans of performance cars might have a comment or two about your, er, unusual beliefs...
I also knew a person (copier repairman) that put 60k on his Geo Metro per year. With that kind of mileage he would be better off running a VW TDI.
me: wow, with logic like that I guess many of us have wasted money on:
1) our HVAC systems in our houses. You've oversized your burner or your AC if it doesn't run 100% of the time, on the most extreme day.
2) high performance tires if we're not scrubbing off the rubbing.
3) most of our tech. devices we do not use to 100% of their capability.
In fact I would argue as socal4 has, that I do not want to run a device to 100% of its capability on a regular basis. I would not advise using a truck with a max. tow rating of 7,000Lb to tow a 7,000Lb trailer for example.
I never said that and you know well I didn't. For someone who complains about people saying they are making statements they never made you sure do attribute things to people they never said.
What I did say is that in the same car you will not notice much difference until the higher HP engine starts to perform in such a way that the lower HP engine starts to push its limits if it tries to match it. In that case if you take a V-8 Mustang and accelerate from 0-60 evenly over say 10 seconds you won't notice to much a difference than if you did the exact same thing in a V-6 Mustang.
Now of course if the V-6 Mustangs 0-60 time is say 7 seconds (I don't know what it really is) then you will notice the difference if you accelerate to 60 in 7.5-8 seconds in both vehicles, but then you're starting to push the limits of the V-6.
Now your example if I was able to keep the Mustang V-8 from exceeding say 35-40HP then how different would it be from the 55 HP metro? But this is an absurd example because it would be impossible to keep the Mustang that low in HP, even at idle its most likely producing more HP than the Metro would under normal operating activity.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The Metro had a higher EPA rating than the TDI has.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Air bags, anti-lock brakes, electronic stability control, etc, etc, etc... all reduce the insurance rate. Same with the crash test ratings.
So it's possible to have a higher HP car insured at a lower cost than a low HP car.
IE:
If the high hp car has all the safety features possible and an excellent crash test rating, it will likely cost less to ensure than a low hp car has no safety features and a poor crash test rating.
Mind you, I'm not looking at the extremes. A Bugatti will always be more expensive to insure. But a 6-cylinder VW Passat would probably be less to insure than a stripped-down Mitsubishi Lancer.
EPA for:
1997 Geo Metro 4 door sedan "Manual: 39 mpg / 43 mpg "
2003 TDI 4 door sedan Manual: 42/49 mpg
You would think with all the arm chair "mega HP is BAD" advocates there would be a widescale proliferation of Geo Metro type cars here!
Hardly, they just plug it into a computer program. The funny part is they were the ones to tell me (I already had a clue) that it was the CHEAPEST insurance of the cars I was considering at the time.
The only thing you have to do is to turn your verbiage into "insurance ease".
1) our HVAC systems in our houses. You've oversized your burner or your AC if it doesn't run 100% of the time, on the most extreme day.
Poor analogy, as it doesn't match my argument. A better example is why get two HVAC systems to heat a 2,000 square foot house when it can easily be done with one? Yes a 5,000 square foot house would have two systems but its not needed for a 2,000 square foot house.
2) high performance tires if we're not scrubbing off the rubbing.
true why buy high performance tire when your not doing high performance driving. Its just a waste of money to put high performance tires on my daily drive.
3) most of our tech. devices we do not use to 100% of their capability.
True, my kid wanted an ipod with 30GB of memory, but I got him one with 10GB. The 10GB ipod does everything the 30GB does except it holds a lot fewer songs. But guess what? he hasn't used up half the 10GB of space. If I would have gotten him the 30GB one I would have wasted money buying space he doesn't use.
In fact I would argue as socal4 has, that I do not want to run a device to 100% of its capability on a regular basis.
I am not arguing that you need to run something at 100% of capacity. Just that if you can get it with less HP and that one with less HP does everything you need you don't need the extra HP.
I would not advise using a truck with a max. tow rating of 7,000Lb to tow a 7,000Lb trailer for example.
Would you spend extra to increase your towing capacity from 5,000lb's to 7,000lbs when all your ever going to tow weighs 2,500lbs? or if you don't tow anything at all?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
1997 Geo Metro 3 cyl, 1.0 L, Man(5) 44/49
2003 TDI 4 cyl, 1.9 L, Man(5), 42/49
Reported from 3 users 1996 Geo Metro 3 cyl, 1.0 L, Man(5) 44/49 Combo 46
Reported from 20 users 2003 TDI 4 cyl, 1.9 L, Man(5), 42/49
Combo 45
Yep the metro got better mileage.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
3 users...
... imagine if you used the top 3 mileage-getters in calculating the TDI results.
Methinks you'd end up with the TDI in the 50-55 mpg range.
Yep since you told me other numbers, So do i pick 41? 42-46? or this one you just gave?
Again I don't believe your reported numbers for a number of reasons, one of which it keeps changing.
Also since diesel fuel cost more than gas the Metro getting even slightly less mileage will fare better in the pocketbook.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Of course it keeps changing, that is one reason why one keeps records!! One actually has to work hard to NOT get EPA estimates of 42/49 mpg, which as you can tell I easily do.
Works for me!! I just take the savings to the bank!!
But the greater application of truth is that mpg and hp matters very little to the population at large. Despite what is being said.
Same with the 20 TDI drivers, they just be the top 20 of all and if we took an average it might be 40-45. maybe not.
Since the 3 metro and 20 TDI drivers are averaging about what the EPA estimated I would say that we are not reporting the top mileage getters.
I bet if I did cherry pick the top three for the metro I could easily break 50 or even 55.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Anyone can make a claim, when it doesn't fit into reality is when it comes into question. Plus changing your story doesn't help either.
Not to mention it has little to do with the post you're responding to.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Geo Metro 4 door sedan I4 Manual: 39/43 mpg
Interesting the above figures are with 1940 # vehicle vs a TDI of 2950#'s. Gee I wonder if the mpg would be more or less with 1000#'s more? Probably another good reason why a TDI is better.
You are absolutely correct, you do it a lot of the time!!
Then you get sore when the logic dictates you are less than on the mark!!
me: I got it. You personally don't use more than the lower hp engine's capability. But I and some others do. I actually owned 2 cars of that exact same situation. Before I bought my V-8 Firebird, I had a '98 V-6 Camaro which is nothing more than Chevy's Firebird (same plant, engines, and trans.). I definitely use more power (torque) of the V-8 than the V-6 in the Camaro could ever generate.
you: Poor analogy, as it doesn't match my argument. A better example is why get two HVAC systems to heat a 2,000 square foot house when it can easily be done with one?
me: it's a good analogy because you could look at the on/off of the HVAC as accelerating/idling of an engine. And you're comment on having 2 HVAC's is flawed because it is better to have 2 units than 1, if you can afford 2 units. If you have 1 unit and it breaks you have no heat. If you have 2 units and 1 fails you can live in the house. it is known as redundant design of critical systems.
you: Just that if you can get it with less HP and that one with less HP does everything you need you don't need the extra HP.
me: we could all get by with 20hp cars, or even just a horse-drawn carriage. But no frankly my Firebird or your Caddy wouldn't do everything I want a vehicle to. What is it ehy can't do? They can't accelerate quick enough.
Ah, "everything you need." That's a subjective decision for each customer to make, which has been my point all along...
Air bags, anti-lock brakes, electronic stability control, etc, etc, etc... all reduce the insurance rate. Same with the crash test ratings.
So it's possible to have a higher HP car insured at a lower cost than a low HP car.
It's possible if you compare apples to oranges. But, if you compare apples to apples....such as:
Chrysler 300 with 200 HP V6 vs Chrysler 300C V8 with 425 HP.
Impala with 211 HP V6 vs Impala SS V8 with 303 HP.
If each of these car brands is equipped the same (bags, brakes, traction, etc.,) then V8 model will not be insured for "less".
No reason for the premium to be the same in this case. The higher horsepower vehicle is generally a fair bit more expensive, which increases its replacement cost. So of course the insurance policy would be assessed at a higher premium.
BTW you only need to respond once, it all can fit on one post.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So, it is not possible to have a lower rate for a higher hp vehicle if the same brand, model and equipment. Beside replacement cost, there is another premium factor for "performance" type high HP vehicles. Remember, people who own high performance high HP cars are statistically higher risk for claims.
I never said others don't. All I said was if its not used its not needed. Its pretty simple once you look at it.
Before I bought my V-8 Firebird, I had a '98 V-6 Camaro which is nothing more than Chevy's Firebird
Shhh, not so loud Chevy people will tell you that the Firebird is nothing more than Pontiac's Camaro, and even though I am not a Chevy man I will agree with them.
it's a good analogy because you could look at the on/off of the HVAC as accelerating/idling of an engine.
No its a bad one because the on of the HVAC would be the same as having the gas pedal floored and the off would be the same as the car in park and the engine turned off. No one drives like a HVAC operates, its either all capacity or no capacity in most HVAC systems.
And you're comment on having 2 HVAC's is flawed because it is better to have 2 units than 1, if you can afford 2 units.
Gee thats why small houses have two heating systems. It is only better to have two systems if you have a large house where one cannot heat or cool the whole house. Again more is not always better.
But no frankly my Firebird or your Caddy wouldn't do everything I want a vehicle to.
Not sure about your pretend Camaro but my Caddy would do everything I asked it to do if it had the 255 HP engine.
They can't accelerate quick enough.
Whats quick enough? Mine can get to 60 in about4.5 seconds, but in reality its useless if the guy in front of me is taking 10 seconds. Or if it just gets me to the next red light 5 seconds faster. Or if I have to slow down 3 seconds later because there is always slower traffic in front of me.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
A FAR better analogy is a computer processor. Just like a car, sometimes you get demanding tasks that require the engine (CPU) to operate at maximum capacity. If you had the higher end processor you would either get it done faster (think of a car passing on a two lane road) or it wouldn't stress the computer and you (think loud engine from higher RPMs on highway cruising). You may say that if you only need it occasionally, then why buy the bigger engine? Well, you wouldn't rip out your processor every time your situation changed and get the next one that just barely fits your needs would you? That would be a huge waste of money.
Not always. In 4cyl cars I have frequently wanted to pass that guy on a two lane entrance ramp. No can do. With my V6 I can do it with ease. In fact I can usually pass him and the 3-4 cars that are behind him.
Wrong again, but that would not be the first time. I guess you will now tell us 39/43 is better than 42/49 EPA.
Now let me tell you how this all relates.
When I go to buy a vehicle - car or truck, I want as much power for as much capability of that vehicle. If I'm buying a car it's probably power for speed and acceleration, and if its for a truck you can add in power for towing and off-road conditions. That is the general, high-level goal. More power is better.
Then when I start looking at specific vehicles, then my personal values kick-in. My personal values and the specifics of the vehicles available today, do not change the high-level goal. This is when I answer questions like:
- how much extra does the extra power cost? Do I think it is reasonable to pay that much $ for that much extra power?
Do I want some other item more, for the same $. That question will depend on what I make and/or what I have saved.
- does the extra power hurt mpg? how much? can I afford the extra gas? do I want to spend the extra money on gas or something else?
- does the higher power car emit more CO2? Do I think that's a serious issue? does the higher power car emit more pollution? Do I think either of those is more important than the added capabilities of having more power?
- did the vehicle become worse handling or braking if the engine is heavier? Or has the designer compensated by improving the brakes and suspension? Does the higher-powered version have features such as stability control which the lower model doesn't?
And you keep posing questions to yourself about what other features and attributes each has, and you make a PERSONAL decision about what is better for you, based on your economics, driving environment, and driving style and capability. But just because your choice isn't for the more powerful vehicle that does not mean more power is not better.
What it means is that the designer in adding more power to the vehicle did a poor job of implementing how to get the power, and eliminating any negatives. a) A good design might be to install an intake and exhaust that is lighter, gives the vehicle better mpg, and increase power 10%, without any cost increase. b) A bad design might be to do the power increase resulting in 500Lb added to the car, 25% loss of mpg, makes the car brake 10% longer, and has only a gain of 2% power. In this case more power is still better (that never changes) but the negatives of other attributes outweigh that gain in my PERSONAL opinion of the overall vehicle.
If your still confused relate this to a visit to an electronics store to pick out a TV. Obviously everyone does not buy the best TV in the store. People buy what they think is best for them based on their wallet, house, and desires. Fine, but that does not mean the 35" CRT is a better TV than the 60" Sony Wega Plasma HD.
The ones I see fit just fine...
snakeweasel: 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.
Below a certain threshold, too little horsepower is dangerous from a standpoint of merging, passing on a two-lane road, etc. However, virtually every car sold today is well above that threshold.
Realistically, today's family vehicles have about reached their limits in horsepower and performance. Why? Because each successive horsepower gain will become more expensive, both from the standpoint of initial purchase price and long-term fuel consumption.
A Honda Accord V-6 can already do 0-60 mph in well under 10 seconds. I would argue that at this point people are not going to pay more to go faster, especially in the family sedan market.
me: No the reason small houses don't have 2 heating systems is because it costs more and people don't want to spend the extra money. That does not change the absolute fact that more is better; you're only proving that people don't value better enough in that case.
you: but my Caddy would do everything I asked it to do if it had the 255 HP engine.
me: I guess you wasted your money then buying the more expensive V-8.
you: Whats quick enough? Mine can get to 60 in about4.5 seconds,
me: Oh, it might be like the catapault full-engine power launch of an F-14 from a carrier. Probably faster if technology could overcome the effect of the G's.
you: but in reality its useless if the guy in front of me is taking 10 seconds.
me: you're never first?
you: Or if it just gets me to the next red light 5 seconds faster.
me: Too bad your driving environment's like that. I have 1 stoplight in 30 miles, on a 2-lane road, where quick acceleration is great for passing slow-moving traffic. I have no traffic jams. Maybe you want to move somewhere nicer (just a suggestion)?
me: Yes that may be true. That is a personal-value judgment of whether the additional power is worth the extra cost (and any other negatives the extra power may have caused) to you. The extra power is still an absolute of being better, it is just a personal decision of whether to "spring" for the better.
me: The only needs people have is food, oxygen, and a relatively habitable environment. All else is a "desire or want" to make life easier.
So yes, no one needs 500hp. No one needs 140hp. And billions of people prove everyday that a car is not needed. Many people will tell you they need something because they have made choices of a certain lifestyle. My wife will tell you she needs a pickup because she has a pet horse. The pickup really isn't a need then, as proved by people in the 19th century.
Q: What's the latest item we all "need"? - A: cellphone. My god how would we survive if we couldn't call home and find out if we should get cheese or pepperoni pizza.
But to cut to the chase about HP in my quest for a (plain jane) commute car (mostly freeway commute) I chose a 2004 Honda Civic @ 115 hp. Of course at that time the 2005 models were BRAND new (just barely any inventory on the lot)and of course the "new buzz" was the "best ever" 2006 Honda Civic. This Civic has more than its share of accolades and most are truly deserved (in my humble opinion) So yes,I could have waited and gotten the new 2005 or even waited till the BRAND NEW 2006 Honda Civic. Indeed the HP on the 2006 predictably was HIGHER @140 hp. However, given the goals was the (140 hp- 115 or) 25 hp better, etc?
Of course the answer is a resounding YES and a resounding NO!
The resounding YES column has NUMEROUS plusses!!!!
However those on the NO side meet my goals just fine!!
1. the 25 hp costs anywhere from 3,100-4,260 dollars MORE !!!
2. the savings $3,100-4,260 @ $2.50 per gal @ 37 mpg will buy 45,880 to 63,048 miles of commuting!!!
3. I can get from -1000 to what I paid for it after 2 years and 24,000 miles
4. what can the new 2006 do better in my plain jane commute that the 2004 can not? (nothing)
Well, this contradicts the NHTSA findings with 40%+ for DUI and 38% for impaired driving (not including DUI). Add tailgating and a few other factors and it becomes difficult to support this theory.
All of your reasons listed for buying the 2004 (besides the fact the 2006 didn't exist) were personal financial, value decisions.
It becomes less black and white - actually a PERSONAL RAINBOW, when you start looking at individual models and how this was designed. THAT is why no one should presume to tell others what is right for them, though we should all be able to agree in an absolute sense what is better.
Each individual needs to determine if the positives of more power justify any negatives that may have been created in adding power. If the designer did a great job, no negatives were created. If more power was added because of a technology improvement, maybe a cold-fusion
Each person has their own values and finances, and each person must weigh the pros and cons of what model to buy, just as we do when we choose many other items.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D