EPA: Stop Teh Horsepower War PLZ, KTHXBAI

[Danoff]

I can't personally accept that as a reason.

Why not. I think the burden of proof is on you. People shouldn't have to justify their choices, you should have to justify why they should be arbitrarily penalized (harshly) for their choices.

Personally I don't think it can be done. What you're advocating is fairly unconstitutional.

 

[FoolKiller]

I can't personally accept that as a reason.

I know, but it is all a free market requires.

One could ask you why you bought a European car when you saw first hand your local economy struggling. No matter what your reason it would not be personally good enough for an American auto worker that lost his job.

My point is that the economy requires nothing more than you to have the money asked for. While it seems pointless to you some guy is loving every second and thinking that it was worth every penny.

If we got rid of everything that went beyond basic needs we would have very little fun. Then we would all get stressed, everyone would have heart attacks and then someone would ask you why you were opposed to everyone owning things just for fun.

 

[Joey D]

Why not. I think the burden of proof is on you. People shouldn't have to justify their choices, you should have to justify why they should be arbitrarily penalized (harshly) for their choices.

Personally I don't think it can be done. What you're advocating is fairly unconstitutional.

What is it that makes it unconstitutional? The fact I want to give people who buy more economical a little break while giving no increased penalties to those choose not to? That isn't unconstitutional, if it was then why do hybrid owners get tax breaks? I see nothing wrong with it.

I know, but it is all a free market requires.

One could ask you why you bought a European car when you saw first hand your local economy struggling. No matter what your reason it would not be personally good enough for an American auto worker that lost his job.

My point is that the economy requires nothing more than you to have the money asked for. While it seems pointless to you some guy is loving every second and thinking that it was worth every penny.

If we got rid of everything that went beyond basic needs we would have very little fun. Then we would all get stressed, everyone would have heart attacks and then someone would ask you why you were opposed to everyone owning things just for fun.

I understand that and I agree that is the way things are, I just personally do not care for it. I can't deny that is the way life is.

 

[FoolKiller]

What is it that makes it unconstitutional? The fact I want to give people who buy more economical a little break while giving no increased penalties to those choose not to? That isn't unconstitutional, if it was then why do hybrid owners get tax breaks? I see nothing wrong with it.

Aren't gas guzzlers already punished by paying more for gas?

 

[Joey D]

Aren't gas guzzlers already punished by paying more for gas?

I'm not saying punish them, nothing happens to you if you buy a vehicle with poor fuel mileage other then you pay more at the pump. I'm just saying if hybrids get a tax break why shouldn't it be extended to those that drive all sorts of higher mileage vehicles such as efficient petrol and diesels cars.

Look I do not want to start big argument and have this thread go off course. I understand there are many different views on this and they all have some validity to them. This is the way I personally feel, I do not expect everyone to agree with me, but I do hope all opinions are respected.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not saying punish them, nothing happens to you if you buy a vehicle with poor fuel mileage other then you pay more at the pump. I'm just saying if hybrids get a tax break why shouldn't it be extended to those that drive all sorts of higher mileage vehicles such as efficient petrol and diesels cars.

And I say that hybrid owners shouldn't get tax breaks.


Basically government should butt out. Markets always work better when they do.

EDIT:
I'm not trying to start an argument, and I think you bring up a good point. When a government agency starts talking like this it is usually a precursor to threatening intervention, and something like you are mentioning is a possible way for them to go. But I see it being more likely that they punish car manufacturers, as they are trying to make them out to be the bad guy here. And the last thing they need in Detroit right now is government interfering.

That's why I am debating the issue because to me this is very much on topic.

 

[Joey D]

And I say that hybrid owners shouldn't get tax breaks.

Basically government should butt out. Markets always work better when they do.

I agree they shouldn't but they do and I don't think you'll see a change in that anytime soon. This is why I think the breaks should be extended to people who own high mileage vehicles, maybe 40mpg or greater. It's just an idea to maybe get people thinking the way towards more efficient vehicles without mandating that people have to get them.

I'm all for less government involvement, but since it's not going to happen might as well make it inclusive to all groups instead of small lobbyist.

 

[FoolKiller]

I agree they shouldn't but they do and I don't think you'll see a change in that anytime soon. This is why I think the breaks should be extended to people who own high mileage vehicles, maybe 40mpg or greater. It's just an idea to maybe get people thinking the way towards more efficient vehicles without mandating that people have to get them.

Honestly, I doubt a tax break will work. At current prices efficient vehicles are being purchased by people who probably don't need the break. Then if the prices do go down and it becomes a good cheap car the people most needing the breaks will see a relatively minor benefit.

The only way it would actually be noticed would likely be by adding a sin tax to the gas guzzlers that can afford the expensive car and the gas it needs.

When a guy working minimum wage can afford a new technology, efficient car his benefit would be what, $100 a year? He won't even notice.

And anyone that can afford to get a car over $15,000 and the gas to go with it won't need a tax break to sway their opinion.

Basically, I think it would be a waste of time and the market itself will be a stronger motivating factor than any tax break.


Use smoking as an example: People quit for financial reasons when cigarettes went up due to taxes and health insurance increased for them alone. No one said, "I will save $3.50 a day if I quit."

In cars no one will buy a car for a few thousand more to save $100 a year. The only way an effect would be seen is if the break was enough to counter balance the cost difference between an average 4 cylinder and an ultra efficient engine. And then you would only motivate people that were going to buy a Cobalt/Corolla anyway.

What kind of benefit would have to be noticed to get the guy driving a $50,000+ gas guzzler to think it is worth it?

 

[Danoff]

What is it that makes it unconstitutional? The fact I want to give people who buy more economical a little break while giving no increased penalties to those choose not to? That isn't unconstitutional, if it was then why do hybrid owners get tax breaks? I see nothing wrong with it.

The tax breaks for hybrid owners are also unconstitutional. It's at odds with the equal protection clause (multiple ways). In fact, I'd wager to say that most of the US tax system is at odds with the constitution. Hell the income tax wasn't even permitted until 1913 when it was amended into place.

All I'm trying to do is to get you to consider the proper role of government here. Not just whether it can attempt to force people to do what you think they should be doing - whether it's absolutely necessary and proper that the government should have that sort of role in our everyday lives.

BTW - The EPA is absolutely 100% expressly forbidden by the constitution currently. That only thing that holds it in place is people's tolerance of it.

Edit: So is the FDA, OSHA and basically every other regulatory agency in existence. Not to get off topic too far, but there is a good reason that the EPA is not allowed by the constitution - because the regulations the EPA passes are effectively law, but laws passed by unelected persons. That's not a representative system of government.

 

[YSSMAN]

You want to know what would fix these "problems" immediately?

MAKE GASOLINE MORE EXPENSIVE

People will make "better choices" if it costs them more, simply put. Take one look at Europe, where gasoline costs and arm and a leg, and note that their governments aren't required to place fuel economy regulations on new cars and trucks... Its what the market demands.

===

People are going to want more power, it feels good. If my car had an extra 50 BHP, it would be just about perfect, but of course, I can't have it. The thing is, all of these cars have more power because they're heavier, needing more to move about. Thats why the efficiency hasn't increased, despite the fact that these new engines are dozens of times more effective than their predecessors.

Have the manufacturers remove the weight, add proper gearboxes, and give people the option of different engines and people will make the right choices. Let the market decide what it wants, whats best for it.

====

Either way, what the EPA said was in no way binding, and I doubt that anyone really cares in the industry. Like I said earlier, I've seen much more of a push by the American car companies to be "green" than the Germans, and the Japanese are either knee-deep (Honda) or don't seem to care much at all (Mitsubishi).

Time will tell, of course...

 

[Danoff]

You want to know what would fix these "problems" immediately?

MAKE GASOLINE MORE EXPENSIVE

No legislation is even needed (and again, it would be an improper role of government). Luckily for people worried about this, gasoline is getting more expensive all by itself.

 

[YSSMAN]

Very true. Thank the speculators and the idiots who run OPEC...

We could throw a higher tax on imported fuels and properly fund the highway bill from 2005, but yeah, nobody wants that. I'm still fairly convinced that should the government forcefully peg the price somewhere around $4.00 for regular, people would altogether change their diving habits and the vehicles they choose to buy almost immediately...

 

[Philly]

We could throw a higher tax on imported fuels and properly fund the highway bill from 2005, but yeah, nobody wants that. I'm still fairly convinced that should the government forcefully peg the price somewhere around $4.00 for regular, people would altogether change their diving habits and the vehicles they choose to buy almost immediately...

I agree with this. Gas here is cheap, and that's why we drive what and how we do. Put some tax on gasoline and we could probably improve our highways quite a bit.

I don't wee why it shouldn't be a government thing. I quick increase will make people change more and more quickly, and gas might start to level off as demand goes down.

And another solution? Make the automakers add lightness. That will appeal to everybody but the Volvo and SUV drivers who think that they are only safe because their solid steel box can demolish any other car in the road and make the poor economy car driver suffer that much more.

 

[Joey D]

The tax breaks for hybrid owners are also unconstitutional. It's at odds with the equal protection clause (multiple ways). In fact, I'd wager to say that most of the US tax system is at odds with the constitution. Hell the income tax wasn't even permitted until 1913 when it was amended into place.

All I'm trying to do is to get you to consider the proper role of government here. Not just whether it can attempt to force people to do what you think they should be doing - whether it's absolutely necessary and proper that the government should have that sort of role in our everyday lives.

BTW - The EPA is absolutely 100% expressly forbidden by the constitution currently. That only thing that holds it in place is people's tolerance of it.

Edit: So is the FDA, OSHA and basically every other regulatory agency in existence. Not to get off topic too far, but there is a good reason that the EPA is not allowed by the constitution - because the regulations the EPA passes are effectively law, but laws passed by unelected persons. That's not a representative system of government.

You still have to think realistically though, I would love for a perfect government but I realise that isn't going to happen.

 

[Danoff]

I don't wee why it shouldn't be a government thing.

You mean besides the fact that it's unconstitutional, invasive, and otherwise totally unnecessary?

And another solution? Make the automakers add lightness.

See above.

You still have to think realistically though, I would love for a perfect government but I realise that isn't going to happen.

You mean like holding out hope for a representative government? I agree it doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon. But I still think it's a good goal.

 

[FoolKiller]

I quick increase will make people change more and more quickly, and gas might start to level off as demand goes down.

Somehow that won't change the fact that my wife and I have careers 40 miles apart, or that many, many others in this country are the same way.

The problem with this idea is that, unlike European countries, the US is spread out and so it isn't uncommon for people to live in cities that areen't the same one they work in.

Make the automakers add lightness.

Add lightness? Aside from it sounding funny, wouldn't that mean lighter materials? So do we do that by using new, more expensive materials or do we force less safety features. I knwo my Rabbit would be lighter and more efficient without an airbag under every conceivable corner and impact beams behind every panel, but I would rather not be forced to give it up.


You know, artificially raising gas prices would do more harm than letting it go at its normal rate. Forcing more expensive, yet lighter, materials to eb used would do more harm as well. Currently gas is slowly going up. As it slowly goes up people can see it and adapt over time. In other words, get something moer efficient when they need a new car. Artificially hiking the price will make it so that those who can't afford to just grab a new efficient tech car right now will be caught in an ugly loop of nver being abel to afford one becuase the gas prices are ruining their budget.

And of course, it will spike prices across the board because not every truck fleet will be able to switch over immediately.


So, aside from being unconstitutional it would be economic suicide.

 

[Philly]

You mean besides the fact that it's unconstitutional, invasive, and otherwise totally unnecessary?

Even a tax increase would be unconstitutional? I'm not talking about fixing prices, but about having a petrol tax of some sort. We already tax the stuff we buy.

Somehow that won't change the fact that my wife and I have careers 40 miles apart, or that many, many others in this country are the same way.

The problem with this idea is that, unlike European countries, the US is spread out and so it isn't uncommon for people to live in cities that areen't the same one they work in.

Maybe in the more rural areas it might be cheaper. If you are in the city, you can take the bus, drop the kids off at school and get the groceries all in one trip to save gas.

Add lightness? Aside from it sounding funny, wouldn't that mean lighter materials? So do we do that by using new, more expensive materials or do we force less safety features. I knwo my Rabbit would be lighter and more efficient without an airbag under every conceivable corner and impact beams behind every panel, but I would rather not be forced to give it up.

Is all that weight gained between each new generation of a car all in an extra airbag for the passengers and one more crumple zone? Maybe this kind of thing could be solved with cars like the Fit and things. I guess I'm trying to way that it would be nice to see either the weight of cars come back down a little or just see more lighter cars on the road.

You know, artificially raising gas prices would do more harm than letting it go at its normal rate. Forcing more expensive, yet lighter, materials to eb used would do more harm as well. Currently gas is slowly going up. As it slowly goes up people can see it and adapt over time. In other words, get something moer efficient when they need a new car. Artificially hiking the price will make it so that those who can't afford to just grab a new efficient tech car right now will be caught in an ugly loop of nver being abel to afford one becuase the gas prices are ruining their budget.

It doesn't have to be the inclusion if more expensive materials. Automakers could just cram less stuff into their cars. Not every car has to be equipped like a Mercedes S class. but that might end up taking away some of the element of competition. The price of gas has been going up for a while now. I would assume that the people who cannot afford today's price of gas or the inevitable increase would have already jumped off the SUV boat a while ago. And again, cutting back on driving could do a lot to offset an increase in the price of gas. I assume that a higher demand for more efficient cars would drive the price of efficient cars down somewhat too.

And of course, it will spike prices across the board because not every truck fleet will be able to switch over immediately.

I'm not sure I quite understand this.....

So, aside from being unconstitutional it would be economic suicide.

Again, I don't see where it would be unconstitutional, and there are ways to make it not kill the economy.

 

[Tornado]

If you are in the city, you can take the bus, drop the kids off at school and get the groceries all in one trip to save gas.

There are still people in America that think public transportation is some form of communism. Besides, a look at LA and similar cities tells you that many people won't take public transportation if it kills them.

I'm not sure I quite understand this.....

Trucking fleets that transport everything from milk to cars to lumber wouldn't be able to immediately drop everything and replace the trucks they have with more advanced ones that get better mileage because the government felt it right to tax gasoline to force consumers to not choose cars they want to buy.

I assume that a higher demand for more efficient cars would drive the price of efficient cars down somewhat too.

Which is the single and only thing that car design should be based around. If someone wants a 400 hp, 4000 pound American car, they should damn well be able to buy it if a company is willing to sell it to them. You can preach "cars need more MPG" or "cars are too heavy," but unless the customer doesn't want that car, there is no logical reason as to why the company can't build that car for that person. And no one who says that there should be a reason has made any logical reason at all as to why there should be.
There should be no penalty to that person at all, and any form of taxation that gives Mr. Fit driver a fuel cost break is downright unconstitutional and IS a penalty to the person who wanted something with power.

 

[JCE]

If you read my post I am not dictating what people should buy, my idea/plan for regulating this sort of stuff just rewards those who do buy economically and would get the automotive companies thinking about more efficient but still fast and fun vehicles.

This will only happen when the market demands it. It may be slowly getting there but I don't think it will ever be a world full of cars like from the Jetsons where it runs on oxygen or some****.

I think having a big engine, high horsepowered car is a waste but that is MY OPINION, some that seems to get lost on many discussions on these boards (not just mine but many others as well).

Awsome, honestly I'm glad you have this opinion and state it with pride. I like many others do not share this opinion. Cars with power and or performance in general make me FEEL GOOD. A vehicle isn't as much of an A to B as it is A to B to C with my pants on fire. If technology improved well enough the best of both worlds will emerge.

I'm still yet to hear a valid reason for having a high horsepower car (truck is another story as I've said) other then track day use.

Because it makes people's little lives a little more tolerable. If daddy or mommy couldn't drive their sport saloon or coupe to work "lively" as they want it they would probably be depressed. Like it or not the A to B point of view is old and dated and not a valid excuse anymore. It is the 21st centry, automobiles are like clothing. Its something you wear and use everyday.

Not really, I mean look at hybrid drivers, they get a tax break even though they are driving around some pseudo green machine. Why should this be extended to the people who just buy efficient vehicles to begin with? That's really my point behind all of that, which I will admit I didn't really convey all that well.

I used to think people who drove REAL economical cars that get 40mpg + should get tax breaks...now I do not. If you CHOOSE to get a vehicle that gets good economy its because YOU WANTED TO BUY IT. If I buy a gas guzzler for my daily driver to replace my Camaro its because I wanted to. Conversely if I buy an economical vehicle its because I wanted to. The "break" I get from owning an econobox is not paying out of my ass at the petrol pump. THAT is the "bonus" people should get.

Being told I'm not allowed to "dictate" what people should be driving is what gets me. I am not saying everyone should drive X car because it gets the best mileage or you have to ditch your 400hp car that gets 17mpg. My feelings are automarkers should be focusing on things other then horsepower right now, nothing more, nothing less.

Hey, that's fine. I even somewhat agree with you there (the bold). However, they don't need to automatically dump the Mustang GT or Mustang GT500KR Super Snake just because people want them to "focus" on economy. You can do both, I just don't understand why people of your opinion don't seem to get that? YES I want Ford to focus on economy--but NO I don't want them to stop developing higher powered cars for people such as myself who love them. Does that make any sense?

There are still people in America that think public transportation is some form of communism. Besides, a look at LA and similar cities tells you that many people won't take public transportation if it kills them.

Trucking fleets that transport everything from milk to cars to lumber wouldn't be able to immediately drop everything and replace the trucks they have with more advanced ones that get better mileage because the government felt it right to tax gasoline to force consumers to not choose cars they want to buy.

Which is the single and only thing that car design should be based around. If someone wants a 400 hp, 4000 pound American car, they should damn well be able to buy it if a company is willing to sell it to them. You can preach "cars need more MPG" or "cars are too heavy," but unless the customer doesn't want that car, there is no logical reason as to why the company can't build that car for that person. And no one who says that there should be a reason has made any logical reason at all as to why there should be.
There should be no penalty to that person at all, and any form of taxation that gives Mr. Fit driver a fuel cost break is downright unconstitutional and IS a penalty to the person who wanted something with power.

+1 Strangely I'm finding myself agreeing with you more and more. Has hell frozen over? j/k

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Strangely I'm finding myself agreeing with you more and more. Has hell frozen over? j/k

I will also agree and add that taking the train in Chicago is a notch above getting raped.

 

[JCE]

I thought getting raped was fun for guys?

Well, if it is a female doing the deed maybe...

Oh, and only if shes at least half attractive...

 

[V1P3R]

I no longer see the point with the horsepower war. I think automakers should be focusing their efforts on something useful like alternative fuels that are actually viable, more efficient petrol and diesel engines till they find that alternative power source, safer cars, lighter cars using better materials, and so on. We live in an age where fuel prices keep rising and the demand for more oil is rising even faster with more nations getting on board the development train, we need to solve that first.

I agree... I have a friend that thinks since we are so technically well off we should make a car that has everything and does everything. I say why?! We should be going back to the Ford model T days (I'm not saying anything communist) but a revolution where EVERYONE embraces a technology or technologies that are more environmentally friendly. I'd say go back to the basics... I car that is the size of a Datsun 510 and max out keeping weight down and MPG up as much as possible. Yeah, there will be people saying they need their SUV or they use it but I see bull their. Go to LA and see how many people actually have more than one person in their car...

 

[JCE]

I would drive a Datsun 510 all day long... Such an awsome car. Nissan should start rebuilding them!!

 

[V1P3R]

I would drive a Datsun 510 all day long... Such an awsome car. Nissan should start rebuilding them!!

That and the Hachi Roku!

 

[Joey D]

I agree... I have a friend that thinks since we are so technically well off we should make a car that has everything and does everything. I say why?! We should be going back to the Ford model T days (I'm not saying anything communist) but a revolution where EVERYONE embraces a technology or technologies that are more environmentally friendly. I'd say go back to the basics... I car that is the size of a Datsun 510 and max out keeping weight down and MPG up as much as possible. Yeah, there will be people saying they need their SUV or they use it but I see bull their. Go to LA and see how many people actually have more than one person in their car...

Some people are going to need bigger vehicles, look at Gil and his family, they need something to haul them all around. There are also people who need to haul around their boats and other weekend toys (having a trailer with something on it is a past time here in Michigan I guess). But I would still say a majority of people do not need that. Looking back as much as I liked my Blazer a majority of the time I wasn't really using it, sure I towed stuff and hauled stuff in the back but that was one or two times a month at the most and I really could have just rented a vehicle for the day.

 

[FoolKiller]

Even a tax increase would be unconstitutional? I'm not talking about fixing prices, but about having a petrol tax of some sort. We already tax the stuff we buy.

A tax increase on gas or certain types of cars for the purpose of affecting the market? Yes. We are supposed to be a free market society, and a free market is not one where the government steps in and nudges things in a politically correct, or popular, way.

Is all that weight gained between each new generation of a car all in an extra airbag for the passengers and one more crumple zone? Maybe this kind of thing could be solved with cars like the Fit and things. I guess I'm trying to way that it would be nice to see either the weight of cars come back down a little or just see more lighter cars on the road.

Sure a lot of that weight is luxury items, but why should the government tell me I can't have those options? I love my speed sensitive power steering, power windows and locks, keyless entry, alarm, side mirror defroster, etc. I wanted those things when I went looking for a car. Some of them were on my list of must-haves.

The price of gas has been going up for a while now. I would assume that the people who cannot afford today's price of gas or the inevitable increase would have already jumped off the SUV boat a while ago. And again, cutting back on driving could do a lot to offset an increase in the price of gas. I assume that a higher demand for more efficient cars would drive the price of efficient cars down somewhat too.

And none of this requires artificially hiking gas prices through increased taxes or whatever.

I'm not sure I quite understand this.....

The stuff in your grocery stores, department stores, etc all gets shipped by a vehicle at some point. If you have noticed recently since gas prices have gone up so have other things. This is because shipping companies have to pay that fuel increase and then to keep turning a profit pass that increase on to the manufacturers/stores/whoever it is that pays them. And for those people to continue to make a profit they pass on that increase to the consumer. If you want to hike fuel prices artificially by a large amount to attempt to change the market you will be in effect hiking the price of every single thing you buy in a store. It won't just make the consumer pay more for gas and rethink their car, it will make them pay more for everything.

Again, I don't see where it would be unconstitutional,

Yes, taxes are allowed when they are uniform across the country (which is why Joey's idea is unconstitutional), and to pay debts and provide for defense and general welfare. What you are proposing would be to hike taxes, not to raise money for the stated reason but to sway the markets, which is not a power granted to Congress by the Constitution.

To increase gas taxes in a constitutional way you have to list a debt that requires it and cannot be paid in another way. If you give any other reason you have violated the limited powers of Congress as laid out by the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8.

and there are ways to make it not kill the economy.

Please, list them, or even one or two.

Because it makes people's little lives a little more tolerable. If daddy or mommy couldn't drive their sport saloon or coupe to work "lively" as they want it they would probably be depressed.

While this seems to be half in jest, this is very, very true. When I have a rough day at work and I am stressed or tired it all goes away when I sit in my car.

YES I want Ford to focus on economy--but NO I don't want them to stop developing higher powered cars for people such as myself who love them. Does that make any sense?

Total sense. 👍

 

[Joey D]

While this seems to be half in jest, this is very, very true. When I have a rough day at work and I am stressed or tired it all goes away when I sit in my car.

As do I, expect I drive a little econo box with barely any horsepower. I think to many people associate a fun car with horsepower which is not always the case and they end up missing out on some pretty solid vehicles.

 

[FoolKiller]

As do I, expect I drive a little econo box with barely any horsepower. I think to many people associate a fun car with horsepower which is not always the case and they end up missing out on some pretty solid vehicles.

Um, I drive a Rabbit so I am far from the big car group. But I don't think that was meant to refer to me.


Most people getting those cars seem to have their self-esteem rely on looking good, or they are just having a mid-life crisis and want that sports car they could never afford when they were a kid. Either of these situations probably just feel better at the end of the day because they have a 500+hp car. I know I would forget all my worries if I walked out to any Shelby GT Mustang model, new or used, in the parking lot.

 

[Joey D]

Um, I drive a Rabbit so I am far from the big car group. But I don't think that was meant to refer to me.

Most people getting those cars seem to have their self-esteem rely on looking good, or they are just having a mid-life crisis and want that sports car they could never afford when they were a kid. Either of these situations probably just feel better at the end of the day because they have a 500+hp car. I know I would forget all my worries if I walked out to any Shelby GT Mustang model, new or used, in the parking lot.

Nope it wasn't directed at you, it was more of a general statement on how I see many of the people who own high horsepowered cars. I know several people who own 300-400hp Trans Ams, Camaros, and Mustangs at school and they all have the same mentality (I know not everyone in the world that owns a high hp car is like this, just the ones I tend to cross paths with). When I told them about my new car they just mocked it because they said it was going to be slow and boring (something I think neither of when it comes to my car), heck, even look at the thread when I was trying to figure out what car to get and see what members had to say (not that I really cared).

I personally think people over look to many cars because of a horsepower number, I'm sure you have fun in your Rabbit while driving it (I didn't mind it when I drove one).

 

[///M-Spec]

Not really, I mean look at hybrid drivers, they get a tax break even though they are driving around some pseudo green machine. Why should this be extended to the people who just buy efficient vehicles to begin with? That's really my point behind all of that, which I will admit I didn't really convey all that well.

Being told I'm not allowed to "dictate" what people should be driving is what gets me. I am not saying everyone should drive X car because it gets the best mileage or you have to ditch your 400hp car that gets 17mpg. My feelings are automarkers should be focusing on things other then horsepower right now, nothing more, nothing less.

I think my opinion is fair, fuel prices are rising and fuel inefficient cars do drive the demand for oil up, I realise there are other factors but some of those are beyond our control...this one I feel isn't. I believe we should use our resources but I also believe we should manage them so we get the most out of them.

Well, there have been quite a few posts since I was in the thread last. I think FK and Dan has already fielded these questions, so no need to rehash. But I will reply directly to this one...

Sure it makes you happy. You are entitled to own whatever you like because it is your money buying it. I'm just curious why people feel they need to have a high horsepower car for daily driving, it's not really meant to be a dig at anything or start a fight...I just want to know why.

The easiest and simplest response is to say people like horsepower because it feels good. There's the physical element of raw acceleration that's exciting and fun. But instead of jumping off a cliff or sliding down the side of mountain, you're still in control. Then there's the alpha male lurking inside all of us that just likes to be faster, stronger, smarter, better looking and funnier than the guy standing next to us. It's id, ego and superego in sheet metal.

Speaking personally, I'm honest enough with myself to say I enjoy powerful cars for the same reasons. But I'm also pragmatic enough to say I'm willing to stop at a certain point when it stops making sense.

For the money, I could have gotten any number of sub-12 second cars. Way faster than my Z4. But I wasn't really interested in something like that because while I recognize the appeal of such a thing, it is ultimately of very limited usefulness.

I actually would have been happy with the 255 hp 3.0si had the deal on my M Roadster not come up. Occasionally, usually when I realize I've gone the whole week without going WOT once, I wish I had just gotten the 3.0si and pocket the extra change every month. But then I remember there's a lot more to the M than just the extra 75 horses and when I occasionally do hit the sport button and stretch its legs a little.. the smile on my face is worth it.

My final answer is to say it doesn't matter if you don't understand why something makes someone happy for the simple reason that you don't have to.

When I lived in the south, I knew several people whose idea of a good weekend was paying someone a couple hundred bucks to sit in a box in the middle of the woods with a gun and a case of beer, hoping an animal would come along so they could shoot it.

To this day I still don't understand the appeal, but I've also wised up enough to realize it don't matter if I don't get it. It's not my time, it's not my life. If I understood it, I'd probably would have been already doing it. People are going to do what makes them happy and it often isn't going to make sense to you or me or sometimes even themselves.


EDIT:

Nope it wasn't directed at you, it was more of a general statement on how I see many of the people who own high horsepowered cars. I know several people who own 300-400hp Trans Ams, Camaros, and Mustangs at school and they all have the same mentality (I know not everyone in the world that owns a high hp car is like this, just the ones I tend to cross paths with). When I told them about my new car they just mocked it because they said it was going to be slow and boring (something I think neither of when it comes to my car), heck, even look at the thread when I was trying to figure out what car to get and see what members had to say (not that I really cared).

That's because there is not a more insecure being on the face of the planet than a teenaged human male.


M