EPA: Stop Teh Horsepower War PLZ, KTHXBAI

[Philly]

*linky*

Margo Oge, EPA director-office of transportation and air quality, has made a plea to the auto industry to end the current horsepower wars that have produced such vehicles as the 620-hp Corvette ZR1. Instead, she hopes the industry, specifically domestic automakers, will start a new war, a green war, to create the "most affordable and desirable, low carbon-vehicle each year." Such a challenge, she claims, could help spark economic growth and see the transportation sector "reclaim the mantle of the country's economic growth over the next decade."

Her arguments, which can be read in more detail at Ward's Auto, are well reasoned, and while automakers can hardly deny their part in an arms race for more horsepower, many are also on the front lines of a battle to make green vehicles that are more desirable than their competitors. One need only look at the squabbling that goes back and forth between GM and Toyota over which is better, a series hybrid like the Volt or a parallel hybrid like the Prius. The latter two automakers, being the largest full-line automakers in the world, are forced to deal with the dissonance of producing desirable, high-horsepower sports cars and full-size trucks while at the same time being on the cutting edge of new green technology. It's not hypocrisy, it's the reality of offering many different types of vehicles to the widest range of customers.

And despite Oge's plea, automakers are keenly aware of what needs to be done in order to meet new, stricter CAFE standards by 2020. GM has already cancelled plans for a new V8 and Ford has practically committed itself to replacing eight-cylinder engines with more efficient turbocharged, direct-inject V6 powerplants. The rub is that any progress made by an automaker to make its vehicles more green cannot happen at the expense of performance, reliability and comfort. We want our new cars to be as good as they were last year in every way, with better fuel economy and cleaner emissions. It's a tall order, but don't worry Margo. Both federal regulations and consumer pressure guarantee they're working hard on it.

[Source: Ward's Auto]

I think the CAFE regulations will do enough to control where the government wants the automakers to go without an "armistice." And the cars that are in these "wars" make up a very small percentage of vehicles sold. I'm sure an truce on the "who can build the biggest, baddest truck" war would do far more good for the environment.

I'm also starting to wonder if they government is picking on the automakers because they are the largest private sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Certainly the Government won't want to spend their money to cut back on CO2 emissions by building new power plants using renewable sources and cut back on the biggest supplier of greenhouse gasses.

I wonder what their solution to the German power wars is going to be.

 

[High-Test]

*linky*



I think the CAFE regulations will do enough to control where the government wants the automakers to go without an "armistice." And the cars that are in these "wars" make up a very small percentage of vehicles sold. I'm sure an truce on the "who can build the biggest, baddest truck" war would do far more good for the environment.

I'm also starting to wonder if they government is picking on the automakers because they are the largest private sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Certainly the Government won't want to spend their money to cut back on CO2 emissions by building new power plants using renewable sources and cut back on the biggest supplier of greenhouse gasses.

I wonder what their solution to the German power wars is going to be.

The EPA hasn't done squat!! Their economy figures are grossly inaccurate, and now they want an end to the power war?

Stop the bigger truck war, and cut down on SUVs. Fire-breathing sports cars like the ZR1 make up... 5% of the vehicles sold?

Brainless Eunuchs..

 

[Kent]

The EPA hasn't done squat!! Their economy figures are grossly inaccurate, and now they want an end to the power war?

Stop the bigger truck war, and cut down on SUVs. Fire-breathing sports cars like the ZR1 make up... 5% of the vehicles sold?

Brainless Eunuchs..

👍
Pretty much right on...
Although, I don't even feel like they need to stop producing bigger trucks and SUVs. Those are leveling off in the market regardless of what the manufacturers would like.
At this point, I don't see why people at the EPA would think you have to be exclusively building one type of car.
I say there is plenty of room for the ZR-1, a Cobalt hybrid, and a Avalanche. 👍

Let the market (the people) decide what cars do well and what cars don't.

btw, I love the mention of grossly inaccurate figures. 👍
My Corolla gets average MPG that matches their label for highway cruising.

 

[exigeracer]

I'm also starting to wonder if they government is picking on the automakers because they are the largest private sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Wouldn't that be the aviation industry?

 

[Jim Prower]

I KNEW the government was out to control horsepower, I KNEW it!!! [/conspiracy theorist]

yeah, the environmentalists are barking up the wrong tree. AGAIN. I think they pick on the automakers, because they're the EASIEST TO CONTROL. Certainly, they'll do as little as possible to keep voters happy.

Someone just go mainstream with the news about Coal-Fired power plants being more radioactive than Nuclear Power, and hopefully you'll scare everyone straight.

 

[JCE]

The idiotic enviromentalists and the stupid EPA/CAFE/US Goverment and so forth should be concentrating their IMMEDIATE attention to the airline industry which is a ton worse than automobile industry IMO.

Offtopic: philly cheese I love your avatar.

 

[Philly]

Fire-breathing sports cars like the ZR1 make up... 5% of the vehicles sold?

I think you have some grossly inaccurate figures in there. Fire breathers are (probably) such a small figure that they might as well be statistically non-existent.

Wouldn't that be the aviation industry?

The idiotic enviromentalists and the stupid EPA/CAFE/US Goverment and so forth should be concentrating their IMMEDIATE attention to the airline industry which is a ton worse than automobile industry IMO.

You can't really do anything with the aviation industry. The only company you could control emissions-wise is Boeing, and they can only redevelop a plane every 30 or so years. Even then, it would be too much orchestrating with them and the engine manufacturers. I guess there is only so much you can do to the aviation industry that it isn't worthwhile.

Offtopic: philly cheese I love your avatar.

Thanks! I'll probably have to change it in a few days after the giants win.

 

[YSSMAN]

It isn't the worst thing ever... It isn't as though their statement is binding in any way, shape, or form. I personally don't fault their opinion/view on how the American automakers should be looking to go "green" (which is what we're doing), but yeah, it isn't as though its what everyone wants either.

Don't worry, our cool cars will still be available for purchase at your local Chevrolet, Porsche and Infiniti dealers...

====

BTW: This thread needs a snappy title!

EPA: Stop Horsepower War PLZ, KTHNXBYE

 

[Tornado]

So, the EPA wants domestic manufacturers who have already committed billions of dollars to just drop everything and focus on green technology, and the main reason is so it will spark economic growth? Commendable goal, retarded reasoning.

 

[YSSMAN]

Maybe the EPA should talk with the head of The Department of Commerce and get those automakers to build their "green" cars in the United States again. God forbid we do that anyone.

Wait...

The Volt will be built in Detroit! Huzzah!

I'm not sure how it would be creating jobs/stimulating the economy. People are interested in "green" technologies, don't get me wrong, but until the costs come down or have a reasonable enough benefit to offset that cost in a short amount of time, "regular" and otherwise "efficent" cars like that new 1.4L Turbocharged Cobalt (Astra and G5 too) should sell well enough...

The incentives are there, I guess. The market just has to demand it. I'm sure we're not far from seeing some "green" Focus or Caliber. Or maybe not. They're "broke" remember?

 

[Philly]

BTW: This thread needs a snappy title!

EPA: Stop Horsepower War PLZ, KTHNXBYE

Done!

So, the EPA wants domestic manufacturers who have already committed billions of dollars to just drop everything and focus on green technology, and the main reason is so it will spark economic growth? Commendable goal, retarded reasoning.

I wonder if the government wants the US companies to all turn into Toyotas. That's a bit like you described. I don't think GM and co. will be willing to depart from a more American style of building a car or they will be able to replicate the success of building cheap, reliable and economical cars liek Toyota can.

 

[YSSMAN]

They're going to do what the market demands, I think. People really do want more efficent, "green" cars if you will... But of course, they really don't want to give up the massive size and power too. The good news is that for the most part, there is technology on the shelf to both increase the "green" and keep the horsepower wars going (Ford's EcoBoost comes to mind...).

The EPA regulations don't start to take effect until 2011, and by then, my guess is that most of the American automakers will be set to slide with the regulations. Thing is, I keep wondering how the Germans will do it. They took years and years of paying-up to the EPA for not meeting the 27.7 MPG standards, and in some cases, I think they still do... Will it continue?

 

[JCE]

I wonder if the government wants the US companies to all turn into Toyotas.

I will promptly shoot people in the face and move to a non-extradition country and drive as many gas guzzling vehicles as possible while I spray large amounts of Chlorofluorocarbons into the air while waving my middle finger.

 

[TopHat]

I will promptly shoot people in the face and move to a non-extradition country and drive as many gas guzzling vehicles as possible while I spray large amounts of Chlorofluorocarbons into the air while waving my middle finger.

Amazing! 👍 Air rep!

 

[JCE]

Amazing! 👍 Air rep!

Thanks. I might just quote my own post in my sig.

 

[Joey D]

People are going to flame me for this but whatever, it's almost expected here now.

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.

We already have a couple cars on the market that boast over 1000hp and several reachable cars with over 500hp. Even some more reasonable priced cars have 400hp+.I ask what is really the point of all of this? Unless you take your car to a track, which is not something I would think most people do, you can never utilize the full potential of the car without breaking traffic laws on the street. If someone can give me a good solid reason for needing a 400hp, daily commuter car I would love to hear it...and the answer is NOT getting on the freeway, my little 118hp car does that just fine as did my big and heavy 190hp former truck.

I am not some "tree hugger", I'll be the first one to jump on someone who is flaunting the "car is warming the planet" gibberish, but I am a concerned consumer who doesn't really like where the price of fuel is headed.

If any automaker could come up with a car that was fast and was good on fuel then I would be all for it...the Audi R8 TDI is going the right way. But these 400hp cars that get what 15-17 mpg really isn't cutting it. In this day and age that number is far to low...hell even the 30mpg on my car is only "acceptable" in my eyes.

Even though you guys are going to make a mockery of this my suggestion would be give a tax break to people who buy cars that meet certain fuel economies...no just hybrid cars. Say if you are gets an EPA 30mpg city then you get tax break x, if you get an EPA 40mpg city you get tax break y, and so on. This would not punish the people that choose to drive higher power, thus lower fuel mileage cars, but it would reward those who choose not to partake in it. I see no reason to punish poor fuel mileage vehicle since that would just make an un-need tax.

 

[YSSMAN]

I will promptly shoot people in the face and move to a non-extradition country and drive as many gas guzzling vehicles as possible while I spray large amounts of Chlorofluorocarbons into the air while waving my middle finger.

I would post the Dennis Leary "A-Hole" video, but I'm not sure if it would fly, even the censored version...

 

[Philly]

We already have a couple cars on the market that boast over 1000hp and several reachable cars with over 500hp. Even some more reasonable priced cars have 400hp+.I ask what is really the point of all of this? Unless you take your car to a track, which is not something I would think most people do, you can never utilize the full potential of the car without breaking traffic laws on the street. If someone can give me a good solid reason for needing a 400hp, daily commuter car I would love to hear it...and the answer is NOT getting on the freeway, my little 118hp car does that just fine as did my big and heavy 190hp former truck.

I'll have to partially agree with this. I have 200 hp and can get over 30 mpg and can still have tons of fun at freeway speeds.

Even though you guys are going to make a mockery of this my suggestion would be give a tax break to people who buy cars that meet certain fuel economies...no just hybrid cars. Say if you are gets an EPA 30mpg city then you get tax break x, if you get an EPA 40mpg city you get tax break y, and so on. This would not punish the people that choose to drive higher power, thus lower fuel mileage cars, but it would reward those who choose not to partake in it. I see no reason to punish poor fuel mileage vehicle since that would just make an un-need tax.

Or better yet, have gas guzzler bracket A for cars under 25 mpg, B for under 20 and C for under 15. That would probably do more good than offering tax breaks. And that money could actually be put to something useful.

 

[Tornado]

If the people want big horsepower cars, and are willing to buy them when the companies make them, the government has no right to make it so they can't.
Horsepower is just a number. The government has no right to keep people from buying powerful cars, and they can't even cite a logical reason to do so (because power does not always equal low fuel mileage).
If people buy these powerful cars, and then bitch and moan because fuel is $4 a gallon, then you have every right to ignore them. But it isn't the governments' job to prevent people from lacking foresight.
The only reason I even tolerate SAFE numbers is because they are wholly meaningless.

 

[JCE]

People are going to flame me for this but whatever, it's almost expected here now.

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.

We already have a couple cars on the market that boast over 1000hp and several reachable cars with over 500hp. Even some more reasonable priced cars have 400hp+.I ask what is really the point of all of this? Unless you take your car to a track, which is not something I would think most people do, you can never utilize the full potential of the car without breaking traffic laws on the street. If someone can give me a good solid reason for needing a 400hp, daily commuter car I would love to hear it...and the answer is NOT getting on the freeway, my little 118hp car does that just fine as did my big and heavy 190hp former truck.

I am not some "tree hugger", I'll be the first one to jump on someone who is flaunting the "car is warming the planet" gibberish, but I am a concerned consumer who doesn't really like where the price of fuel is headed.

If any automaker could come up with a car that was fast and was good on fuel then I would be all for it...the Audi R8 TDI is going the right way. But these 400hp cars that get what 15-17 mpg really isn't cutting it. In this day and age that number is far to low...hell even the 30mpg on my car is only "acceptable" in my eyes.

Even though you guys are going to make a mockery of this my suggestion would be give a tax break to people who buy cars that meet certain fuel economies...no just hybrid cars. Say if you are gets an EPA 30mpg city then you get tax break x, if you get an EPA 40mpg city you get tax break y, and so on. This would not punish the people that choose to drive higher power, thus lower fuel mileage cars, but it would reward those who choose not to partake in it. I see no reason to punish poor fuel mileage vehicle since that would just make an un-need tax.

I have just one simply answer for you. Give the consumers the CHOICE and let them make up their own minds.

I am going to use Mercedes-Benz since that seems to be on everyone's "hit list" for some idiotic reason.

Lets examine the E-class for an example. And these figures are using the physically larger US gallon measurement of "mpg".

• If you want the luxury of a Mercedes BUT you want to be light on the wallet in terms of fuel fillups you have a CHOICE to buy the E-class BLUETECH diesel model that gets 675 miles to one tank of fuel. [source: www.mbusa.com] Oh, and an average of 26mpg. [source: www.newcars.org]
  
• If you want the luxury of a Mercedes but don't like diesel but you don't care much about a billion brake horsepower you can simply buy the standard E350 that still gets a respectable 19 MPG average. [source: http://www.newcars.org/trims/defaul...&l=1&m=&n=&o=0&p=0&q=0.0525&r=60&s=0&t=0&u=0]
  
• If you want the luxury of a Mercedes and you want power you buy the E550 sport saloon and still maintain a respectable average of 19mpg [source: www.newcars.org]
  
• If you want the luxury of a Mercedes and you want even MORE power and you could care less about fuel economy or price you buy an E63 AMG saloon that STILL gets decent average fuel economy of 15mpg--which considering the size and power of the engine and the car itself is pretty good. [source: www.newcars.org]
  
• If you want the luxury of a Mercedes but want the best fuel economy as possible and you don't prefer a diesel you buy a C300 with flex-fuel capability and you'll average 21mpg--which again for the size of the car is pretty decent. [source: http://www.newcars.org/trims/defaul...l=1&m=&n=&o=0&p=0&q=0.0525&r=60&s=0&t=0&u=0#]
  
• If you want the luxury of a Mercedes but you care about some spotted owl and the planet and all of that junk then you are a hypocrit as that model doesn't exsist.

And lastly, you as the consumer have the CHOICE to buy what you want. Again, YOU have the choice to buy that 1,000bhp monster that gets 4mpg or you could buy something that has 500bhp and is a little slower and get 15mpg or you could buy a VW Polo and get 70mpg. Its the consumers choice to choose what they want--that's how it works. I do not want anyone dictating to me what should be done across the board. If you want more economy you choose to buy an econobox. If you want a balance between usability, fun, and economy you have a plethora of choices. And even if you want something with further fuel economy than the normal you again have alot of choices--with new ones being developed everyday.

If I hear one more person wanting the complete change of the automotive industry to his or her personal preferrence I am going to explode. Why do people buy gas guzzlers? Because they want them. Petrol is VERY expensive in the UK but you still see people buying coupes and sports saloons with less than what you would consider "good" mpg which according to you is what 30mpg? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I think you typed in a post recently on this subject.

Now, having said all of that keep in mind I am all for technology improving and developing alternatives to the larger discplacement engines like what Ford and GM are doing. A twin turbo V6 that gets better mpg than a V8 and actually improves on the power output? V6's or V8's with cylinder deactivation and direct injection? Cound me in. That is worth while, and should be strongly considered by all auto companies as an alternative but not a complete solution and or "removal" of large engines or performance models with insane bhp.. But if you and others are wanting the complete demise of anything performance larger than a 3cyl or 4cyl then you are in the HUGE minority. Yes yes yes, small cars can be fun blah blah blah--yea well so car larger cars and larger engines. This topic really pushes my buttons because I"m getting rather irritated at people and organizations that are trying to change the entire automotive industry around the world because THEY feel it is best. Just have choices and let the people make up their own damn mind. If I want a V6 diesel in a Hummer that's my business, but if I choose to have my H2 with the petrol V8 and my 8mpg then I am prepared to accept the responsibility of paying my children's college fun to keep it full of petrol. That's my CHOICE as a consumer. Do I like Hummer's? No. Do I want the gas guzzling versions to go away because I feel they are bad for the world? No. Do I want a more economical alternative? Yes.

Nothing personal either (I didn't "flame" you anyway), I just get irritated discussing this issue.

 

[Joey D]

Inefficient, high horsepowered, affects everyone because if enough people own them the demand for fuel rises therefore taking the price up with it. This is why I am so against them, ya sure if you own $60,000 SUV you can probably afford the fuel for it but if all you can afford is say an old, run down, Honda Civic buying the fuel for it might be harder for you. I have a decent car and I make a fair amount at my job (I'm far from poor), and even I feel the affects of having to fill up now compared to 4 years ago.

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. 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). You are doing the same thing by saying what the automotive industry should do based on your feelings, why should I not be allowed to do the same thing? I respect you opinion on the matter as it is a valid statement, however I disagree with it because I personally see no reason to have a bunch of horsepower and thus poor fuel mileage is a car (trucks are another story because they are built to do work).

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.

 

[Jim Prower]

Uh...

All I can afford is a $1000 1988 Nova. and $20 at the pump every two weeks isn't killing me. I really don't care how much the other guy is driving my fuel up. In fact, I often look across the way and preak out into a wide grin, when I see how much the OTHER guy's paying.

Perhaps you need to take a deep breath, a step or two back, and just relax about it. You're doing your part. That's all you can do.

You've got to realize that you're on an enthusiast's forum, and we aren't logical creatures when it comes to cars. We're very emotional. So you're going to have to expect that your rather oversimplified, logical opinions are going to be met with resistance.

There's something about power that gets a gearhead going. somethimes the stock 200-odd HP in that mini isn't enough. for some, the only thing to do is to rip out the rear seat and put something ridicoulously powerful back there. the car is no longer a "Logical" daily driver, and, yet, there's another, very similar car that I'm some poeple use regularly: Clio V6 Renault Sport.

Is a Clio V6 a more logical car to own than a Clio Sport 2.0? No, not really, but the V6 offers an experience that the Clio Sport can't. That Mini, too, probably with an Smallblock or Rover V8 in it, is even further removed. and yet, they exist.

You cannot fault the automakers for offering something that is demanded. it's simple economics: if there is a demand, the way to make money is to supply that demand.

and supply they do, no matter how illogical it is.

 

[Joey D]

All I can afford is a $1000 1988 Nova. and $20 at the pump every two weeks isn't killing me.

What is you tank only 6 gallons and do you not drive? I pay $40 buck every 5 days and I drive a fairly fuel efficient car.

You've got to realize that you're on an enthusiast's forum, and we arent' logical creatures when it comes to cars. We're very emotional. So you're going to have to expect that your rather oversimplified, logical opinions are going to be met with resistance.

I understand that, but does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to give my thoughts on the subject? I'm all for fun cars that enthusiast like but I am also for high mileage cars that make the best use of the give resources.

There's something about power that gets a gearhead going. somethimes the stock 200-odd HP in that mini isn't enough. for some, the only thing to do is to rip out the rear seat and put something ridicoulously powerful back there. the car is no longer a "Logical" daily driver, and, yet, there's another, very similar car that I'm some poeple use regularly: Clio V6 Renault Sport.

Mini's don't have 200hp, the Cooper has 118 and the S has 178. But I am not talking about the Mini here at all, I'm just using what I drive as an example...I know it's not the fastest, the most fun, or most efficient car you can buy by a long shot.

You cannot fault the automakers for offering something that is demanded. it's simple economics: if there is a demand, the way to make money is to supply that demand.

I don't fault them for that, I fault them for not putting more effort into make better mileage cars (look I know alternative fuels aren't going to be done like that) while keeping the fun factor up. It doesn't seem like any company is really doing this.

 

[///M-Spec]

But it isn't the governments' job to prevent people from lacking foresight.

You're right. It shouldn't be the government's job to prevent people from lacking foresight. But if you look at the history of the US government and its vast social/corporate welfare programs, that's exactly what it does.

Lack the foresight to save money for your retirement? No problem. Social Security is here for you. Didn't have the foresight to see a sharp rise in subprime loans is going to spell big trouble when the housing bubble bursts? No problem, here's a 145 billion dollar refund. Uh-oh. Did you buy a house you can't really afford? Here's a freeze on your mortgage rates.

Put in most simple terms, people want to act like children. They want to do whatever they feel like, sometimes with scant regard for the consequences. And when **** happens, they want mommy and daddy to bail them out. And when the parents get tired of fixing their kids mistakes, they start to impose rules on what children can and cannot do.

If that sounds like I endorse government intervention and regulation, let me categorically say that I don't. But I understand the reasons why it happens.

I say let the market determine what gets built and what doesn't.

Inefficient, high horsepowered, affects everyone because if enough people own them the demand for fuel rises therefore taking the price up with it. This is why I am so against them, ya sure if you own $60,000 SUV you can probably afford the fuel for it but if all you can afford is say an old, run down, Honda Civic buying the fuel for it might be harder for you. I have a decent car and I make a fair amount at my job (I'm far from poor), and even I feel the affects of having to fill up now compared to 4 years ago.

I doubt the number of high horsepower cars like the ZR1 has any impact on oil prices. If you count up all the ZR1s, SRT-10s, Veyrons, 599s, etc. sold last year it would be a minuscule fraction compared to, say.. the total number of new cars built and sold in China and India last year.

Oil prices are rising due to overall increased demand, a reduction in production, speculation and local events. In other words, in addition to rising demand in the US, you are feeling the pinch at the pump because:

-The Patels and the Wongs are also filling up half a world away, not only for their cars, but for their factories, trucks, planes and ships.
-Oil speculators trying to make a few million bucks are also driving the price up on commodities markets.
-Many oil producing countries are at peak or close to peak production.
-Many oil producing countries are in politically unstable regions that interfere with production and transport.
-Inflation 'naturally' drives up the price of everything slightly.
-A weak US dollar drives up the price of all imported goods.

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.

Don't you think people who buy economically are already rewarded by the fact that they are buying (and therefore driving) economically?

And people who don't are already being punished by not?

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). You are doing the same thing by saying what the automotive industry should do based on your feelings, why should I not be allowed to do the same thing? I respect you opinion on the matter as it is a valid statement, however I disagree with it because I personally see no reason to have a bunch of horsepower and thus poor fuel mileage is a car (trucks are another story because they are built to do work).

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. But just because somebody disagrees and tells you so doesn't imply you're not allowed to.

Also, what we're talking about isn't pure opinion. It's not like you're stating a preference for vanilla ice cream and suddenly you have someone telling you that you can't and shouldn't enjoy vanilla ice cream but should like chocolate instead.

Complex opinions are based on facts and perception. Or at least they should be. But if the underlying facts that support an opinion are incorrect, then the opinion should be revisited.

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.

Maybe having a high horsepower car makes people happy?

Now, mind you this is coming from someone who believes his 330hp car can't be properly exercised on a daily basis and wants to keep it in the garage while he drives a 200 hp car to work.


M

 

[Jim Prower]

What is you tank only 6 gallons and do you not drive? I pay $40 buck every 5 days and I drive a fairly fuel efficient car.

If I ran the Nova down to empty, It'd probably be about ten gallons. Fuel prices go from $2.75 to $3.10, and I know a place where I can get a $0.10 discount if I use a Kroger card. My daily commute, I'd estimate at around 30-50 miles round trip, in varying, usually city, traffic, and with a rather heavy gas pedal. and with a 70HP 1.6 2bbl with a high gear pretty close to 1:1.

I understand that, but does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to give my thoughts on the subject? I'm all for fun cars that enthusiast like but I am also for high mileage cars that make the best use of the give resources.

You make a point. You have every right to voice your opinion...but that by NO means means anyone has to like it. See Rush Limbaugh for example.

Mini's don't have 200hp, the Cooper has 118 and the S has 178. But I am not talking about the Mini here at all, I'm just using what I drive as an example...I know it's not the fastest, the most fun, or most efficient car you can buy by a long shot.

Yeah...got me there. Sports Compacts are still very popular among the youth market: if only we could convince more adults...

I don't fault them for that, I fault them for not putting more effort into make better mileage cars (look I know alternative fuels aren't going to be done like that) while keeping the fun factor up. It doesn't seem like any company is really doing this.

Perhaps we really can't have our cake and eat it, too. High mileage and performance can be done, but at the cost of other things: smoothness, safety, and, if they pull off those two, it's usually MONEY that gets in the way. Space is a problem, as well...we seem to be awful antisocial when we step into cars nowadays, to the point where I got into a Charger and thought, "Woah! this thing's HUGE! I don't think I like this..."

There are a select few cars that get everything but the space right. If we can have that last part of the equation, we'd have the perfect commuting device.

With space, safety, etc, comes weight, and weight is the enemy of both speed and efficency. I'll grant you this: if the automakers can figure out a way to reduce the weight without decreasing safety, rigidity, quietness, and without increasing harshness and, most of all, cost, then we'll have the most fantastic fleet of vehicles there's ever been.

Pretty steep task, Huh?

 

[Joey D]

Don't you think people who buy economically are already rewarded by the fact that they are buying (and therefore driving) economically?

And people who don't are already being punished by not?

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.

Also, what we're talking about isn't pure opinion. It's not like you're stating a preference for vanilla ice cream and suddenly you have someone telling you that you can't and shouldn't enjoy vanilla ice cream but should like chocolate instead.

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.

Complex opinions are based on facts and perception. Or at least they should be. But if the underlying facts that support an opinion are incorrect, then the opinion should be revisited.

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.

Maybe having a high horsepower car makes people happy?

Now, mind you this is coming from someone who believes his 330hp car can't be properly exercised on a daily basis and wants to keep it in the garage while he drives a 200 hp car to work.

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.

 

[FoolKiller]

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 they want to.

The most valid reason any American has for any non-necessity that they can afford.


And it isn't as if more horsepower makes them guzzle more gas:
1990 Corvette ZR1: 17mpg/26mpg 380hp
2007 Corvette ZO6: 16mpg/26mpg 505hp
(edmunds.com)

Technically they are more efficient. They could translate the efficiency to gas mileage, but the people who are buying them don't want that.

No one is really using more gas unless they upgrade from a Cobalt to a Corvette. Really, I don't see the problem unless we all switch to supercars.

The problem is that people are assuming that more hp means less mileage and the EPA is abusing the general public's ignorance to appear like they actually have a purpose.

I wouldn't be surprised if the goal was to attempt to create a second-class citizen mentality the way the anti-smoking groups have done.

 

[Joey D]

Perhaps we really can't have our cake and eat it, too. High mileage and performance can be done, but at the cost of other things: smoothness, safety, and, if they pull off those two, it's usually MONEY that gets in the way. Space is a problem, as well...we seem to be awful antisocial when we step into cars nowadays, to the point where I got into a Charger and thought, "Woah! this thing's HUGE! I don't think I like this..."

There are a select few cars that get everything but the space right. If we can have that last part of the equation, we'd have the perfect commuting device.

With space, safety, etc, comes weight, and weight is the enemy of both speed and efficency. I'll grant you this: if the automakers can figure out a way to reduce the weight without decreasing safety, rigidity, quietness, and without increasing harshness and, most of all, cost, then we'll have the most fantastic fleet of vehicles there's ever been.

Pretty steep task, Huh?

We have all sorts of materials out there which if made en mass would decrease the cost of them quite a bit...carbon fibre comes to mind. It's expensive now but as it becomes more and more common on vehicles I do not see why the price would go down. It's possible to do it, it's just going to take a lot of work from engineers and lots of creative thinking...something the automotive industry as a whole seems to be lacking.

Because they want to.

The most valid reason any American has for any non-necessity that they can afford.

I can't personally accept that as a reason.

 

[Jim Prower]

The primary problem with Carbon is this: it's laid out by hand. the only way I could think ot actually manufacture it without gross amounts of manual labor is to find some way to create the carbon strands DIRECTLY on the part being produced. We don't have that technology yet.

 

[Joey D]

The primary problem with Carbon is this: it's laid out by hand. the only way I could think ot actually manufacture it without gross amounts of manual labor is to find some way to create the carbon strands DIRECTLY on the part being produced. We don't have that technology yet.

People have probably said the same thing about everything being massed produced today. I'm sure someone will come up with the technology, we have quite a few brilliant people in the world...it's just a shame I'm not really one of them and can't come up with these ideas we need.