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
The board topic is whether the increased power of cars impacts how fast they should be permitted to be driven.
Whether it's practical or not is irrelevant. It's not particularly practical to have a leather interior or a pink paint job, either, but I'm not looking to punish anyone for it.
One can probably easily prove positive correlation between HP of engines and fuel economy.
Agreed, but only to a point, as already noted above. A 300 hp power motor does not necessarily use 50% more fuel than does a 200 hp motor, the relationship is not linear by any means. If you really cared about fuel usage, you'd focus on how much fuel is actually consumed, not whether the car produces more horsepower/ kilowatts.
Your vision (which won't be achieved, anyway) is obviously more about your fears of horsepower, and the desire to concoct a rationale for outlawing it.
Sure, but you're the one who has been trying to make a connection between the capabilities of vehicles and alleged danger. Since safety is your primary concern, I'd like to see how your War on Horsepower is supposed to address the two leading causes of highway deaths in the most populous state in the Union.
Will have to reread my recent posts on "this" board. I hope I have stayed with the topic. Think I have and can demonstrate that "excess" HP has no practical use on US public roads. To extent that vehicle manufacturers offer it, those that buy this "excess" should pay for the priviledge to drive same on public roads. This concept had been previously used in my state. Yearly license fee was based on vehicle HP. It is very equitable. It should be brought back.
We can get rid of divergence (per board topic) by taking actions (HP/wight fees) that have positive benefits - funds for road construction/maintenance, getting HP in vehicles to levels adequate to navigate roads at posted limits.
Forgetting for a moment that nobody here has defined what "excess" or "practical" happen to be, there are numerous features on cars that aren't terribly practical, yet they aren't being subjected to the accusations that you've reserved for horsepower. I'm waiting for someone to propose the Pink Car Tax or Leather Steering Wheel Tax, because it is just isn't practical to have a pink car or a cowhide on the wheel.
We can get rid of divergence (per board topic) by taking actions (HP/weight fees) that have positive benefits - funds for road construction/maintenance, getting HP in vehicles to levels adequate to navigate roads at posted limits.
The topic is about vehicle capability vs. permissable driving speeds. Where you got the idea that it needs to be about your elaborate tax scheme that won't be implemented, I'm not sure.
If you want to allege that safety is inversely correlated with horsepower, feel free to prove it. Just don't be shocked when some of us don't go along with your plans because you've given us no reason to agree. Since you're the one who wants to make the claims, it's up to you to back them up.
Ahh, but a pink paint job doesn't use excess energy. There already is a gas guzzler tax. The government really doesn't need a reason or rational to tax us. A modified hp/weight/gas guzzler tax could in fact encourage more green thinking.
The government has done a pretty good job of defined excess with the gas guzzler tax. It could also provide a definition of excess hp/weight.
me: so then you don't buy if your personal finances are tight, or you personally don't value more power highly enough to purchase it. It does not change the fact that more power is better.
There is the rational of the green thinker, not the financial analyst lurking here. In a number of towns one cannot burn leaves even if you can prove to the fire department it can be done safely. The rational for the ban was not safety is was air pollution.
Higher horsepower engines tend to use more fuel and pollute more than lower horsepower engines. (I can't say displacement, because of the number of vehicles with forced air induction). You want to pollute more, then pay more
me: Right, MY bad.
you: So you admit that not only is there an additional purchase price but it costs more to maintain. Plus lets not forget the added cost of just the extra gas they burn.
me: Simply because one can not afford something, does not change whether an item is better or worse. You are also confusing the issue of whether an item is better, with whether the item is a good value.
Here, look at this example. I go shopping for car A and it's offered with 200hp and 250hp engines, equipped exactly the same. The 200hp version costs $20K and the 250hp version costs $25K. Now my internal questions and answers to make my choice:
1) What is the better car? The 250hp one.
2) What sort of value do I place on the 250hp car. Well, I only have $40K in the bank and I don't want to spend an extra $5K for 50hp. So that be a decent choice. But my choice of the 200hp car does not mean the 250hp car was not the better car.
If I have $500K in the bank, and I walk in the dealership and see the 2 versions of car A, I'll pick the better 250hp version. The slightly higher maontenance or gas is inconsequential.
Whatever your financial situation is, and regardless of what % of your money you want to spend, you are better off with the most power/$.
me: So they wouldn't like me and many people here in NE who each save 500-1,000 gal. of oil a year, by burning wood? Since air pollution is a global issue, the greenies ought to think if its ratianal to get 6 billion people to stop burning leaves. And pray to God to stop the lightning strikes that burn millions of acres of forest. Those volcanoes are very polluting too.
you: You want to pollute more, then pay more.
me: I would like to see that legislation. We could include people who drive 20K+ miles/year, RV owners, powerboat owners, people with houses over 2,000 sq.ft., and my favorite people having kids (every kid has greatly increased the future pollution you're responsible for!
No, I don't think increased power of a car is much of a contributor to pollution, especially with the low levels we're at now. And as far as greenhouse gases (not a pollutant), I sure hope they warm the Earth up a little quicker, because I hate winters.
Wood burning stoves and wood fireplaces are exempt. In private homes, there are not too many choices: 1) all electric, 2) fossil fuels, 3) natural gas or wood. Deforest the land or use fossil fuels.
"I would like to see that legislation"
It's already here in some form and it's called a gas guzzler tax.
"No, I don't think increased power of a car is much of a contributor to pollution,"
Are you sure or are you guessing? You can search for car emmisions and find a site that allows you to calculate them. A Corolla emits about 7,500 lbs CO2 a year a Viper emits 14,600 lbs C02 a year. My cars emit 10.9 and 10.2 respectively. The 10.9 is for the car with the lesser number of cylinders.
Now did xrunner actually say that he was against high HP cars because he fears higher speeds or are you just making an assumption?
Because if you really cared about fuel economy, you would take into account the car's actual fuel usage, not its horsepower rating.
Typically a car with a higher HP rating has a higher rate of fuel usage. I actually cant think of one model of car that gets the same highway and city MPG rating with a higher HP engine in it. So its not BS as you claim.
Since most accidents are not associated with speed,
Again a half truth as the NHTSA cites speed as one of the biggest contributors to accidents.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
1) What is the better car? The 250hp one.
Is it? I will not make a call on this one because there is not enough data to make one. Is the additional 50 HP worth the additional $5K? maybe maybe not. Now if the 200 HP version easily keeps up with traffic leaving a stop light, if it will easily get you up to highway speeds on the on-ramp and provides enough passing power then getting the 250 HP version is a waste of $5K since you most likely will never need the additional 50 HP. And that doesn't even address the additional fuel needs of the 250HP car.
But if you want to spend the additional $5K because you want to have 50 extra HP go for it. But it doesn't make it the better car.
2) What sort of value do I place on the 250hp car. Well, I only have $40K in the bank and I don't want to spend an extra $5K for 50hp. So that be a decent choice. But my choice of the 200hp car does not mean the 250hp car was not the better car.
Since you forgo the 250 HP car and could have afforded it that means that the better car for you is the 200 HP version. Simple economics.
Whatever your financial situation is, and regardless of what % of your money you want to spend, you are better off with the most power/$.
Again that is not true. More is not always better, as I mentioned above if you will not use it why get it? If the 200 HP car accelerates, passes and gets up to highway speeds well within the needs of the driver then they are not better off getting the 250 HP car.
Its like saying a house in Alaska is better off with air conditioning, its just not true.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Rather than deal with "typical", we can look at the EPA ratings to know the fuel economy of each car. Other nations use consumption taxes which, as any economist would expect, reduce consumption. That is what you want, right?
Again a half truth as the NHTSA cites speed as one of the biggest contributors to accidents.
Rather than use hollow descriptors such as "one of the biggest", let's remember the actual data point -- 20%. Four out of five accidents aren't speed-related, so why the obsession?
In any case, no one has shown a correlation between horsepower and an increase in accidents that are attributable to speeding because of that horsepower. Until you can do that, you have nothing, zero, nada to support your argument. As Kernick noted, you've sentenced the defendant without even bothering with the trial.
You know as well as anybody the EPA ratings are in effect the "best" a vehicle will get and not realistic. Real world scenarios according to the EPA can be 20%+ lower and it gets worse as the engine gets bigger.
The defendant though has been found guilty of contributing to the greenhouse effect, even though the defendant might not be guilty of causing a fatality.
I'm going to take a pass on the commenting about the validity of the statistics that has been debated.
---
Not always true.
Hyundai Elantra: 138 HP - 27/34 MPG
Mazda3: 150 HP - 28/35 MPG
or
Hyundai Santa Fe: 200 HP - 17/23 MPG
Toyota Highlander: 215 HP - 19/25 MPG
or
Chevrolet Aveo: 103 HP - 26/35 MPG
Honda Civic: 140 HP - 30/40 MPG
or
Mercedes-Benz E320: 201 HP - 27/37 MPG
Honda Civic Si: 197 HP - 22/31 MPG
(and the Civic Si is smaller and lighter than the Mercedes, yet gets worse fuel efficiency. Same for the Aveo versus the Civic, the Aveo is smaller, lighter, and has few horsepower... but has a lower fuel efficiency.)
The Mazda3, Toyota Highlander, Honda Civic, and Mercedes E320 have better HP and fuel efficiency, but you'd tax the Toyota, Mazda, Honda, and Mercedes at higher rates. Madness.
I guess you don't care about fuel efficiency at all. It's all about the horsepower... and what's horsepower good for? Acceleration and speed.
Go look at EPA estimates for cars with a choice of engines, you will see the larger the engine the more gas it uses.
In any case, no one has shown a correlation between horsepower and an increase in accidents that are attributable to speeding because of that horsepower.
Thats irrelevant simply because I am not making that argument.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Not to sure about that, my daily drive gets about 1 MPG more than EPA estimates. I know others that get higher mileage than EPA numbers. I also know a lot that get less too. Each engine off the same assembly line is ever so different and will get different rates.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
In general though the higher the HP, the worse the gas mileage, the higher the emissions.
Mercedes-Benz E320: 201 HP - 27/37 MPG almost 10,000 lbs CO2 a year
Honda Civic Si: 197 HP - 22/31 MPG almost 6300 lbs CO2 a year
Gas mileage isn't always an indicator of better engine efficiency.
Just STEP ON THE PEDAL! The noise doesn't mean it's bad for your car.
What's wrong with a little altruism, trying to stop greenhouse gases in the little ways we can? If you don't agree with that premise, that less fuel usage is a good thing, then there's no discussion about this subject, go buy your hemi.
P.S. If I only had $500,000 in the bank, I would be saving more for my future and/or retirement, not spending $5K on 50 hp, just not worth it. That's my opinion.
Now lets look at comparing apples to apples.
Honda Accord 4 cylinder manual gets 26/34
Honda Accord 6 cylinder manual gets 21/30
Mazda 3 2 liter manual gets 28/35
Mazda 3 2.3 liter manual gets 26/32
Hyundai Santa Fe 2WD 2.4 liter Auto gets 20/26
Hyundai Santa Fe 2WD 2.7 liter Auto gets 19/25
Hyundai Santa Fe 2WD 3.5 liter Auto gets 17/23
Toyota Highlander 2WD 2.4 liter auto gets 22/27
Toyota Highlander 2WD 3.3 liter auto gets 19/25
Since edmunds is painfully slow I am not going to look up HP ratings.
I guess you don't care about fuel efficiency at all.
Yes I guess I do care, please don't set up strawmen arguments.
and what's horsepower good for? Acceleration and speed.
Thats my contention, todays 4 bangers with 150 HP can easily run at any speed limit in the U.S. and can do plenty more than that. As for acceleration 4 and 6 cylinders can provide more than enough for any reasonable driving. Lets face it the only real reason you need a 350 HP car is so that you can beat the 325 HP car to the next stop light a 1/4 mile down the road and wait longer for the green.
As I said if you want a high HP car by all means get one, but all the justification for higher HP cars is just nonsense.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
OK, it might help to tell us what your argument's about. If you care about fuel efficiency, then it's silly to focus on a figure with only an indirect relationship to fuel economy when you already have the fuel economy data to you.
And again, we already know that all things being equal, the more powerful engine is probably going to use more fuel, so no reason to repeat it. The conundrum that you can't address is what your taxman is going to do when confronted with setting the amount of the tariff to be slapped onto Car A, which has higher horsepower yet superior fuel economy to a competing firm's Car B.
Given your logic, you'd hit Car A with a higher tax, even though it is a more fuel efficient alternative to the more wasteful, less powerful B. We can presume you don't care that your real agenda is to take more powerful cars off the road, just 'cuz you don't like 'em.
I think I have stated that. I first started posting on this topic addressing the notion that a more powerful car is always better and safer.
If you care about fuel efficiency, then it's silly to focus on a figure with only an indirect relationship to fuel economy when you already have the fuel economy data to you.
I would argue that power has an indirect relationship to fuel economy.
Given your logic, you'd hit Car A with a higher tax, even though it is a more fuel efficient alternative to the more wasteful, less powerful B.
I have never advocated the HP tax, although I have addressed peoples concerns about it I never advocated it.
We can presume you don't care that your real agenda is to take more powerful cars off the road, just 'cuz you don't like 'em.
Very poor presumption, if you have been following what I have been saying you would know I have a 400 HP Caddy in the garage. I have said a few times already, if you want a high HP car go for it, knock yourself out. But please be honest and say you want the HP for the sake of HP and being able to go real fast real quick. Don't try to justify it by saying its safer, better and the like, it simply doesn't hold water.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Well yes there are, and there is no reason to say NJ drivers are bad
but you claimed the SL raise in 1997 was responsble for the bump in fatalities for 3 years, which blatantly contradicts this study :
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/press/2000releases/65mpg/
"Fatal accidents in 65 MPH zones have decreased since the implementation of the 65 MPH speed limit. There were ten fewer deaths, representing a 9.6 percent decrease, on the sections of highway that now have the 65 MPH speed limit and seven fewer fatal accidents, representing a 7.9 percent decrease, than on those sections of highway for a comparable time period."
While I agree many factors play when fatalities decrease, they also play when fatalities increase and putting Higher SL as a convenient scapegoat is factually very difficult to support.
I can also argue that fatalities have regulary gone down over the last decades and car HP regulary gone up (150 HP is considered as entry-level now and 200 HP mainstream) so what prevents me from saying rising HP is the factor for lower fatalities?
Although you may find this subject antiquated , I am still willing to discuss this issue, and I feel I am not the only one.
Why not let the contributor decide? This issue is affecting our everyday life.
I'm glad alot of people don't modify their cars, goodness knows all the junk that Pep Boys sells, the less of that I see the better.
They already pentalize the British for modified cars with different regs for stock and modifed cars (and higher insurance). I guess you would rather have it that way, but it hasn't stopped people in England from modding their cars. Its quite the opposite.
Just open a copy of Max Power and you'll see what I mean. There also loads of American V8 powered cars put on ships every month to be taken over to Sweden and other markets that love American Horsepower.
Being Green or responsible doesn't have to be corny or boring. I would love to see more diesel powered cars here. They are more popular in Europe because of the cost of unleaed fuel. The smallest cars aren't all that fun to drive, but cars like the BMW 1 series I would snap up in a hurry. It makes 70% more torque and 30% more power than the gas engined version and its darn fun to drive, that is if you don't discount GT4 driving.
I would love if E85 was more widely available in California. Not only is it responsible, but its cheap racing gas with a ROM rating of well over 105 octane. Perfect for more boost, more compression or larger engines. The only downside is you burn slightly more when compared to gas. Oh well, nothing is perfect.
I'm a responible driver and a better driver than you most likely. I also have a Class A license and sport a level of training that most drivers aren't exposed too. I also have a SCCA competition license and been an NHRA member for the past 6 years.
Buying alot of hp might be meaningless to some, but not to everybody and I visit the track on a weekly basis.
Finally, my car does show its tailights to more expensive cars, it sports a bottle of purple whoop-[non-permissible content removed] in the trunk...
That doesn't explain the rash of "family" cars, such as the V6 Camry and Accord, that have more horsepower than did an '80's-era Mustang GT.
What seems missing here is why people want more horsepower. The go-slow crowd seems to believe that it is inspired by the desire to drive 200 mph in a school zone, but I would surmise that it is largely a matter of (a) marketing (whether rightly or wrongly, high numbers seem better to the consumer than do low numbers) and (b) ease of use.
Much horsepower is not being used at 10/10th's for all-out driving, but rather for smoother performance at the lower end of the performance band. People who value luxurious or comfortable driving don't want to work a motor or to wind it out -- they want confident levels of passing power, the ability to merge easily onto an interstate, and to accelerate without laboring the engine or doing much work.
As a result, most of the horsepower is never used directly, but it does allow for the desired amount of power to be available with minimal effort. It might be bad for the environment, but there's no adverse impact on safety.
Don't try to justify it by saying its safer, better and the like, it simply doesn't hold water.
I'll agree with you here. More power does not necessarily make for a "better" car. (For one, it often comes at the expense of added weight and a more nose-heavy vehicle). And I would doubt that many accidents would have prevented with more power underfoot (although I was once rear-ended in a situation in which a car with faster acceleration from rest could have spared me the collision, so I am probably one of the exceptions.)
me: probably since CO2 would be proportional to mpg. And CO2 is not a pollutant as I think you were originally talking about pollutants - in burning leaves.
Personally I don't really care about CO2 emissions and most other people don't either. By "really care" I mean that people will say they're all for reduced emissions, just don't expect them to change their lifestyle much.
People and legislators will also tell you they want low speed limits (current); but who the heck are all those people dirving faster on the roads? I believe what I see, not what people say they do.
I once had a car that could use E85 and tried it out. I lost close to 30% of my Mileage on that stuff. Sure its cheaper but the gas mileage is abysmal.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
me: That is the concept of "Value"; it is not the concept of "Better". You are combining the two.
What I am saying is what is the Better item. Forget about cost. If I offer you a computer with 256M of RAM, or the exact same computer with 1000M of RAM, it is definitive that the computer with 1000M of RAM is the better machine. That does not change. Similarly a car with more capability is better than 1 with less capability.
Your personal decision on whether that extra capability is worth it, is based on how you value that capability. If you're doing well , you probably get the extra capability because the cost of the extra capability doesn't matter. If you're living check-to-check then you may go with lesser capability. But your personal value DOES NOT, DOES NOT, DOES NOT change which item is better.
Sorry, but I have to differ with that analogy, because computer speed doesn't involve the sorts of trade-offs that typically accompany differences in cars.
A faster computer is, without exception, better than a slower computer. But a higher horsepower motor often weighs more than does a lower horsepower motor, which in turn impacts the front-rear weight balancing of the car (assuming that it is not a mid-engined car) and its handling characteristics.
The larger engined car may also be bundled with other options that may positively or negatively effect the performance, such as luxury features that increase weight. And it may cost more to operate if it gets worse fuel economy.
In my case, I bought the smaller engined version of my car, because for a few thousand dollars less, I ended up with a lighter, more nimble car with near-identical straightline performance and, in this case, significantly better fuel economy. (Not only was the engine more efficient, but at that time, I was also able to get my car with a manual transmission not available with the larger motor.)
As is the case with speed, the benefits and drawbacks horsepower is relative. Rather than assume that more is better than less, you should consider the sum total of the car's characteristics in comparison to others to make that decision. While having more horsepower is often more desirable, it isn't always, and can even have some drawbacks, particularly after factoring in the financial expense of acquiring it.
While some may many do not, plus there seems to be more 4 bangers sold with those "family" cars than V-6's.
What seems missing here is why people want more horsepower.
Then why are 4 bangers being sold in such high numbers?
Much horsepower is not being used at 10/10th's for all-out driving, but rather for smoother performance at the lower end of the performance band.
When I bought the Caddy I drove it with all three engines. The 255 HP one didn't have a much smoother performance than the 210 HP on, and the 400 HP didn't have much smoother performance than either the 255 or the 210 HP ones. The only real time you feel a better smoother performance is when you floored it. But in any of those three if you drove normally and say got up to 60 MPH in say 9 or 10 seconds you wouldn't notice much.
It might be bad for the environment, but there's no adverse impact on safety.
I never said there was, I was just questioning the comment one poster said that in any emergency more power is better.
As I said before even todays 150 hp 4 bangers can keep up with traffic (with the expect ions of speed freaks in high power cars that have to race to the next stop light), can pass with relative ease (unless your trying to pass someone going 85MPH), can maintain high speeds (far more than any speed limit) and can get up to highway speeds by the end of 99% of the on-ramps in this country.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I didn't say that they couldn't. They may offer the functionality, but they don't generally offer the level of finesse, and buyers who prefer larger engines often value smoothness and ease of operation. An engine accomplishing these tasks at 3/10th's are perceived to be more luxurious than those needing to operate at 7/10th's to accomplish the same thing.
Well I am not "combining" the two, but recognizing that there is a link between the two. All things being equal the one with more value is the better choice. Its a simple fact of economics.
Lets use your computer example. The computer with 1000M of RAM is not any better than the one with 256M of RAM if my usage never exceeds 128M RAM. While the 1000M RAM computer has more capability it offers me no more utility, therefore it is not better for me, it is only just as good.
Now lets add into this equation that the 1000M RAM computer is in reality going to cost more. Now since the 1000M RAM computer is offering me the same utility as the 256M RAM one (remember my usage will never exceed 128M RAM) the added cost means that it is not the better computer for me.
Similarly a car with more capability is better than 1 with less capability.
No Similarly a car with more but un-needed capacity is not any better that the car that has lesser but more than needed capacity. If it increases costs it is not even just as good as you are paying more for the same utility.
This goes back to my example of the house in Alaska, adding an air conditioner doesn't make the house any better since it is pretty useless.
Your personal decision on whether that extra capability is worth it, is based on how you value that capability.
It is also based on if you need or will ever use that capability. Basically if I am never going to use it why pay for it regardless of how much I can afford it. Millionaires don't get that way by wasting money.
But your personal value DOES NOT, DOES NOT, DOES NOT change which item is better.
Actually it does since both "value" and "better" are both subjective and are closely linked. You have to get out of the mindset that more is better because its simply not true. The better car is one that meets the wants and needs of the driver without adding additional costs. Anything that exceeds those wants and needs is at best just as good, if it increases the cost its worse.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
me: Yes I agree that everyone has a better choice based on value. That is based on your personal situation, environment, ... Now stop thinking of your personal choice, look at the item independent of price and from a neutral perspective. The item with the better capabilities is the better item. It is not dependent on whether you need it, use it, or want it. I'm not insisting YOU buy it.
But don't presume to tell others that it isn't useful or value to them.
I already gave examples that more power is useful to me in my driving environment, regardless of what value you place on them. I use the power of a car to more safely pass multiple vehicles (say an 18-wheeler with a car following it) on a 2-lane road for instance. And I've already told you that I value my life such that even if more power only increases my safety in 1 situation out of a million, spending that money is worth it to me.
You don't have to agree with what I place value on or how much value I place on something. We will all have an opinion that is about as decisive as arguing over what color is best.
me: You are right in some cases, but not in all. A Corvette Z-06 is wider, lighter, faster, and better handling than a regular Vette. t all depends on whether the design engineers put the effort into compensating or improving other capabilities. I believe in improving ALL capabilities, not just stuffing a bigger engine in a car.
you: The larger engined car may also be bundled with other options that may positively or negatively effect the performance, such as luxury features that increase weight.
me: That is happening across the board. The Toyota Yaris replacing the Echo is a good example. And I believe the DOE has some info. on the increasing weight of the average car over the years.
you: Rather than assume that more is better than less, you should consider the sum total of the car's characteristics in comparison to others to make that decision.
me: I do. I want cars better in all respects. My position has never been to simply increase hp by itself. I'm all for alternatives to the engines of today, and lighter, more powerful methods of propulsion.
you: and can even have some drawbacks, particularly after factoring in the financial expense of acquiring it.
me: Agree. Buy as much power as your individual budget allows, remembering that you need resources in other areas.
you: I ended up with a lighter, more nimble car with near-identical straightline performance and, in this case, significantly better fuel economy.
me: I've increased the power of my car from stock, and lightened it at the same time. My after-market exhauust and intake systems are lighter, and I may get slightly better mpg, though it is close and I haven't put that much effort into verifying it.
I am not looking at it from my personal choice but rather a economic reality and rational point of view. That basically states that more may be better, it may be the same, or it may be worse.
look at the item independent of price and from a neutral perspective.
Unfortunately that cannot be done simply because price is relevant to the discussion at hand. But lets look at it with out price in the picture. If a 200 HP car is all one needs the a 250 HP car is just as good, but not better. Why? Because the utility of both vehicles are the same, the extra 50HP is useless and therefore adds no value. Especially if the driver never makes the engine deliver over say 175 HP.
The item with the better capabilities is the better item.
You have to stop this line of thinking. Just because something has better capabilities doesn't mean its better. If the additional capabilities are never used then they are useless and add no value. Tell me if they are useless and add no value how does it make it better.
Take some econ classes and you will see the folly of that thinking.
Your an engineer tell me would you build a 5 mile long suspension bridge to cross a 30 foot creek? By your arguments a 5 mile long suspension bridge is better than a 45 foot long bridge. But you won't and the reason why is all that excess is actually waste and doesn't make the bridge any better.
Again I am not against people having more HP, my caddy can out run all but the best, but the arguments that it is needed, better and safer just don't hold water.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
me: It is a fallacy to think you know what you'll need even tomorrow, never mind next week or next year. Oh yes, you can tell me what you plan on happening, but unless your omnipotent (I guess you wouldn't need a car then) you really don't know. I can pickup the newspaper or watch any TV news, and show you quite a few people who didn't have what they needed. Example: You're not a coalminer are you? where you go down in the mines with 1 hour of oxygen because that's all you need?
And I'm sure there are workers who have gone down in the mines for 30 years and 1 hour of oxygen was all they ever needed. So is it better to carry more than 1 hour of oxygen, if you can? Yes.
There are many, many examples of people being killed or injured because they don't consider anything exceptional ever happening.
I'm not seeing much evidence that increased acceleration ability (I'm going to assume that when we are discussing "horsepower", we are really referring to increased acceleration, improved passing power and higher top speeds) would have saved many lives.
Most accidents are caused not by speed or lack thereof, but by driver inattention, misjudgment and intoxication. While the ability of the car to quickly and predictably respond to driver inputs will endow a car with greater active safety, I don't see how increasing power is necessarily going to help many drivers in real-world situations -- perhaps a few, but not many.
Just so long as a car can achieve a particular performance threshold that allows it to respond effectively under these conditions, that would seem to be sufficient. While I would agree that you want a car that has enough power to get out of harm's way (no 20 hp Beetles, thank you very much), I seriously doubt that 400 hp is going to produce much better results than 200 hp, particularly if the lower powered car has better handling and is geared appropriately to the engine. As is the case with the speed variance issue discussed before, safety is most enhanced by introducing greater predictability to the driving environment.
While it might be a fallacy, its a bigger fallacy to get something on the 1 in a billion chance you will need it. Tell me why, if a 200 HP car can pass well, accelerate the same as normal traffic and can get you to highway speeds while still on the on ramp today, why would you need more tomorrow or next year?
Example: You're not a coalminer are you? where you go down in the mines with 1 hour of oxygen because that's all you need?
That depends on how long I will be in the mine, the normal air quality in the mine, and how much air do people usually and the difficulty in bringing more than 1 hour of O2 into the mine. But then again things I wouldn't bring in are GPS positioning devices (they don't work underground), as well as many other things that are needless or useless in the mine.
I will repeat myself, if you want more HP in your car knock yourself out. But please don't try to justify it as being safer when in reality it really isn't.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
:-)
The throttle respone resolution is going to be better in a lower HP car than a higher HP car.
Someone hinted to something similar to that awhile back...not sure who. example: Tweaking the gas pedal 5 degrees in a lower HP car will give a HP response of ~say~ 30 HP where as tweaking the pedal 5 degrees in a higher HP car will give you 100 HP.
The lower HP engine will be easier and more fun to manipulate and drive with than the higher HP car.
Excellent point. And, that is precedent also. We've heard a lot about this word "precedent" over last couple of weeks from DC. Fed and states could probably make a HP/weight "road user fee" or "tax" stick if taken up in courts.
Perhaps a mental examine should be a requirement before being eligible to vote, too?
Taxing someone for purchasing something you wouldn't is just as bad.
Personally, if we're going to do that, then we should tax all vehicles with under 200 hp with a 'health insurance' tax for being a potential danger on the road.
It's no better or worse than doing the opposite.
The vehicle population in the US is not constant as it somewhat is in say Cuba. You could be closer in trying that argument there. Vehicles in US have had intensive improvements in handling and safety over last decade+. Also, medical response and medical treatment have also advanced in last decade. These are the main factors that have contributed to lower fatality rate. Everyone from high school physics classes onward knows that increasing velocity of vehicles increases risk.
Perhaps a mental examine should be a requirement before being eligible to vote, too?
I and other homeowners in my county and state get taxed for quantity of toilets and sinks in the house among many other things in and about the house. Tax on HP/Weight of vehicles is logical.
"Accordingly, it is not possible to determine whether the increase in accidents in 65 MPH zones represents a normal fluctuation in accident rates or suggests that increased speed contributes to increased accidents."
Of importance, they did not say the roads got safer.
me: No value is subjective. Better is objective, and is obtained thru data, with a generally acknowledged standard. Unless you live in some sort of alternate universe, more power, speed, agility, wealth, health, and intelligence (and all the sub-measurements in those categories) are better than less.
Your logic that better (in general) has to be linked to your value is rather out-there. Do you want to tell us next that it is not better to have wealth? Let me help, using your logic, you have used here. "No, more wealth is not necessarily better, because ..."
1) You can't use it all, and it would be wasted.
2) Your maintenance (accountants and tax advisers) will be higher.
3) And all I need is a a car like the Kia Rio.
That does bring up the question, then of why didn't you get a Rio or such since that apparently is "all someone needs"? It sounds like you have spent more on a car then I have?
Over the course of 2,100 posts, you kept claiming this, yet we raised speed limits and still ended up with fewer accidents and deaths, despite all of the gut-wrenching predictions to the contrary from the usual suspects.
It's a shame that you can't find historical data to support these oft-made statements. But I have to admire the persistence needed to continually make this claim, even if real world events tell us otherwise.