Capn Pete

You're supposed to save those type of "stunts" for a race track . Or get A LOT more experience first. I'm not going to be the person (hypocrite) to tell you that you shouldn't be attempting these types of "stunts" on public streets, BUT, with more experience behind the wheel, you'll at least be able to seperate the "stupid" ideas from the REALLY stupid ideas!! (like, take that 25 mph corner at ~50 mph, instead of ~70 mph ).

fredmr39

too much would be 200+ hp more than the competition to the point where prices are too high and unreasonable... as long as there is competition, there will obviously be a battle of hp... and without competition, where would we be?

OutKlast

IMO this is where something like the German licensing program would be better; much more rigorous testing just to get a license. Everyone should have to complete some pretty intense road course work just to get a license period. And stricter enforcement of road rules. Speed doesn't kill its usually when there’s someone doing 40mph in the fast lane and then that person has to slam on the brakes to avoid them. Or the person weaving around the slow lanes at 80mph. Right now in the US there’s such a huge emphasis on speed alone. 65-70mph is legal but still deadly with reckless driving.

As to insurance that’s why I drive a v6 can't afford insurance on a v8. My insurance now is $2800 a year and I'm on my moms plan that also includes her car (she has also never been ticketed/in an accident). I've never had a ticket; I've been in one minor accident (not my fault, my insurance paid nothing). If I jump up to the 8 that’s $3200-3500 a year.

Casull

What market are you in! California!?

AdioSS

I have to wonder if this thread would exist if the Nissan GT-R were rumored to make 600hp?

Robert_Nashville

Why would you even ask the question? Did you not read the initial post or do you jsut want to create an issue where there isn't one? This isn't a Nissan vs GM issue or any one manufacturere vs any other manufacturere isssue.

Yes, this thread would exist if the GT-R was going to be priced in the $30-$40K range. The issue isn't just high horsepower, it's high horsepower in cars brand new from the factory that is widely available (because of price) to a significant cross-section of the buying public.

Cars with significant HP costing near or above (or well above) six-figures are rare enough and difficult enough to obtain that they aren't going to raise an alarm on anybogy's radar, but put a few hundred thousand Camaros or Mustangs or Chargers, etc. with 450HP+ and top speeds in excess of 160-180 and you could have a backlash waiting to happen - does anyone really want a "Mothers Against HorsePower" group on the evening news protesting the horsepower available to the average kid/young adult???

T/A-Bob

This thread just caught my eye. Good points above.

I was finishing high school in the late 60s / early 70s, and I remember clearly what happened when the HP ratings exploded. A couple things... First, the OEM's HP ratings started to get ridiculously conservative... for example, the 426 street hemi at only 425 HP.

But the main thing that happened was that the insurance rates went insanely high for young drivers who had cars with high-HP-per-pound ratios. It basically became financially impossible for a young driver to insure a high-HP car. That's what ultimately "regulated" the situation. I'm not saying this is right (or wrong), but this is what happened.

I also remember at the time, much discussion like in this thread, that the age of the driver shouldn't be a deal-breaker, that their own personal driving track record should be the main thing, etc, etc. But the insurance companies didn't see it that way back then, and they ended up calling the shots.

I have no idea how or if the insurance companies will get involved this time around...

Once the "gas crisis" and the switch to no-lead fuel came in, (all within a few years), that was the end of high HP cars for a very long time. I personally regard the intro of the Gen II LT1 in 1992 as the first of the new era of high HP mainstream engines.

flowmotion

I'd be curious to see some real statistics on the causes of accidents. In particular the breakdown between:

1) People driving drunk
2) People talking on the phone/adjusting the radio/otherwise not paying attention
3) People breaking speed limits, running stop lights, breaking other traffic laws
and
4) Random situations that could be avoided by emergency maneuvers by a trained driver

I guess what I'm getting at here is that all the driving school in the world isn't going to help you when some idiot rear-ends you in traffic. And if most accidents are unavoidable, it probably wouldn't make that much difference in your rate.

Plus, I'm pretty dubious at some of the reasoning here -- the insurance company wants you to take 25MPH corners at 25, not learn how to do it at 50MPH without crashing.

Casull

One more I'd add to that list is sleep deprivity. Man I can't tell you how lucky I am not to have had a wreck, or killed myslef, just for driving tired.... IMO it can be far worse than driving drunk sometimes.

Robert_Nashville

It’s true of course that no amount of training can protect you from the stupidity of other drivers…as long as people are hell-bent on being idiots behind the wheel everyone else is at risk. And of course, that's true no matter how much horse power a vehicle has.

That said, high performance driving courses are not simply about driving a car to it’s limits every time a person is behind the wheel; it’s about being able to control your car…being able to handle a car not just at speed but in an emergency (like avoiding idiot drivers).

If a person is stupid enough to take 25MPH corners at 50 all the time then they will eventually pay the price, either in terms of traffic tickets or in an accident but that is a matter of the stupidity of the individual driver and not the result of any courses he has taken…I suspect that someone doing as you suggest is already doing so without any training (which makes him even more dangerous) and probably reading, talking on his cell phone and nodding off now and then as well.

Insurance companies have already gotten behind this idea in other countries and they would here too I believe; not because they want everyone out there driving like they are in the Indy 500 but because insurance companies like things that save them money and people who DO know how to drive well and are able to control their cars in emergency situations (as opposed to just thinking they drive well) tend to have fewer accidents which save everybody, including insurance companies, money.

Capn Pete

AFAIK, here in Canada you can be charged with "Impaired Driving", and that does not have to mean "DUI - driving under the influence" ..... exhausted tired, like you said, is equally as dangerous, and you are therefore legally "impaired".

flowmotion

I agree. But if anyone understands statistics and actuarial matters, it's the insurance companies. It seems to me that if they could save themselves (and you) some meaningful money by encouraging driving school, they already would.

Maybe that's giving them too much credit though

T/A-Bob

I think it's easier and cheaper for the insurance companies to simply make it very difficult for young people to insure high-powered cars. It's got to be expensive --and a hassle-- for the insurance companies to process the accident claims... lawyers, paperwork, body shops, possibly law suits, etc. Also expensive and a hassle would be defining what is an "acceptable" driving school curriculum, certifying the schools, etc, etc... just not worth it. So it's easier to just boost up the rates for those "undesirables" (young driver + powerful car).

A similar example... my brother works for a LARGE financial institution that issues residential mortgages. He says the worst thing that can happen is that they have to foreclose on someone's house. While I'm sure there's people at the mortgage company who feel genuinely bad about having to take someone's house away, the main reason they don't want foreclosures is the cost and hassle of dealing with them. It's easier and more profitable for them to "weed out" people they feel are remotely close to not being able to make their mortgage payments, and not give them the loan in the first place.

I suspect this same type of simplistic thinking goes on at the auto insurance companies, too. All they want to do is collect your premiums. Period. Everything else is a hassle for them.

Robert_Nashville

Then doesn't that just bring us back to the question I asked at the beginning..."how much horse power is too much"? What good is it, really, if Camaro's and other "modestly priced" cars with significant HP (as in 400+) end up not being bought because the people who most want them (typically "younger" drivers) can afford the cars but can't afford the insurance coverage (or perhaps, can't get insurance at any price)?

T/A-Bob

I think you are exactly correct. I suspect that the high HP cars will end up in the hands of rich young people or older people whose insurance is not so bad in the first place. The younger/poorer people will have to settle for one of the lower HP versions (V6?) Typically, the "base models" are the best sellers and the have the least-powerful engines.

I suspect that market forces (which includes peoples' pocketbooks, the insurance companies, GM, etc, etc) will determine how much HP is "too much" over time.

EDIT: I mean, you already have people on this board who are struggling to make insurance payments on their LS1s. The insurance payments will be even worse for the next generation of 400+ HP engines, IMO.

Sometimes, the auto manufacturers make big noise about their high HP engines since that helps create their performance "image" and also gets people into the showrooms. I wonder how many people exposed to the Cobra or other high-end Mustangs end up (happy) buying the base model?