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
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Was never aware that Bill took a stand on this topic. Please give more details.
me: yeah, they're probably low, but higher than winning the lottery, and people play Powerball. And I could list many reasons that you might need to drive fast, besides those 2 off-the-cuff remarks. People think there is a lot of road-rage; how about using power to get away from that?
Again, in a situation that can end your life, that means it doesn't matter the odds are 1 million to 1, that's a risk I'm not going to take, if I have the money to prevent it.
People buy fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, police wear bullet-proof vests ... and the probability of ever needing one is very low. But people still buy them, because the alternative can be death.
you: Vast majority of folks will call 911 and have professionals handle.
me: I hate to repeat this again, but even 90 miles from the major city of Boston, during the night the nearest cop may be 15 miles away. Or if you want another scenario, in a major blizzard, it is doubtful you are going to have phone or electric, and someone is going to come thru 20" of snow? No, we tend to rely on doing things ourselves, and with our neighbors' help. The events of Katrina taught you nothing, about the fallacy that the government will protect and take care of you?
Don't think that this is a liberal or conservative issue. I have had much experience with performance cars and "organized" competition in the past. I have driven and owned many high-performance cars, some that would outperform those from Germany.
me: You don't remember that Bill Clinton asked for a definition of a common word "Is", when being questioned about Monica? I was commenting that similarly you asked in Post 288: "But, what does "more" mean?"
I know about this stuff. I have experienced. I have had mega horsepower GM vehicles in past and also 4-cylinders cars. The extra HP is meaningless in what you are trying to cite.
I commute 30 miles each way to work on Rt.101 in central/western NH, and the road is 2-lane highway, except for going up the hills. 85% would be my guess.
(hold the flames; I did not say I __approve__ of this !!).
I don't like this "1984" stuff either. But, if we can eliminate or control the gross offenders, I can tolerate.
Well, there is the old thing about leaving earlier and allowing extra time for the folks that might be going 5 MPH under the limit. In morning commutes, never have encountered a farmer on rural 2-lane when going to office. In contrast, when coming home in afternoon, when inconsequential, might encounter a farmer with monster JD driving on 2-lane. So what. Only going home.
me: more power is more capable is better. You can dismiss my examples all you want as not probable, or of no interest to you. But you or anyone else here has presented ANY examples, NOT 1 since I've been here several weeks - where less power is an advantage. Instead of demeaning the advantages I note and use, why don't you take some time and come explain how less power in life or in vehicles is better for an individual.
And driver error of applying too much power is a driver problem in a high-powered car, and not an inherent advantage of a lower powered car.
A lot of trucks use this road also. I might have to pass one or even pass a truck and car at the same time.
It taught me to be mindful of inept mayors or governors that may be in charge. If they are elected by the majority somehow, better think about many things that may befall your area/community and how you will act to save yourself. Now, how do we get back to HP and speed limits. How did speed limits affect persons smart enough to escape New Orleans on interstates, in spite of mayor and governor inaction. Did they go over limits to get out of NO, or were roads clogged anyway.
Just leave 5-10 minutes earlier and you don't have to worry about on your short 30 mile commute.
An excellent point you make. More reasons to not have high HP in vehicles. Driver error in applying all that extra HP.
There is "no connection" or "correlation" between higher speed limits and improved safety. It has never been proven. The opposite is true.
me: So you're one of these people who believe that if afew hundred or thousand people abuse a product, that the millions and millions of people who don't abuse the use of a product can't have it? We can't buy Toulene because people make it into Meth? No fertilizer because you can make a bomb? We can't have alcohol because some people get drunk?
me: Well I know that the people with ZERO hp (no car) fared the worst.
And I don't know what type of vehicles were stuck in traffic though some were. But my references to power have been in all forms. You miss my points, because you are arriving to this discussion late. I'm for more power and capabilities in all forms. This means I'm for power to cross-country, more powered wheels and axles, and as I said before I'd like sufficient power to takeoff like a Harrier.
But back to Katrina - people who had power faired much better: they had the money (power), intelligence (intellectual power), etc. to get out of town. I'm sure many sped in the early stages, and I doubt the police interfered wanting to get as many people away as fast as possible.I won't make any jokes about the police being busy looting the abandoned wealthy neighborhoods, as the residents left.
Getting out of NO had nothing to do with HP or Speed Limits. It was intelligence and savvy. The incompetent mayor and governor might have caused many deaths.
me: I think that argument was used by people when cars started replacing horses. It's the first sign of paranoia of change and advancement. You don't have problems getting on a plane and worrying about the pilot pushing the throttle a little too much do you? You look for an airline with propellers instead of those powerful jet engines?
me: yes my point on Katrina was not directly related to hp and speed limits. My point was that it was inferred that one never had to have power because the professionals were there to protect to you. I used the Katrina example to disprove that point (in a big way). So yes it was not about hp and speed limits. Neither was the original comment that in emergencies that the professionals will protect you.
My viewpoint here is that: Hp (and throw in torque) and the speed and acceleration they provide are forms of power. There are many other types of power. My belief is that it is better to have more of ANY AND ALL types of power (hp and torque included) than less power. Whether you need the power, or use it once in 100 years it is better to have the power and the options to use it, than to not have the extra options.
If you feel having less power in any form, especially hp, torque, and the resulting speed potential (because we want to stay on topic) is an advantage please explain how "less" power is an advantage. I'm open to hearing about how less power is an advantage in any matter of life though.
Nothing to do with board topic. On behalf of host, let's get back on track.
Just make it a capital offense to be a bad driver and the problems on the road will disappear, along with 80% of the driving public.
:P
I think if I was on a curvy mountain road all alone, I wouldn't want a lot of power. Might even have more fun in a Miata than a Corvette. Driving with the trottle 10% depressed isn't as fun as keeping it floored - something you can't do for long with more power. Powering your way out of a corner masks your mistakes and makes it too easy to take a corner. There's no rewarding feeling for a perfect apex.
That's all I can think of.
Within the law? probably
civily ? probably not. Deprived from his/her basic freedom to go the speed he/she was comfortable with, the driver may find other legal (not enforced) ways to spend time at the wheel : sleeping, tailgating, awful lane discipline, dining at the wheel, drinking, reading, listening to music...
>At the other end of the spectrum causing a fatality while speeding will cause one legal grief for years to come.
but causing a fatality without speeding being the caus should not cause one legal grief? Too bad, still a solid majority of our fatalites though.
> think the better balanced, higher horsepower cars of today beckon some drivers to drive at speeds that are totally inappropriate
Well isn't it part of the progress to be able to travel faster? This doesn't prevent fatalities to go down, does it.
>Vehicles such as Z-something Corvette and proposed Camaro, both at 400-500 HP, should pay a lot for priviledge
Why would using the same roads with the same rules would be a specific privilege because your car is more powerful?
The true privilege would be to have a different set of rules (I.E. Higher Speed limits in some areas). then why not a specific tax for those. But somebody driving according to the standard rules has no reason to pay more than any other.
The figure quoted for the Bugatti is ridiculous. This is like considering the owner of such a car like a bandit.
But , I heard it is easier to get a driver licence than a credit card in the US? How can any parent prevent his kid from getting one?
Basically, if the black box records the speed data only, it will be useless as it will never show the circumstances and make the difference between appropriate behavior or not.
I support this idea,provided that there is a trade off for higher limits/thresholds for the volunteers.
We could also add a Alcohol breath detector to be blown before any engine start.
1984 is there already, but we don't realize it.
There is no reason the speed limit could not be electronically transmitted to each car's computer, and electronically limiting the speed via the car's computer. This could be individualized per vehicle and driver capability, training and experience.
You would be rewarded for good driving and training by getting a better driver-rating. And then if you went and got a high-performance (braking, handling, stability control and acceleration) vehicle you would be rewarded again with a higher speed-limit.
Improved drivers and vehicles (more powerful in skill and mechanicals) would get better matched speed limits. Teens driving a '95 Explorer may find their speed limit electronically locked so they can't really have any fun. Their speed limit would be limited to what was necessary to get them down the street to work.
Again if there was some sort of nanny-system it should work like this, but I'm not sure I want it (probably because billions of $ would be wasted, and we'd have a crappily implemented system).
Bad analogy simply because not everyone can do those things but everyone can get an engine with more HP. Plus if thats the case why tax someone more simply because they make more money? Face it if you can afford a $1.25 Mill Bugatti with 1000HP you can afford to pay far more in taxes. I am not advocating doing that but it really wouldn't be that unfair, other taxing methods do the same thing.
raise the gas tax, and let's have Congress stop raiding it for other purposes first.
Do you have proof that Congress is raiding it for other purposes?
Any vehicle made today is fast enough to kill kids showing off or experimenting.
True but how many will show off or experiment in a 105 HP Hyundai Accent as opposed to a 505 HP Corvette Z06?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I am not sure about you but in my daily drive I can pass another car doing say 55-60 in way less than 9 seconds, that is unless the guy is a jerk and starts to go faster when I pass.
Concerning on-ramps: I am not the only one who stated that they have short on-ramps, and heavy traffic to merge into.
No I live in the Chicago metro area, we have plenty of heavy traffic and short on-ramps. Still I have little or no trouble getting up to traffic speeds in my 135 HP Daily drive. Face it even low HP car (like under 200) have the capability these days to get up to highway speeds in reasonable times.
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.
No that means that a lower power vehicle is better in 1 out of 10.
that is driver error,
Driver error that can be created with the illusion of "If I punch it I can get out of the situation". And about your comments on brakes, that really grabbing at straws
Now I am not against high HP cars, if you want one knock yourselves out. But the reality of the situation is you get to the point where you just have to much power that most likely will never be used. Case in point me and my wife bought a "date car" one special real nice car that we only use to go out for dinner, parties, special events and such, we use our daily drives for everyday stuff. We bought the CTS-V that has 400 HP and will get you to 60 in about 4.5 seconds. I never use that thing to its full potential, don't even come close. Now we had the opportunity to drive around the 3.6 liter 220 HP CTS and that had more than enough power.
My point is is that in that case 220 HP was more than enough and an additional 180 HP is just overkill.
Now as I said I am not against high HP cars, heck I would love to try out Cadillacs 1000 HP V-16, but I feel that with the performance of todays 4 bangers and smaller V-6's its that high HP isn't that practical. To me all this chatter about it being safer is just an attempt to justify having a 350 HP engine when 225 HP is more than enough. If you want it buy it, but don't give me hogwash about it being safer to justify it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But that's not to say, since we haven't caught all of the murderers let's stop policing the roads and divert the manpower to that.
The figure quoted for the Bugatti is ridiculous. This is like considering the owner of such a car like a bandit.
There is precedent for taxing according to size and value of something. In US, think that everybody pays real estate taxes on house(s) they own. The bigger the house and the more things in the house (bedrooms, toilets, fireplaces, sinks, decks, etc.), the more one pays.
Come to think about taxing for HP on cars/vehicles, the tax should be yearly at license plate/tag renewal time. Besides an exponential function to figure tax rate on HP, with Chevy Aveo paying $25 and Bugatti paying $100,000 year, there should be another element for weight. Again, tax rates would be exponential not linear.
Chevy Aveo might be $25 and Chevy Suburban might be $400. Would have to phase the weight thing in gradually over next years to give American drivers and GM/Ford time to start making more sensible sized SUVs. Drivers could still pick behemoth Suburbans to buy, but would pay for the priviledge.
Tax on HP and weight is equitable vs tax on fuel at the pump such as in Europe. Poorer people in US would be unfairly hit with fuel taxes. Poorer people who chose a Chevy Aveo or Cobalt would pay very low HP and weight taxes.
Don't think that anyone buying a Bugatti is on a payroll or otherwise has payroll taxes deducted. These folks most likely have ready access to tax lawyers and accountants, but they would not escape the $100,000 yearly tax in US. Would imagine that $100,000 is chump change for Bugatti buyers.
A government that taxes for no apparent reason is a tyrannical government, and is incompatible with democracy. Turning an emotional, visceral response into a tax makes no sense whatsoever, particularly when you can't demonstrate a connection between those items you've demonized (speed, horsepower) and that which you supposedly value (safety).
Odd that you've chosen to respond to your critics who have labeled you as "Safety [non-permissible content removed]" by trying to prove them correct. Taxes based upon irrational fears have no place in a free society.
A driver is free to drive a speed within the speed limit posted and is responsible to adjust his speed according to conditions encountered. There are no freedoms in the Constitution or Amendments to be free to pick your own comfortable speed that is beyond posted limits. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but even here on Edmunds there are limitations on those freedoms.
Increasing HP of cars and then the ease of attaining post legal speeds encourages violation of speed limits by some drivers.
Well not to get to far off-stray - freedom of speech does not mean free to say/print anything you want.
there are other ways to deal with that than using power to get away from it. What if the other guy has just as much or more power, what if even though you had the power you couldn't use it?
police wear bullet-proof vests
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to equate having more horsepower to get to the hospital faster to a cop having a bullet proof vest?
Or if you want another scenario, in a major blizzard, it is doubtful you are going to have phone or electric, and someone is going to come thru 20" of snow?
Lets be honest if it is a major snow storm having more HP is completely meaningless, it might even be a hinderence.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
A government that taxes for no apparent reason is a tyrannical government, and is incompatible with democracy.
Real estate taxes in my state pay for fire, police, library, parks, schools, etc. That is a good reason for taxes and is not tyrannical. Depending upon size of house in my county, 2004 bills could be as low as $1500 (tiny ranch) and as high as $30000 (mansion)
Taxing HP and weight of vehicles very similar to real estate taxes. You pay according to what you own and your presumed associated income level. Unlikely that Walmart stock clerks or McDonalds flippers own a mansion.
Would be very equitable to tax vehicles according to HP and weight. Funding is desperately needed to update the road/highway infrastructure in the US. What better way to get funding then to tax the users - and according to their means to pay. This is in consonance with our progressive US personal income tax system, which does not unfairly tax the poor.
An HP/weight tax system would help drive down the desire for higher HP by "some" US drivers and would motivate vehicle manufacturers to correspondingly adjust their offerings in the marketplace.
Not at all. Property taxes are ad valorem, based upon the value of the real estate.
Property taxes aren't based upon whether the house has certain features that you don't happen to like.
For car taxes to be analogous to property taxes, they would be based upon the value of the car. A $50,000 car with 200 hp would pay more tax than a $25,000 car with 300 hp. That's as it should be.
Makes for a bigger bank account.
There is something called the law of diminishing returns and it applies to HP in a car. As you add HP to a car each additional HP adds less and less to the car. So basically going from 250 HP to 300 HP doesn't add nearly as much as going from 100 to 150 HP. So the question becomes in normal everyday driving (for get hypothetical situations like having a 10 foot on ramp to traffic traveling 150 MPH or someone shoots me while I am driving and am 2 blocks from the hospital) when does adding more HP become pretty much useless?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Well how do you make it tamper proof? Trust me someone somewhere will figure out how to get around that. plus you have to figure out how to get the car to know the drivers capabilities (think borrowing or renting a car).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
maybe you should take a history class, But anyway xrunner has s strong point, things have been taxed throughout our history based on value and size. Even in some states vehicle license fees are based on either value or age.
A government that taxes for no apparent reason is a tyrannical government, and is incompatible with democracy.
If you have a home check your property tax statement and justify many of those items. Just because you cannot see, or refuse to see, a reason doesn't mean there is none there.
Taxes based upon irrational fears have no place in a free society.
What taxes mentioned here are based on irrational fears? It seems like the tax on HP would be based on 1.) taxing based on the ability to pay (lets face it if you can pay $1.25 million for a car you can pony up 100K, they will pay more than that in luxury taxes alone) and 2.) encourage more fuel efficient cars (remember your carrot and stick example?)
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Property taxes aren't based upon whether the house has certain features that you don't happen to like.
For car taxes to be analogous to property taxes, they would be based upon the value of the car. A $50,000 car with 200 hp would pay more tax than a $25,000 car with 300 hp. That's as it should be.
Real estate taxes "are" indeed determined in part by "certain features" of house in my state. Yes, market value is a key component of a real estate tax bill. But, the other components in my state are house square footage, number of sinks/toilets, bedrooms, square footage of concrete porches/decks/screened porches, type of exterior veneer (brick, stone, cedar), etc. I have met with local tax assessor at times in past about this matter. If one desires to "finish" their basement with rooms in my county, a county permit is required. Tax assessor sees permit, may make a visit, then adjusts his/her data base for house property ID and taxes will go up next year. But, market value of house will only go up slight amount. Real estate experts from around the US say that basement finishing provides minimal house value increase vs new/bigger kitchen, extra washroom on main floor.
So, HP and weight are attributes of vehicles readily available from manufacturers. Weight of vehicle remains constant over lifetime. HP of vehicle, with current technology and requirements for emissions tests in many parts of US, does not deteriorate too much over life of vehicle.
It would be very easy for US States' Secretaries of State to implement HP/weight tax. It would be incredibly difficult to determine yearly value of vehicles during vehicle lifetime/usage.
An HP/weight tax on vehicles would be equitable, would help fund US road infrastructure and would temper lust for exceeding speed limits by some.
me: the numbers are of no importance - they are simply there to have a number. I could have put 1 and 2 Lb. The point which I was trying to make to you is that we should not tax people for doing something which could be better. Does it make sense to tax people more if they improve their property, or if they buy a newer,safer, less polluting car? No. And that will lead to my next point.
you: Face it if you can afford a $1.25 Mill Bugatti with 1000HP you can afford to pay far more in taxes.
me: Well the money that someone has earned to buy a vehicle has already been taxed for starters, and the more you make the more tax you pay - already. So now you want to tax money again after it's already been taxed again? Next you're saying that because somebody can afford to pay more tax, that is fair. Well taxes is an exception to the rule of what people consider fair. It is typically illegal to charge different amounts to people. Should people pay different amounts for their electric, road tolls, clothes, food, ... No fair is if you buy a pack of socks for $10 at Walmart, everyone gets charged $10. Taxes are an exception to fair, and not based on the concept of everyone contributing equally.
you: Do you have proof that Congress is raiding it for other purposes?
me: It would be pretty easy for YOU to research, since your view of "proof" sounds like it might be high. I found this http://www.aaa.com/news12/About/natgovassoc.htm . or if you want info from a Congressman http://www.house.gov/transportation/press/press2001/release2.htm
you: True but how many will show off or experiment in a 105 HP Hyundai Accent as opposed to a 505 HP Corvette Z06?
me: come on now, you can't research this. Look at accident reports of different newspapers for a week or 2, and see what kids are driving. There are certainly not enough wealthy kids to create the national statistics of the teen driving issue. Most kids drive Civics, Grand Ams, and mom's car.
Correction, property taxes are based upon what the taxing authority values the house at. That appraised figure may or may not be correct. The only way you can determine the actual value of a property would be to sell it on an open market.
Property taxes aren't based upon whether the house has certain features that you don't happen to like.
Actually it is, having features add to the value of the house thereby increasing its appraised value thereby increasing its taxes.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
You are right, property taxes are based on value of the house and property. Value of the house includes the interior as well as exterior. Your house may have an inlaid marble outdoor pool, which you hate and want to get removed, but it will add to the value of the house and up your property taxes.
California already assess registration fees on weight, it wouldn't be a far stretch to assess registration fees on some combination of horsepower and weight.
The number are meaningless, it is still a bad analogy for the reasons I stated.
Well the money that someone has earned to buy a vehicle has already been taxed for starters, and the more you make the more tax you pay - already. So now you want to tax money again after it's already been taxed again?
So are you for getting rid of sales tax? of inheritance tax? of gas tax? of excise tax? or tolls? or property tax? or taxes on utility bills? I could go on with like examples of people paying taxes on money they earned and then paying taxes again when you spend it.
come on now, you can't research this. Look at accident reports of different newspapers for a week or 2, and see what kids are driving.
The issue is how many more accidents would be had if all teenage kids were driving high performance cars? Lets face it a 16 year old driving his friends around in a Civic is not as likely to say "watch what this thing can do" and then floor it as one driving a friend around in a Corvette.
Thats the reason that I will not let my son drive the Caddy but let him drive the Accent. In the 100 hp accent he is not going to show off what it can do, he is not going to try to out run the Mustang at the stop light. However with the 400 HP caddy he would be mighty tempted to do so and most likely would.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
me: no put our government is responsible for changing the laws when the majority of people want a law changed. Laws are NOT in place ad-infinitum. When the majority of people drive faster than the speed limits on most roads, the laws need to be changed.
Many times people have protested ununpopular and unfair laws in this country, through their actions. It is sometimes the only way to get the laws changed, from the minority of power-brokers in this country.
In NJ the fatality rate increased three straight years in a row after raising the speed limit, contradicting the claim higher speeds reduce fatalities. You don't need a PHD to just examine the numbers.
"This discussion is about horsepower (and presumably overall vehicle performance) vis-a-vis speed limits, and you've provided as little factual data on this thread as you did on the other one."
If you look at your own words, this is a discussion. A lot of facts have been provided, but precious little information. But be that as it may, the discussion title is: "The Growing Divergence Between Horsepower and Speed Limits".
me: so are you saying that having less power in a road-rage incident would be better? Explain how? To put this mathematically: (options of a low power vehicle) + (options available to a more powerful vehicle) = total options. I would think you would want "total options" to be as high as possible.
I still haven't seen anyone explain how Lower Power is an advantage over Higher Power. All I've seen is comments that Higher Power may not be used much.
me: this could have come right out of the movie "Dr. Zhivago" when the revolutionaries explained that his large house and food would be given to all, simply because he had more.