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
I guess you will now tell us 39/43 is better than 42/49 EPA.
Lets put it this way getting 39/43 with gas that cost $2.40/ gallon is better than getting 42/49 with diesel that costs $2.90/gallon.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
true but how many cars out there have too little HP for that? My daily drive that has 140 HP gets to highway speeds by the time to merge easily. It has plenty of power to pass on a two lane road. Its more than enough to merge and pass on a two lane road.
Realistically, today's family vehicles have about reached their limits in horsepower and performance.
Most of todays family vehicles with 4 cylinders produce in the mid to high 100's in HP and the V-6's can exceed 250 HP. That should be more than enough to do what todays family vehicles do.
A Honda Accord V-6 can already do 0-60 mph in well under 10 seconds.
Should be under 8 or close to it which should be enough for everyday driving.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I'm glad you agree though that having more horsepower doesn't not mean in the end, you have a better car, or a safer car.
The simple fact that people don't value more in this case shows that more is not better. Or at the very least not worth the extra cost. In the case of heating systems a second system for backup would rarely, if ever, be used. Also one must understand that getting more (in this case another heating system) means getting less (in this case less avaliable floorspace for storage and/or living).
More is not always better.
I guess you wasted your money then buying the more expensive V-8.
Actually it turned out to be cheaper, its good to have friends
Too bad your driving environment's like that. I have 1 stoplight in 30 miles,
No matter if the next light is 1/4 mile away or 50 miles away you get there 5 seconds faster with a faster acceleration.
you're never first?
Yes I am first at the light as often as anyone else. that doesn't mean there isn't traffic further down the road. So I get behind them 5 seconds faster.
on a 2-lane road, where quick acceleration is great for passing slow-moving traffic.
I have explained this before the pass is only a couple of seconds faster, no biggie there.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Actually it doesn't since the NHTSA specifically states that speed is a leading contributor to fatal accidents.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Never bought one for the same reason that I will not buy a Civic, Mini or a 3 series BMW. Just can't fit in the things.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So for example, I see no incongruity with you buying a 400 hp vehicle, but it is disingenuous for you to say that others shouldn't because you feel they don't NEED the higher HP.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That is a very poor comparison. The Geo Metro is much closer to a Hyundai Accent than a Jetta TDI. I have driven a Geo Metro less than a mile. It went back to the rental agency in Hawaii. The Jetta would be a better choice even if it used twice the fuel at twice the price. Now maybe a Honda CRX that got 50 MPG would be OK to drive. It was a great little car. Too bad Honda gave up on it. They have not built anything to compare since.
The slow mo advocates almost all have said you DON'T need all that HP.
When I pull my trailer loaded down with 2 yards of wet sand, I "need" the V8 HP. I don't think a V6 PU truck would pull it up my hill. A 4 cylinder diesel PU might handle it. Too bad they are not sold in the land of the free.
I also agree with your Honda CRX take. My little cousin had one and it was a hoot to be a passenger when she drove.
She has since "graduated" to a 300 hp turbo Volvo V70 R station wagon.
Hydrogen is 16 dollars per gal (weight actually) yielding app 22 mpg in a Honda Civic. If 2.50 per gal is outrageous, what would you call 16 per gal? So what do you think will happen to the cost of mass transportation when they substitute hydrogen in a diesel bus that gets 6 mpg?
So then you don't agree there is no issue with dependence on middle east oil. You don't agree there is an issue with air pollution in major centers and the burning of fossil fuels has everything to do with this. You don't agree demand is high and we all pay the price for our greediness. You don't agree this is this thing called "global warming". You don't agree we need to care for our environment and big wasteful cars and engines are only a symptom of other wasteful practices.
Interesting. So then from your perspective there is nothing more to discuss on the growing divergence between speed limits and hp.
me: If heavy traffic is moving at 75mph on a highway, and the entrance ramp is short, a car that can accelerate to 75mph before the ramp ends is going to be safer then a car only able to get to 50mph. The person moving at 50mph is going to have to rely on others - that they are paying attention at that moment and that they are willing and able to slowdown or change lanes.
A person entering at 75mph and with a reserve of power can better hit the spot where they expect to enter between cars. If it appears that you miscalculated and you're on a side-swipe course, it could be an advantage if there is room in the lane 50' feet up, to accelerate faster - 85? to find the empty spot.
you: Because each successive horsepower gain will become more expensive, both from the standpoint of initial purchase price and long-term fuel consumption.
me: that hasn't been true historically. Very few people originally could afford cars (cost relative to income) and those cars were low-powered. The number of people who can afford cars and the power of cars has steadily increased, with the exception of the 70's Fuel Crisis and environmental controls.
You are also limiting your thinking of what the future holds. If you conclude the car will never be anything better than what it is today. Advances in technology are not linear and are accelerating. This might spur your interest in breaking out of the paradigm that what's going to change is from painted to chrome bumpers.
I used to do that with 4 and 6 cylinders in heavy LA traffic on short ramps. A Bugatti would not have made it safer.
"You are also limiting your thinking of what the future holds"
Hopefully a car will be much safer, much more efficient and maybe your insurance will be tied to your driving habits via a little black box. The computer will be controlling your car so a lot of hp won't really be needed. Gas wasters will be a thing of the past as the world ran out of oil and is now on hydrogen. The air is much cleaner.
The Germans actually have the patents to 90% of the inventions used in the personal transporation appliance of tomorrow. Toyota and Honda are now subsidiaries of BMW....
me: Do you realize you already got your wish. There is a gas-guzzler tax, which penalzes the person even if they only drive 500 miles a year, and then there is the gas tax which penalizes high fuel consumption based on mileage driven. tell us why you think a 3rd tax is needed, when these 2 already cover it?
But if you can get high hp and decent mpg like a Vette, there is no gas guzzler tax.
me: I'd still like to know what energy source you intend on using to produce (or as you say "isolate") the hydrogen. Please post a link to the site, as I'm a chemical engineer and would professionally be interested in how that's done.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I don't have to tell you, you already know. But what I seem to remember from high school chemistry is you can't *make* any of the elements in the periodic table.
There should be an excess consumption tax on top of this.
There should be an excess consumption tax on top of this.
Excess consumption of what exactly? The tax is already based upon fuel usage, so there must be something else that you'd like to have taxed?
It's coal gasification. It's break even pricepoint is between $25-35 per barrel (far less then the current $65-70 per barrel for current oil prices).
And the US has some of the world's largest reserves of coal.
So there is no reason to raise unleaded gasoline prices, which wouldn't spur the growth of coal gasification in the first place. For each price increase the government mandates at the pump simply enriches the government, not the corporation that needs the money to build facilities, research technologies, and hire employees.
If anything, mandating a price MINIMUM of $35/barrel for oil would ensure than no matter the world price for oil, any future US coal gasification facilities would still profit.
:shades:
I agree, but then again I didn't make the comparison.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
More realistic people (not slo mo advocate) have questioned the reasons why people said they needed the high HP.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Not sure where you live but in most places when traffic gets heavy it slows down. As I said before my daily drive has only 140 HP and it has no trouble getting up to highway speeds on any entrance ramp here in the Chicago area.
You are also limiting your thinking of what the future holds.
So have you in recent posts.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
---
Yes, yes!
And an excess consumption tax if you don't eat everything on your plate at restaurants.
And an excess consumption tax if you eat more than one plate of food at a buffet.
And an excess consumption tax if you breath more air than the governmentally mandated 'norm'. (set artifically low, so the government can collect more revenue)
And an excess consumption tax if you use more water than the governmentally mandated 'norm'. (again set artifically low, so the government can collect more revenue)
And an excess consumption tax if you own more than seven pairs of underwear. (one for each day of the week is more than enough)
Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Who made you the arbitrator of what is 'excess'. I'm definitely sure than I could define 'excess' in a way that you would find very, very, very restrictive...
... and you would agree to it, since you've officially stated that you want an excess consumption tax.
But considering that you don't state WHO would decide 'excess', I'm thinking that you'd want the government to decide it based off YOUR opinions.
And you'd hate it if the government decided it based on the opinions of someone who deemed YOU to be an 'excessive consumer'.
:mad:
It's appropriate that you compare the gas guzzlers, be they Ferrari or SUV, to gobbling food at a buffet. If everyone were driving more conserving cars in a more conserving manner, the excess consumption which drives the price up wouldn't be occurring.
For ideas on reducing fuel useage for everyone, rather than gobbling as much as possible from the fuel buffet until the food runs out:
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.efeb29d/305
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
:P
Come down to the Baltimore-Washington area (the area right between the two cities), and you'll find that traffic can get pretty heavy and still be at 70-80 mph.
Of course, you can expect an accident to occur somewhere on the road shortly thereafter, too.
But we do have insanely short on/off ramps. And they are combination on/off ramps. And we have a lot of tourists that don't know where they are or where to go, so you find many examples of cars coming to a complete stop halfway through the on/off ramp, waiting to merge.
Leaving the car behind them with half the already short on ramp distance to accelerate to 70-80 mph.
I'll say this, a Scion xA or xB, a Chevy Aveo, or a Toyota Echo isn't going to make it. Corollas, Elantras, and Sentras usually don't make it either, usually merging at about 45-50 mph, which is risky... but what can you do?
Heck, I really have to push my VW GTI sometimes to accelerate fast enough to make the merge at highway speeds when I find myself behind a lost tourist.
Heck, I really have to push my VW GTI sometimes to accelerate fast enough to make the merge at highway speeds when I find myself behind a lost tourist.
What's that first lane ona highway called again? oh,, that's right...a SLOW lane.
:-)
It's common knowledge that cars in the SLOW lane will be going slower than the other lanes.
Perhaps not on your ncek of the highway, but it's still common knowledge and it is universal.
Insurance companies charge higher premium for high performance high HP cars. This is a fact and it is because drivers of these cars are higher risk.
Following is one tip from insurance.com of what can be done to get a lower 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.
Most Vettes are driven carefully, rarely are driven to work and parked or shopping and parked where they may be damaged or stolen. When was the last time you saw a 20-something wannabe blowing out his fartcan to get attention in his Vette?
Cars are completely different in their demographics hence the relative insurance rates differ.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Come out here sometime when its not rush hour and travel 70 on any of the express or tollways, you will have plenty of traffic pass you. Still I am doing highways speeds when I enter these roads in my daily drive.
But we do have insanely short on/off ramps. And they are combination on/off ramps.
So do we and many of them have traffic control devices halfway down to "facilitate" the flow onto the expressways that are used during rush hour. Still I manage to be doing the same as the rest of traffic when I enter with my daily drive.
so you find many examples of cars coming to a complete stop halfway through the on/off ramp, waiting to merge.
So do we, FWIW I even saw a BMW 7 series do that. Its more of a limitation of the drivers ability than the cars. usually it is a city resident who doesn't drive very much and hardly ever on the expressways, a brand new driver or a farmer who never saw more than two vehicles on the road at one time.
Corollas, Elantras, and Sentras usually don't make it either,
My daily drive is an Elantra and I have no problem hitting highway speeds even on the short ramps around here.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Well, there you go -- the correlation is with presumed behavior, not with the car per se. As I said in my first post on this thread, a buyer of a Mustang GT is more likely interested in driving in a risky fashion than is someone who buys a Kia.
But in any case, we know that this isn't necessarily true from car to car. I was quoted roughly similar premiums for a used Porsche 911 as I was for a new Honda Accord, presumably because the Accord was a higher theft risk (Hondas are stolen more frequently because there is more black market demand for parts than there is for the 911) and of roughly equal market value. The 911 can clearly give an Accord a run for its money, but the insurer wasn't terribly concerned about my propensity to wreck it. (A clean driving record helps.)
Another example of guzzling without regard for the community at large is water usage. Towns on community wells may impose water rationing during summer droughts. Most folks will abide, but there are those, even with water meters attached to houses who have the money to burn and insist they have to have dark green lawn in their back yards (not front and readily visible). They use up water for frivolous purpose in similar vein of those that like thrill in seat of pants and "high" one apparently gets from "fast acceleration" or ill-perceived notion that lots of HP is needed to pass on 2-lanes.
Those that feel they need high HP should pay for priviledge beyond cost of fuel and fed taxes at pump. Guzzler tax on new vehicle and yearly user fee on license tag would be equitable. This is good way for them to do something positive with their high HP by helping to fund alternative fuel research and road improvements.
Last April in Bellevue, IA.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Perhaps not on your neck of the highway, but it's still common knowledge and it is universal.
It may be in your part of the world. Not in Southern California. The right lane is usually traveling at the same 70-75 MPH as the other lanes. Many times faster when someone is trying to pass in the right lane to avoid a slower car in the middle to left lanes. It is imperative to safe merging that your car is able to reach 70 MPH when you get to the highway. I would say many accidents are a result of someone going into the slow lane at 55 MPH causing the through traffic to slow or switch lanes.
When they built the freeways motorcycles with less than 16HP were prohibited from the freeways. The reason being they would not be able to keep up with traffic. The law should require a minimum HP to weight ratio for safe travel at the higher speeds encountered on the freeways. Vehicles not keeping up should be ticketed for obstructing the flow of traffic.
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.
socala said:
Well, there you go -- the correlation is with presumed behavior, not with the car per se. As I said in my first post on this thread, a buyer of a Mustang GT is more likely interested in driving in a risky fashion than is someone who buys a Kia.
I'm sorry. Perhaps you are not familiar with the use of statistics. The insurance.com tip did use the term "statistically". It did not say "all". This means something less than 100 percent. There are probabilities and profiles involved.
It's the same here in Mass.. I pass in the right hand lane when I have to, but that doesn't change the fact that I know in my mind that the right lane is the slow lane. Everybody else knows also....and so do you. You mean to tell me that when you took drivers ed (I know, I'm going way back even for me), that you weren't taught that the right lane was the slow lane?
A graduated tax for excess usage of energy? Would you extend that to higher tax for those that have more than the required 120 square foot per person homes? My home energy bill is higher than my auto fuel bill each month. We spend more to water a few citrus trees than we spend on gas for the cars. We gave up trying to keep a lawn green and dumped gravel in the yard. Picking one excessive use of energy and making that your whipping boy is not a way to solve the energy problems.
Totally agree. If done, there will be those complainers with high HP car that say they only use it on Sundays, when roads are dry, and temperature is warm.
This is no different than rich people who have 2 large houses with many bedrooms, washrooms, fireplaces, etc., and would like to cut real estate tax bill in half on each house because they only spend 6 months per year in each house. There is no way that tax assessor will listen to this. If you can afford to own the house(or have a mortgage), you can afford to pay the taxes on it.
Really? You could have fooled me with all those people that when they enter a highway go directly to the left lane and go slower than everyone else.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Now you're being obtuse. The term "correlation" should be a tip-off that the discussion is one based upon the relationship of two or more interrelated data points. Never did I presume that the correlation is 100%.
In any case, let's stop dancing and focus on the real issue, which brings us back to driving behavior. A great way around this "performance car" clause is to buy a relatively high-powered sedan that doesn't get classed as a sporty car. Adding two doors usually goes a long way toward accomplishing this, irrespective of the 0-60 times of the car itself.
Where in the world did you get that figure? The department of corrections?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Slow lane yes. Obstruction lane NO. Even when the speed limit was 55 MPH you could get a ticket for going less than 45 MPH in the slower lane. It is not a "right" to go slow in the slow lane. If you are in the right lane going up a long hill with a big load in a truck. Well that lane is your obvious choice. If you are trying to get the most mileage out of your car and driving 50 MPH in any lane while the rest of the cars are going 70 MPH you are an obstruction and should be ticketed. Freeways were designed to get the most cars from point A to point B in the least amount of time. When everyone drives in a similar manner and speed they work as designed. When someone drives much slower or much faster, you have the potential for an accident. If you do not want to go with the flow of traffic get off the highway!
I believe you will find it in the UBC. I know they had to go through one of the housing units where I work and upgrade the quarters from 100 Sq Ft to 120 sq ft. I think they can cut that in half for prisoners. two to a cell.
You decide. How much room does a family of four need. Maybe 1200 square feet. We tack on a big energy tax for anything more than that. It is as logical as an excess tax for the guy that has a 500 HP Corvette sitting in the garage for Sunday drives to the beach or mountains.
Is energy tax for over 1200 feet supposed to be incentive for people to buy or build smaller houses (and thus use less energy)? Is it graduated so that someone with 5000 ft pays much more than someone with 1800 ft? Sounds like good incentive to be conservative when choosing house. Those that want bigger houses presumably have the income to pay for the house and the associated upkeep and real estate taxes. So, if you have that income, then you should also have income to pay +1220 ft energy tax. Poorer people and those of modest means that choose wisely don't have to pay the energy tax.
Same rationale would apply to high HP. If you want a big house or a high HP car, you should pay extra. Or, should someone in lower income class pay same real estate tax on 1000 ft house as executive in 5000 ft mc mansion?