We are aware of the login problems affecting the forums, and appreciate your patience as we work on a fix.
Did you recently purchase a new Tesla, Rivian or Lucid vehicle directly from the manufacturer and willing to share how your experience compared to previous vehicle purchases made through a traditional dealer? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 2/19 for details.

The Growing Divergence Between Horsepower and Speed Limits

13468931

Comments

  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 17,346
    Hahhaah..... well put! In fact, I see most dangerous driving in vehicles that are far from power or performance machines.

    I would argue that all crashes are speed-related even at low speeds, but now I am splitting hairs. :blush:
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla Member Posts: 707
    He isn't going to extremes with that philosophy. I had the same thought in the back of my head when I was in the market for a car last year.

    I wanted a small car with good handling, good power, and good cargo capacity for roughly $18-23,000. And I wanted the power and handling so I wouldn't be forced into potentially dangerous driving situations.

    Like trying to merge onto a crowded highway, only to find the car in front of you has made a full stop before merging... leaving you needing to merge onto a highway from 0 mph. That is a potentially dangerous situation, if you don't have the power, because you now place your life in the hands of other, possibly inattentive, drivers.

    Is this unlikely? Not where I live. Happens to me at least twice a month, if not more often.

    Or if you're on a 4-lane highway that's has relatively light traffic... and an imbecile, like the one described above, decides to pull into traffic from an on-ramp at about 10 MPH. I want a car with the handling that allows for a quick lane change without feeling like I'm either going to lose control of the vehicle or have me slide all over the interior.

    Is this unlikely? HAHAHA! That's would be a funny joke here in the Baltimore-Washington area. That happens so often on MD-32 that it's not even funny.

    Just two example of potentially dangerous situations, that are only dangerous if you have a slow car with poor handling. It doesn't mean I'd need a Viper or an SL-65 AMG, but something with better than average capabilities.

    (BTW: I ended up buying a Volkswagen GTI to fill those needs.)

    :shades:
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Post 239: The fact is, cars are designed to higher and higher limits, so that drivers are less and less aware of the danger they are posing as their speeds increase.

    Post 204: The speed limit on the highways we were travelling was about 1/2 and 1/2 55 mph and 65 mph. So I exceeded it the whole way, the engine never felt strained, and on the 55 stretches, I exceeded the speed limit by almost 40%.

    me: Are you aware of this?? ;) And that in your Echo designed to lower and lower limits! Or does Post 239 only apply to others?
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    you: And I wanted the power and handling so I wouldn't be forced into potentially dangerous driving situations.

    me: I couldn't agree more! Congratulations on learning a valuable lesson. You should have maximium ability to change course and speed. You've reduced your risk of being listed in some news item of a bad crash.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Don't be silly! I knew the danger I was posing! :-)

    When someone mentioned highway design speeds, I assume they meant the actual design of the highway, which is based on part on what the anticipated speed of use is. And THAT has not changed since 1950 in the U.S.

    It is 65 mph for most freeways including the interstates. On older sections of freeway that were designed for lower limits (the Pasadena freeway in LA, the section of 101 north of the Golden Gate here in Marin), the posted limit is lower (55 mph here in southern Marin).

    If the driver gets the same sensation driving 90 today as he did driving 55 in 1950, it is quite likely he/she will go 90. But the highway is still designed for 65 either way. Designed, meaning the way curves are set up, the merge distances for on-ramps and lanes that are ending, that sort of thing.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    you: But the highway is still designed for 65 either way.

    me: NO! That is like you saying that if you have a 20-year old pair of cross-country skis, that you being an average skiier, could downhill slalom as fast as another average skiier with a modern set of downhill skis. Should there be a speed limit based on how fast you can go with the old equipment?

    If a highway was built in 1950 for a speed of 65mph, that was based on a 1950 vehicle handling that stretch of roadway at a high safety level. If the designer of the highway had a 2005 vehicle to determine the same safety level, the highway would have a much higher speed limit.
    As vehicles get better they can be used on the same stretch of road, at a higher speed, at the same safety level.

    You can see it with the way the manufacturers are increasing hp and the way that people drive, that people want power and are willing to use it. That will drive speed limits higher, as the laws are only a reflection of the will of the majority of the people.

    you: Designed, meaning the way curves are set up, the merge distances for on-ramps and lanes that are ending, that sort of thing.

    me: Designed in 1950, for the technology vehicles that were on the road in 1950!
  • carlisimocarlisimo Member Posts: 1,280
    Not every vehicle on the roads today is a 2005 car, and the engineers know that.

    Road design basically depends on two things (once the geography is decided):
    1) sightlines
    2) g's

    The first takes into account speed and reaction times to stuff. So yeah, if cars were slower back then, then old roads will be designed for higher speeds. But they're not designed for a regular car at the speed limit. They're designed for big rigs and/or speeders. Of the 50s, yes. A fast modern car will eat into that margin of error.

    But curves (and elevation changes) are designed to be comfortable at the speeds that the engineers expect to see. Comfortable for people, not cars. Not just any people, but for Grandma. That limit of g's is not going to change with technology.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "If a highway was built in 1950 for a speed of 65mph, that was based on a 1950 vehicle handling that stretch of roadway at a high safety level"

    I disagree, the design of the highway contributes to the speed limit. While you might be very comfortable in your GT3 handling the curves at 200 mph, that doesn't mean that curve was designed to be taken at that speed. Line of sight as an example, might post an accident hazard at high speeds, while giving a driver ample opportunity to react to a situation at a lower speed. How fast one can go in a car is a combination of both the highway design and vehicle capabilities. These roads must be designed to support the least common denominator of driver not only the owners of high performance cars.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    it will still come down to what people are willing to pay for. What will people reach into their bill fold and get their money out for? Historically that means the new vehicle will have to be better than the old one to get people to buy it. Look at just about any marketing. The new product has to offer more than the old product. Otherwise we call it De-contenting. And we know how people moan and groan about that. I don't know what the optimum Horse power will have to be but for the enthusiast it seems unlikely they will ever believe that they have too much. The reason the after market performance business is so healthy is because people always want a bit more. The manufacturers are simply responding to that want. If people wanted less power than what they already have they could easily buy a vehicle with less HP. That isn't happening to any great extent so it isn't likely the manufacturers will change their method of marketing in the near future.
  • vchiuvchiu Member Posts: 564
    from my beloved forum " should the Speed Limits be repealed" :cry:

    Well, I think the SL on freeways is too low for both the car ability and the average driver capacity.

    I mentioned the capacity, because most drivers (unless handicapped or DUI) have the ability to drive well, but many don't care to use this ability.

    Low speed limits makes it frustrating to go at such a pace with a high power car. My 740 is just over tickover at 80 mph/2300 RPM. I feel better at 100 mph (around 3000 Rpm) conditions allowing, needless to say.

    Fuel Consumption is around 20 mpg at this pace. the best mpg I had at 100 mph was around 23 mpg with a MB C240 Estate.

    How about setting Different SL depending on the car power category for freeways?
  • carlisimocarlisimo Member Posts: 1,280
    80 more pages of the same, here we come!
  • socala4socala4 Member Posts: 2,427
    I disagree, the design of the highway contributes to the speed limit.

    He didn't disagree with that point. (Please, let's not have another thread in which some posters debate points that others never made.)

    Design speed is a function of a number of elements, many (but not all) of which are relative to the technology in use. The fact that a modern car can stop in a shorter distance and with less brake fade, and that suspensions and tires allow more nimble handling than was previously possible, are some elements that change over time.

    Other elements, such as line of sight or off-camber turns, are less subject to change because technology can't help much with these. A corner, blind intersection or rising which obscured your LOS in 1950 is going to remain relatively fixed, so the improved cars won't help as much here.

    The obvious winner in the above scenario is a freeway, because its design tends to eliminate the hazards of other types of roads (cross traffic, lack of seperation between directions, large variations in speed, off camber turns) and reaps the benefits of technology improvements, i.e. the ability to stop and react more quickly with few design flaws and clear visibility. So we would expect the effective design speed of a relatively modern freeway to increase over time, while that of a local road may not change quite so much. (The Pasadena Freeway mentioned above has severe limitations due to its numerous low speed curves, lack of a central shoulder, and very short entrance/exit ramps, including some with 90 degree turns, so don't expect that one to ever merit a very high limit.)

    Assuming that an engineer gets to set the speed limit (as opposed to politicians who often set freeway limits somewhat arbitrarily, as is usually the case), the engineer would determine the 85th percentile travel speed, then checks for conflicts in design speed and other limitations that might call for a lower limit. We know from academic studies that drivers essentially set the 85th percentile based upon their intuitive sense of the design speed, and the vast majority of drivers get this right, which turn creates a flow of traffic which is largely traveling at a reasonable and safe speed. So over time, as the technology improves, they vote with their feet and the 85th percentile slowly edges up.

    And there's no reason why the 85th percentile shouldn't change on interstates. Just so long as they can do so safely -- and the falling death and accident rates tell us that they can -- it's not a problem, and we all benefit by reduced journey times, which was a key reason why Eisenhower wanted interstates in the first place.

    We are much better off than we were in the past. During the muscle car era, we had a lot of cars with strong straight-line performance that didn't have the handling or stopping power to match -- too much engine to overwhelm the other features. Newer cars are more balanced, with handling that can manage the horsepower, which benefits everyone's safety.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    In most cases I'm sure that is true. There are probably a lot of differences, besides just the power output, between a 400 hp vehicle and a 150 hp vehicle. My point was that there is a commonly held belief that additional horsepower must have come at the expense of mpg. When examples are sited of how a new model year had more hp and better mpg people will claim that the mpg figures could have even been better had the manufacturer chosen to forego the extra power. This is what I disagree with. I have a 2003 Accord 6cyl. Its max hp is approximately 20% more than the 2002 model yet its mpg figures are slightly better. I don't believe for a second that Honda engineers achieved this extra power at the expense of fuel efficiency. Going back to my previous post, I don't believe the 2003 Accord requires more hp to cruise down a highway at 70 than the 2002 Accord did. Maybe less since it has a 5 spd automatic as opposed to the previous 4 spd.

    Apples to apples comparison. The BMW 3 series can be had with a 2.5L engine that produces 184/175 hp/torque or a 3.0L engine rated at 225/214 hp/torque. The mpg figures are identical. Someone might say that the 3.0L has a 6 speed and the 2.5L has only a 5 speed. Then look at the automatic versions, which are the exact same in gearing.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "(Please, let's not have another thread in which some posters debate points that others never made.)"

    So then let's not play host.

    "We know from academic studies that drivers essentially set the 85th percentile based upon their intuitive sense of the design speed"

    My intuitive sense tells me at or slightly above the speed limit works very well. A speeding ticket and raised insurance rates are a great incentive to drive civily and within the law. At the other end of the spectrum causing a fatality while speeding will cause one legal grief for years to come.

    We also know from information posted on the web that a number of roads have set their speed limits using this method. That would then mean only 15% of the drivers on this road speed. Right?

    I think the better balanced, higher horsepower cars of today beckon some drivers to drive at speeds that are totally inappropriate. Even massive trucks like the Escalade have huge gas-guzzling engines. The drivers of these vehicles think they are in a protective cocoon.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "I don't believe for a second that Honda engineers achieved this extra power at the expense of fuel efficiency"

    It all depends on how the car is driven. City driving, lots of hard stop and fast go will bring out the worst of gas mileage. Going down a long hill at 60 mph with the foot off the gas will bring out the best of gas mileage. Gearing a car for great gas mileage at 55 when all the car sees is stop and go city driving should be accurately reflected in the epa figures.
  • socala4socala4 Member Posts: 2,427
    My intuitive sense tells me at or slightly above the speed limit works very well. A speeding ticket and raised insurance rates are a great incentive to drive civily and within the law.

    Back to this again. OK, rather than drag academic studies and the professional opinion of highway engineers into it (apparently, training and professional experience don't mean much to some people), why don't you tell us where this magic, optimal speed limit is supposed to come from?

    Do you think that any number will do, and that the guys with the Crown Vics and moustaches should act like brownshirts to get people to obey it? (Let's remember that during the era of the 55 mph interstate, 70-80% of drivers, including lots of ordinary folks, were breaking it routinely.)

    In a democracy where government acts with the consent of the people, this obedience-with-a-stick philosophy sounds a bit more Stalinistic than it does Jeffersonian. And as the cars get better, enforcement of low limits would become more difficult, not less so.

    We also know from information posted on the web that a number of roads have set their speed limits using this method. That would then mean only 15% of the drivers on this road speed. Right?

    If you read the other thread (and you spent enough time there that you should have), then you know that is not true in the case of maximum freeway speed limits, because legislators set these limits, not traffic engineers. Please, let's avoid redundancy here, OK?
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "OK, rather than drag academic studies and the professional opinion of highway engineers into it "

    Apparently we have fundamental disagreements. Don't the engineers design a road with certain objectives in mind. From those objectives don't the road engineers derive the speed limit? Whether the politicians set the speed limit or not, the driving public does not determine a safe and reasonable speed limit, the engineers should.

    If the engineers design a road where the speed limit is 100 mph who determines the final speed limit: 1) the government, 2) the public, 3) the engineers. We already know the answer to that.
  • socala4socala4 Member Posts: 2,427
    Whether the politicians set the speed limit or not, the driving public does not determine a safe and reasonable speed limit, the engineers should.

    Are you trying to kill this thread, too? This question was already addressed above in #264, and in abundance on the other thread. (Think 85th percentile = flow of traffic, i.e. something that is determined by drivers voting with their feet).

    Let's try to avoid rehashing everything yet again, shall we?
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I'm sure that's all true but that is not the point I'm trying to make. People see the hp ratings of cars steadily climbing higher and there seems to be a mindset the by-product of this is worse fuel efficiency. As if power and efficiency are mutually exclusive. That is not only untrue but the reverse is actually true. You make an engine more efficient and it will be able to generate more power out of the same amount of gasoline. Actually I think that we are coming pretty close to the limit when it comes to how much of gasoline's stored energy can be converted into mechanical energy. At least as far as the internal combustion engine is concerned.
  • socala4socala4 Member Posts: 2,427
    People see the hp ratings of cars steadily climbing higher and there seems to be a mindset the by-product of this is worse fuel efficiency. As if power and efficiency are mutually exclusive. That is not only untrue but the reverse is actually true.

    Producing power requires energy -- just a body in motion uses calories, a car in motion uses fuel.

    The relationship isn't necessarily linear, but all things being equal, a more powerful engine should still use more fuel than a less powerful engine for the reasons that Nitromax explained above.

    That being said, driver behavior may negate some or even many of the differences, as was likely the case when you attempt to wring power out of your Metro rental in the same fashion in which you would have from your BMW. As we saw from the speed limit thread, the 55 mph speed limit did virtually nothing to create real world savings of fuel on an MPG basis -- most of the savings came from the fact that people simply drove less. The results that one may have expected to see and the actual outcome were very different.">link title
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,545
    >As vehicles get better they can be used on the same stretch of road, at a higher speed, at the same safety level.

    What has changed that make the newer vehicles safer on the same road? The laws of physics are still the same.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • socala4socala4 Member Posts: 2,427
    What has changed that make the newer vehicles safer on the same road? The laws of physics are still the same.

    (OK, I'll shorten that up a bit.)

    Read #264, it answers your question. And it isn't just about physics.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    you: who determines the final speed limit: 1) the government, 2) the public, 3) the engineers. We already know the answer to that.

    me: well if the system is working properly, in a democracy 1) and 2) should always be the same. At times the government (whether due to lobbyists and powerful minorities, or the personal religious beliefs of powerful politicians) ansd deviates from the desires of the public. A well-known example of this in this country was Prohibition. Whether it is "good" for the public is a secondary consideration to whether people want something. A law that people do not want can not be enforced to any great degree.

    People are "voting" with their purchases of higher hp cars and driving faster that that is the direction we want to go.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    If some manufacturer came out with a car for the same price as the current ones (must be made in China for that price), would you want one? I always liked that taxi Bruce Willis drove in The Fifth Element. :)

    Of course you would then need the power to attain flight and maintain flight. Too bad that cold-fusion experiment didn't work out, and we could all be fueling up on a quart or 2 of seawater.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 17,346
    The obvious winner in the above scenario is a freeway, because its design tends to eliminate the hazards of other types of roads (cross traffic, lack of seperation between directions, large variations in speed, off camber turns) and reaps the benefits of technology improvements, i.e. the ability to stop and react more quickly with few design flaws and clear visibility.

    Everything else in the referenced post aside, as it was a very good post, the point of freeways eliminating the hazard of large variations in speed will essentially dissolve if speed limits are allowed to increase beyond 75-80mph simply because there will always be a fairly significant % of drivers who exceed the limit by 10-20 mph regularly and those drivers who cannot or will not drive any faster than 60-65. Creating an environment where these two groups of drivers come into regular and frequent contact is increasing the risk all groups face beyond an acceptable level.

    It has nothing to do with whether or not these speed differentials are happening, just with the frequency of the occurence and the judgement involved when deciding to travel at these speeds. For example, traveling a Montana freeway 40 or more miles from the nearest city at 90+ with both driver and vehicular competency may not pose excessive danger, but those same speeds on a California highway could be incredibly dangerous simply due to the amount of traffic on the road. And, if the SL was 80 on both roads, there are going to be those drivers - a majority I'd argue - that say, "Well safety be damned, if the SL is 80 then I'm going 90!!!"

    But, I am getting so far off topic now.... Time to take a break from posting for a bit! :blush:
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    the original thought posed by this thread was something along the lines of "what is the point of further increases in horsepower when we already have cars with sufficient power to exceed the speed limit by WILD margins, and increasingly congested roads that make it harder and harder to exploit most or all of that power"

    NOT

    "speed limits are too low or should be repealed altogether".

    The focus was on the hp, not the limits, in other words.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • stmssstmss Member Posts: 206
    Very true - a gallon of gasoline has a fixed amount of energy and the 'maximum' HP developed from it is fixed. Maximums are never attained because of efficiencies.

    Where some confusion and perception may come in is HP ratings. Some cars with higher HP ratings may be in fact at higher rpms but the cars are actually driven at lower rpms and hence lower HP outputs - giving the perception that they may be more fuel efficient (and maybe they are if their efficiencies are better at this point than a lower rated HP engine under the same conditions).

    So it is very difficult to compare a 200HP vs a 300HP directly as HP curves will be different. If efficiencies are the same - the 300HP will use more energy than the 200HP under the same conditions.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "Are you trying to kill this thread, too?"

    Commentary like that is unproductive. We are discussing horsepower and speed, not the 85 percentile which was originally brought up in one of your posts. So I suggest if you don't want to talk about it then don't talk about it.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "People are "voting" with their purchases of higher hp cars and driving faster that that is the direction we want to go."

    You can drive whatever you want to. But if you break the law, you pay the consequences.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,577
    NOT "speed limits are too low or should be repealed altogether".

    Yeah I think that thread has been closed down. Now if I can offer my 1 cent (thats two cents after taxes) I will say that it appears to me that all this increasing HP is pretty pointless. Lets face it even my 130 HP daily drive can maintain 80+ MPH with little effort, and in heavy city traffic you would hardly ever have the opportunity to use all a high HP engine has to offer.

    that with the fact that they are usually more expensive to buy maintain and burn more fuel are high HP engines worth it? If you think so knock yourself out.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    "If efficiencies are the same - the 300HP will use more energy than the 200HP under the same conditions."

    I totally disagree. If the efficiencies are the same they should use the same amount of gas. The general mindset is that with more power you have less efficiency. In the last 30 years a lot of effort has been put into making engines burn gasoline more efficiently. A good example is computer controlled fuel injection and timing. This definitely improved efficiency and a natural byproduct was more power. It was unavoidable.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    He have moved too far off topic. The question couold be answered quite simply with, Horsepower will stop increasing when the consumer is no longer willing to buy a vehicle because it has 401 hp rather than 400. As long as there are two choices and the consumer continues to prefer the more powerful vehicle more than likely the trend will continue.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    Vehicles should be taxed by HP ratings. This can be done when you initially get your vehicle license and would be retaxed every year. Straight HP number would be one way, but maybe a more progressive method would be a ratio - pounds of vehicle weight per HP. Many years ago, my state yearly license fee was based on HP. If I recall there were brackets.

    Vehicles such as Z-something Corvette and proposed Camaro, both at 400-500 HP, should pay a lot for priviledge. For sake of argument, maybe Corvette with monster motor could be $1000/year. Any Bugatti that might be imported to US, with 1000 HP, might also have a $100,000 tax/year for priviledge to drive on public roads. At other end of scale, Honda Civic Sedan (not SI) or Accord Sedan with modest 4 cylinder could be perhaps $50/year. Chevy Aveo might be $25/year. Tax scale from low to high would be exponential not linear.

    This would be good revenue for fixing up our national road system, would "somewhat" help ridiculous desire for some to want to go well over speed limits on interstates and would help cut down on imported oil to our nation. I know, some will say that you can drive a 4-cylinder Camry over the speed limit on interstate. But, motivation to speed like that might be reduced if you don't have a high hp car such as 300C with hemi or similar. Might save some teenage drivers from death in that they could not afford license for high horsepower cars. People would be motivated to buy cars/suvs with sensible sized engines.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    you: You can drive whatever you want to. But if you break the law, you pay the consequences.

    me: that isn't true because so many people break the speed laws day-in and day-out and never get a speeding ticket. Unless you want to hire 5X more policemen, the speeding laws are unenforceable, except to stop an unlucky individual or 2.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Read some of the posts older than the last few days, when the refugees from the other speed-limit topic came over.
    I won't go into all the details (you can go back and read that), but 1 definite advantage is that more power provides for safer passing. Another is more power provides for safer merging onto a highway. Plus in any sort of emergency it is better to have more power.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    1 definite advantage is that more power provides for safer passing. Another is more power provides for safer merging onto a highway. Plus in any sort of emergency it is better to have more power.

    But, what does "more" mean? Can you get it in a 4-cylinder in most brands of cars? What about torque curve and gearing? With good curve, torque available over wider rpm band and maybe means less need for high HP rating. Might be interesting to compare passing speed tests in Edmunds, R and T, Car and Driver, etc., for various cars, suvs.

    Also, does one use power usually in an emergency or is it more common to do steering/braking? Or better yet, anticipate or be defensive.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,577
    I won't go into all the details (you can go back and read that), but 1 definite advantage is that more power provides for safer passing.

    Ok I will admit that more power provides for safer passing but lets be honest, if a pass is safe for a car with a 300 HP engine but not safe with the same car with a 200 HP engine just how safe is the pass really? In other words its a very thin line to say a pass is safer because it can be done a second or two faster.

    Another is more power provides for safer merging onto a highway.

    This I really don't buy, even my wifes daily drive with 100 HP (give or take 5) can get up to highway speeds on just about every on ramp and has enough response to make nessesarly adjustments.

    Plus in any sort of emergency it is better to have more power.

    While I agree that in some emergencies applying power is the best thing to do it is not the best thing to do in all emergencies and in some may even have detrimental effects (actually saw one like that today).

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • carlisimocarlisimo Member Posts: 1,280
    More torque low down means more power at those RPM. Power at the wheels is instanteneous torque X rpm, minus losses. Simple as that =].

    Kernick's hoping for an emergency in which Ultimate Power will save him. I don't think of emergencies so much, so my desire for power comes from situations where 100hp hasn't been enough. Namely, driving uphill in San Francisco with a fully loaded car.

    Cars should have JATO units for emergencies.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,577
    That got me to thinking about is more HP safer for passing. Looking at the Mercury Milan the 4 banger has 160 HP but the 6 has 220. Now since the six only comes in a 6 speed auto would the 4 banger with the manual be able to meet or exceed the 6's 50 -70 acceleration? I know I can drop my passing time by a noticeable amount by dropping out of the high gear before passing then downshifting again as I start accelerating. I don't know if thats possible with the Milans 6 speed auto.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    you: But, what does "more" mean?

    me: Wow, a "Clintonism"! ;) Yes, we are talking all of the above - higher torque, hp, and torque and hp at all points of the rpm band.

    you: Also, does one use power usually in an emergency or is it more common to do steering/braking?

    me: That depends; on the emergency doesn't it. ;) If you're trying to get to the hospital, or trying to race a tornado to shelter under an overpass (is that really safe?) steering and braking aren't exactly the ticket.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    you: if a pass is safe for a car with a 300 HP engine but not safe with the same car with a 200 HP engine just how safe is the pass really?

    me: first in any pass on a 2-lane road, you are making estimates of the distance of any oncoming traffic and their speed, and you also estimate how long it will take you to pass. I don't pass if I have to use 100% power in my pass-estimate because of the margin of error we all have (unless your Superman and can see instantly tell speed and distance of a vehicle coming towards you 1/2 mile away). You should have sufficient power to pass, and a good reserve.

    you: on just about every on ramp and has enough response to make nessesarly adjustments.

    me: It depends on the ramp. I know ramps that have you go around a hairpin and/or come to a stop. Or have you ever driven Rt.84 thru CT, which has extremely heavy traffic and short ramps?

    you: it is not the best thing to do in all emergencies

    me: no one's making that claim. More power is better simply because it covers more types of emergencies.

    you: and in some may even have detrimental effects.

    me: that is driver error, which we can probably agree has been around since people rode horses and tried to jump fences and hedges.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    you: Kernick's hoping for an emergency in which Ultimate Power will save him.

    me: I'm not hoping for anything. I've stated in all different examples that it is better to have more power than less in vehicles, as it is better to have something, then not to have it and find you need or could have used it. If you're wrong in an auto, it is the most dangerous "wrong" you can have.
    Power is control in all areas of life. You can pickup any newspaper and read day after day of people who did not have the power to control events. Some are injured and some are killed. It is simply better to have more power. It is illogical to think otherwise; that point is not subjective like a discussion of the ugliest car.
  • socala4socala4 Member Posts: 2,427
    Vehicles such as Z-something Corvette and proposed Camaro, both at 400-500 HP, should pay a lot for priviledge. For sake of argument, maybe Corvette with monster motor could be $1000/year. Any Bugatti that might be imported to US, with 1000 HP, might also have a $100,000 tax/year for priviledge to drive on public roads. At other end of scale, Honda Civic Sedan (not SI) or Accord Sedan with modest 4 cylinder could be perhaps $50/year. Chevy Aveo might be $25/year. Tax scale from low to high would be exponential not linear.

    I'm a liberal, and even I find this to be absurd, particularly as it seems based upon the usual alarmism about horsepower, with only emotion to back it up. Until you can prove that there is a causal connection between horsepower and safety, the only thing that you have to support this position is an irrational fear of performance cars.

    I find it odd that in the "land of the free, home of the brave" that irrational fears are the order of the day for some, while the allegedly pinko-commie socialist Europeans seem to have their priorities straight and have a lot more fun doing it.

    A fuel tax based upon consumption would encourage fuel efficiency and reduced driving. An "L" plate system that identifies new drivers would allow police to easily observe younger drivers who tend to cause a disproportionate number of accidents, even if just piloting Escorts and Tercels.

    Attacking horsepower would be no more beneficial to our safety than have been the attacks on speed. Now that we've seen that we can have higher speed limits along with improved safety and the Speed Kills! rhetoric exposed for the hysteria that it was, the Nanny Patrol wants to find another scapegoat?
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,577
    You should have sufficient power to pass, and a good reserve.

    unless you have an ultra weak car most cars have sufficient power to pass.

    It depends on the ramp. I know ramps that have you go around a hairpin and/or come to a stop.

    So do I and those are few and far between. Even then with my daily drive 99% of the time when I don't enter a highway at the speed of traffic its because there is someone a head of me driving slow.

    no one's making that claim.

    The claim made was "Plus in any sort of emergency it is better to have more power." I say that in many (maybe most) more power is either a non-factor or can lead to making things worse.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    you: Vehicles should be taxed by HP ratings. This can be done when you initially get your vehicle license and would be retaxed every year.

    me: it would have been nice for you to first make a case for why higher power vehicles are "bad", before stating that they should be discouraged through taxes. I don't see the connection between power and bad. Similarly I would not tax someone more 1) who could bench-press 400Lb more than a person who can bench-press 200Lb, or 2) someone who can run 100 yd in 10 sec, instead of 15 sec.

    you: Any Bugatti that might be imported to US, with 1000 HP, might also have a $100,000 tax/year for priviledge to drive on public roads.

    me: But really why do you care what others drive? There are rules as to what people can buy and the manufacturers follow them. You get to make your choice what you drive, and others get to make their choice. That sounds fair to me.

    me: what about taxes on speed-boats? and certainly on near 1000-hp private planes?

    you: This would be good revenue for fixing up our national road system,

    me: raise the gas tax, and let's have Congress stop raiding it for other purposes first.

    you: would "somewhat" help ridiculous desire for some to want to go well over speed limits on interstates

    me: that discussion was closed; but let's just say that what speed limit is reasonable and acceptable is subjective. No matter what side of the speed limit issue you are on, it is noted that most people show through their actions that the speed limits are too low.

    you: Might save some teenage drivers from death in that they could not afford license for high horsepower cars.

    me: Any vehicle made today is fast enough to kill kids showing off or experimenting. The best advice is that you don't think your kids are mature and have self-control, don't let them get a license.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    you: unless you have an ultra weak car most cars have sufficient power to pass.

    me: a faster pass, especially on a 2-lane road where you have to estimate distances and speeds, or hit someone head-on, is safer the quicker you get it done. Do you agree that if you estimate the oncoming traffic to be 10-sec. away, that it is better to have the ability to pass in 5-sec. + or - 1 second rather than pass in 9 sec + or - 1 second? Then it is better to have more power. More power makes what is more difficult and dangerous, easier and safer.

    Concerning on-ramps: I am not the only one who stated that they have short on-ramps, and heavy traffic to merge into. Good for you, you don't have those issues. People in the South also have trouble figuring why people drive different in snow, in the North.

    you: I say that in many (maybe most) more power is either a non-factor...

    me: I agree. Say 9 out of 10 emergencies power is a non-factor. And 1 out of 10 emergencies power is a useful factor. That means a lower powered vehicle is good in 9 out of 10 emergencies and a higher powered vehicle is good in 10 of 10 emergencies. The higher-powered vehicle is thus better.

    you: or can lead to making things worse.

    me: that is driver error, and we can postulate all sorts of things about better vehicle capabilities. You could sit here and we could discuss better brakes - that because a car brakes better it'll scare the driver and they'll release the brakes, or that better brakes will cause others to hit you because they can't stop as quick, ...
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    The only advantage I see of huge horsepower levels in cars is that a __highly skilled__ driver can make extremely fast manuevers within limited space. Outside of race tracks and special schools for wannabe race drivers, there is no Driver Ed training for this kind of driving.

    So we end up with untrained speed freaks trying bumper-bumper lane changes at 90 mph or dragracing between convoy trucks as they weave in/out of fast lane, and all too often wiping themselves or somebody else out.

    Insurance companies must be taking notice of this and charging higher premiums for these over-HPed cars. Perhaps law enforcement will also write stiffer penalities for people driving higher powered cars.

    Meanwhile;
    Vehicle electronics now communicate with outside services such as Onstar, etc. The vehicle black boxes already record speed, miles travelled, etc. Their contents can be accessed by law enforcement in cases of accident, to determine guilty party.

    It may be someday that these black boxes will be monitored, real time, by enforcement agencies who will know what car is speeding and take appropiate action, or by your insurance company who will demand to know how many miles you actually drive the vehicle.
    (hold the flames; I did not say I __approve__ of this !!).
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    me: That depends; on the emergency doesn't it. If you're trying to get to the hospital, or trying to race a tornado to shelter under an overpass (is that really safe?) steering and braking aren't exactly the ticket.

    Wow!!!!. Give me some probabilities on these events occurring. Vast majority of folks will call 911 and have professionals handle. Tornados!! With weather forecasting we have now, have to be pretty stupid to be trying to outdrive tornados. Some folks need to temper tornado movies with present tornado warning weather systems.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    me: a faster pass, especially on a 2-lane road where you have to estimate distances and speeds, or hit someone head-on, is safer the quicker you get it done.

    Sounds noble. Maybe you could tell us what percent of driving you do on rural 2-lane roads in the last year.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    Read some of the posts older than the last few days, when the refugees from the other speed-limit topic came over.

    Still missing some folks. Can anybody bring them in.
This discussion has been closed.