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
Uh oh, now were in trouble! (Some folks on this thread have some difficulty considering multiple variables...)
Here is the thing, every car sold today can maintain speed limits. That being said why do we need cars that can do more than 3 times the limit?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You are totally missing the point about legally taxing something based on amount or capacity such as square footage. Location has nothing to do with square footage. You will pay more taxes for more square footage on same lot. I'm guessing that you have never seen a tax assessors work sheets. Tax on vehicle HP amount is in same vein. It has been done before in my state on vehicles and was fair.
A vehicle pounds/HP tax would address the issue of the topic of the board and also be incentive to people to buy SENSIBLE sized HP vehicles. This would also help conserve oil, because we all know that fuel consumption increases as HP goes up. Now, this is apples to apples. Same size/model/year of car comparison.
People could still choose to buy and drive 500 HP Z06 or 425 HP 300C, but they would pay more for the priviledge in vehicle license tax/fee.
you: Huh? that goes against physics.
me: A 350 cu.in engine that I had in my '71 Chevelle never broke 18mpg. The 346 cu.in. engine in my '01 Firebird delivers up to 28mpg and typically 25 mpg. Physics must be broke.
You need to remember 2 things:
1) Gasoline engines aren't very efficient and advances can produce more power while increasing mpg. Current efficiency is no more than 40% (gasoline energy converted to motion).
2) you're not considering technologies like displacement-on-demand, where a V-8 operates as a 4-cyl.
Getting to 60 in the Lotus Elise will not be free in terms of gas or contaminants. It's high revving engine will emit NOx, CO2 and not be very fuel efficient operated thusly. I don't know what the hp to weight ratio is but the Caddy will similiarly post bad numbers in terms of NOx and CO2.
Yeah, right. The post provided for three like cars:
-Horsepower
-Fuel economy ratings
What a cheap tactic to avoid conceding that your point has not been accurate. No wonder these threads with you go in circles!
But it doesn't operate like that when accelerating as in heavy stop and go driving. You can increase the gas mileage but one is still stuck with the emissions and green house gases.
I agree that cars pollute. Not sure how that's relevant to the thread -- I think we all agree that cars pollute.
Its a good analogy since sometimes fixtures will not add value to a home. Plus its impossible to know the exact value of a home or what effect adding something onto a house until that house is sold.
You need to learn the difference between correlation and causation.
Do you? It seems you had that problem on that other thread.
But that does not mean that the Kia driver becames diabolical when given the Mustang, or that the Mustang driver is pacified with the Kia.
What it means is that a driver is more prone to drive recklessly if they have more ability. Not that all drivers will but most will. Also even if one drives aggressively in a Kia he or she is less likely to get out of control as with a Mustang.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Of course. Larger houses tend to be more valuable than smaller houses, given the same location. Still ad valorem.
A vehicle pounds/HP tax would address the issue of the topic of the board and also be incentive to people to buy SENSIBLE sized HP vehicles.
You've repeated this many, many, many, many times, yet there is no rationale provided to define what "sensible" means.
And if you care about fuel economy, then you should focus on that, and be done with it. But we all know better than to think that this is your real agenda.
That is already true. We dont need more layers to make it happen. If anything we need less layers!
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So is a "high-horsepower" (whatever that means) hybrid acceptable to you if it pollutes less than its lower horsepower counterpart?
Of course. Larger houses tend to be more valuable than smaller houses, given the same location. Still ad valorem.
You just don't get it.
Greenhouse gases can cause climatic change, but I for do not see that as a negative. And it makes little difference to the global environment whether that fuel ggets brnt here or in a Chinese car; as it will be burnt. All fossil fuels will be burnt in the next couple of hundred years unless we get a major scientific breakthrough. CO2 releases is not a question of IF they will occur.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
There are so many issues with that comparison.
What would the mileage be in a 71 Chevelle with a different engine?
What would be the mileage be in a 01 Firebird with a different engine?
No physics isn't broken, but the scientific method of many people here are.
Gasoline engines aren't very efficient and advances can produce more power while increasing mpg.
Thats one of the problems with your comparison, technology 30 years apart. Other problems are they are not the same car. I would bet that the Chevelle would weigh in at a few hundred pounds more which would also throw off the value of the comparison.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The post I was reponding to made no mention of pollution emissions at all.
I've also corrected you by saying with the exception of water what comes out of a cars tailpipe is no good for the environment no matter how you slice it. Bigger engine means more stuff comes out. End of story. Fossil fuels in general are bad for our health.
It is the same make/model/year of car.
All that is changing is the engine installed. Yet the bigger(1.4 liter vs 1.6 liter vs 2.0 liter) and more powerful engines were getting better fuel economy.
:P
Where is the mention of pollution?
-------------
#1151 of 1207 Re: REGISTRATION [ruking1] by snakeweasel Feb 01, 2006 (12:03 pm)
Bookmark | Reply | E-mail Msg
Replying to: ruking1 (Feb 01, 2006 11:55 am)
No, if you want to make a fair and accurate comparison you cannot compare a Vette to a 7 series BMW which weighs almost 800 pounds more. To be fair and accurate you need to compare the same make and model but different engines. Only then do you get an accurate picture. That way all the other factors are as constant as can be.
In other words in an experiment to see the effect of changing one variable you change only that variable not all variables. If you change all variables your results are garbage.
Here's a good site that details useful information on how much cars pollute the environment
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/
2003 VW Jetta TDI 44-62 mpg, lat fill 48 mpg
43-63 mpg with an average of 48.6 mpg
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=18615&browser=tru- - e
Concerning the non-pollutant CO2 - I am happy to contribute to global warming as much as possible. The average temperature of the earth is about 60F; most people are comfortable in the 70-75F range. And if you were to research the geological history of the earth, the Earth has been there and done that as far as climate change.
Us having higher hp is insignificant compared to the billions of people who will be born and finish burning whatever fossil fuels our generation leaves behind. Wait until we get into burning the massive reserves of coal in this country. You do know that is the future?
I mean it was a paper magazine so I don't have the link for the test report.
the 530D, 3L 218HP/500 Nm was a Sedan and was about 60 KG lighter than the 525D, 2,5L 177HP/400Nm Estate (1710Kg if I remember well).
530D averaged 8.8L /100KM whereas 525D used 9.5L/100.
A head to head comparison between the 520D estate and the 520D Sedan yielded a fuel consumption difference of 0,6L/100 between the 2 on the same trip (90Kg difference).
So if I offset the differences, there is a slight advantage remaining for the larger Engine.
>Here is the problem everyone one has with this argument, they always want to compare apples to space shuttles to prove their point. Try comparing apples to apples.
Isn't your point to compare 2 different powertrains in the SAME car model?? That is exactly what I did by comparing 2 different powertrains of the 2007 Camry. and it seems the 192 HP one saves more than the 158 HP one and I bet the hybrid is heavier.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=1
09049/pageNumber=1
2007 Camry 2.4 : 25 city/34 highway EPA
2007 Camry Hybrid : 43 city/37 highway EPA
anyway, it is very common for Diesel cars with one rated horsepower to use up to 20% less fuel than same car model with same HP gasoline engine. And the diesel Engines weights more.
Pls explain how do I compare apples to space shuttles?
me: the point was that technology allows us to have more power and more mpg. Your bet on a 1971 car outweighing a modern car was wrong. Scroll to the bottom of this and you'll see a curb wt. of 3260lb for a 454 cu. in. when I was referring to a 350cu. in which would be lighter. http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z1976/Chevrolet_Chevelle%20SS/default.aspx
My Firebird curb wt. is 3452 Lb. http://www.edmunds.com/used/2001/pontiac/firebird/100001649/specs.html
Modern cars typically weigh MORE than older cars of the same size because of all the safety devices, electronics, stereos, and such.
As just pointed above, we can show you hybrids that get better mpg and power in the same model. So if designers are smart they can increase both. Designers have increased power and mpg at the same time since the same time, and now different technologies such as hybridization is continuing to do so. I hope we soon do get nuclear fusion power plants and then we can produce all the H2 we want, and have very powerful vehicles that have no environmental issues. And we can make them as powerful as we want and drive them as far and often as we want, as fusion power will basically be inexhaustable.
I still want sufficient power to power the Harrier-style jump jets, on my future car.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yes they do at the expense of future environmental concerns of the batteries in the waste stream.
I don't really disagree with you. I am wondering what your vision of the future automobile would be. I am a hybrid critic on several levels. I am usually bucking heads with those that consider themselves environmentalists. You seem against the use of big batteries in cars.
PS
I have a dead LiIon battery sitting in front of me that I am not sure what to do with it. I am not paying someone to dispose of it.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new_cars/new_golf/engines
Good question. I'm not sure. I think it's gonna take 20 or 30 years to see what it may look like though. It needs to be clean, disposable and 100% recyclable and of course safe.
Makes you wonder if the difference between a 255 HP car and a 400 HP car mean anything. That is in the overall scope of things.
I think you are more optimistic than I am. I would just like to recycle this $140 laptop battery. It lasted about a year before going dead. Multiply that times the millions of laptop batteries. What percentage get tossed into the trash to save an additional $8 charge for disposal? I think the pollution from throwaway cars will make the air pollution seem insignificant.
The real conservationists are the guys that keep and maintain that 1988 Pontiac. It may use a bit more gas but it will not be part of a landfill for a while longer.
It would seem to me that one part of the puzzle is indeed to focus on keep cars on the road longer. Current average fleet age is 7.5 to 8.5 years. Also app 8% of the fleet is salvaged per year (232.2M) I truly do not think the Prius (hybrid models as a nexus) helps to alleviate the flow of the salvage stream,unless we can focus on say getting that figure higher. For example, 9.5 years.
Everyone sees this for the copout that it is.
He provided three engines for the same type of car, and included horsepower and fuel economy data, and showed that there was no fuel economy advantage for the smaller, less powerful engine. In other words, more data than you had asked for, and more data than you yourself have bothered to provide on this thread.
Give it up, the correlation between output and usage isn't linear, and there isn't always a correlation (although there often is). Do the right thing -- thank the man for his research, fess up that this one surprises you, and admit that you learned something. Go ahead, it won't kill you.
Of course. Larger houses tend to be more valuable than smaller houses, given the same location. Still ad valorem."
You just don't get it.
Not to engage in a pissing contest about non-vehicular matters, but let's just say that I happen to know quite a bit about real estate, and have dealt with it across the United States.
And property taxes tend to be on an ad valorem basis, and it is generally the case that such things as bedroom counts, bathroom counts, etc. for a given location affect value -- a three-bedroom house on a lot will be worth more than an otherwise similar two-bedroom house on the same lot.
So your analogy is flawed, and I have the professional experience with which to say it. So drop the analogy and address a point which is rather fundamental to your argument:
-- Provide a cogent definition of "excessive". Provide the benchmarks that one uses to determine it, and why you selected those benchmarks. For example, is it a function of fuel economy per vehicle? Fuel economy as a function of seating capacity? Emissions? 0-60 times? 50-70 times?
In any case, give us something tangible that a third-party referring to your notes could readily identify what is "excessive" supposed to mean, and could understand the logic behind it. (And no, the HP numbers by themselves won't cut it, you need to provide the logic behind choosing whatever methodology you have chosen.)
Once you've done this, perhaps your other points can be addressed. Otherwise, having you repeat the same lament about doing big things to excessive stuff is pretty hollow when I don't even know what you mean.
If you'll notice, both engines get the same fuel efficiency. However, the smaller engine generates the larger amount of horsepower and torque. Which is contrary to the argued position that larger displacement engines will have the higher horsepower and the worst fuel efficiency in comparison with smaller displacement engines.
Model
2006 Golf GLS vs 2006 Golf GTI
Engine
2.0 L vs 1.8 L
Cylinder configuration
I-4 vs I-4
Horsepower
115 hp @ 5,200 RPM vs 180 hp @ 5,500 RPM
Torque
122 ft.lbs @ 2,600 RPM vs 173 ft.lbs @ 1,950 RPM
City fuel economy
24 mpg vs 24 mpg
Highway fuel economy
31 mpg vs 31 mpg
Source: www.vw.com
Everyone sees this for the copout that it is.
He provided three engines for the same type of car, and included horsepower and fuel economy data, and showed that there was no fuel economy advantage for the smaller, less powerful engine. In other words, more data than you had asked for, and more data than you yourself have bothered to provide on this thread.
Give it up, the correlation between output and usage isn't linear, and there isn't always a correlation (although there often is). Do the right thing -- thank the man for his research, fess up that this one surprises you, and admit that you learned something. Go ahead, it won't kill you."...
Now that is for sure. I also presented the ranges for a VW TDI at 44-62 and I did a recent fill up at 48 mpg. and he scarcely believed it. Stopped just short of calling it a lie. I also posted a summation of 20 VW Jetta TDI users from a .gov web site and it was coincidently 43-63 with a 48.6 average. I did not participate in this posting, other than it almost matched my exact results or vice versa. I am sure he will dismiss that. I am not sure that he can really see that everybody sees it for what it is: a cop out. This neither helps his credibility or case/s on this thread.