http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums...howtopic=11317

Sorry if this is the wrong forum for this, but I thought you guys would want to see it.

 

The author notes that there are 18 cars at the NAIAS with 500-hp ore more. How many of them are over $75,000 and/or limited production cars or not even production cars..just concept/prototype?

It seams like the big case is that cars are faster than they use to be...thats a nice observation, now STFU.

 

i personally like the "that's cool, now go buy a kia rio" comment

yea, high hp is only a problem with the wrong people

 

Can't read it. Gotta register and I've lost my password... why there's a password to read an article is beyond me, BTW...

Copy and paste please cause I'm lazy.

PacerX <---- loser

 

DAILY EXPRESS
Hold Your Horsepower
by Gregg Easterbrook

Only at TNR Online
Post date: 01.17.05
he cheerleaders, I mean automotive press, have departed, and over the weekend the annual North American International Automotive Show was opened to the public. You can gawk here at the flashy cars on display; detailed reporting on the event can be found here at The Detroit News auto show site. The theme of this year's cars was more: more power, more gizmos, more weight, more cost, even more safety features. But at this point what we need from cars is less.

Much of the buzz at the car show was about frills, of course. Heated steering wheels and air-conditioned seats, for example. What's an air-conditioned seat? Cooling ducts run through the seat, keeping your posterior chilled in summertime. Some new Lincoln models have dual-position air-conditioned seats, with settings for cool and cold. Video screens for the backseats are coming into vogue. (Cell phones will soon be able to receive television and movies; we will exist in dread of lunatics who flip open their cell phones, position them on the dashboard and watch television while driving.) On the safety side, computer-controlled stability systems, now installed on some luxury cars, may represent the next big advance, making rollovers and spinouts less likely. These systems are expensive, so it's unclear if government will mandate them. Washington still has not mandated that cars have heated side mirrors, a safety feature whose cost is minimal.

Lots of cars at the auto show were described in press reports as "futuristic," though none to my eye looked as visually revolutionary as Raymond Loewy's Studebaker Avanti, which hit the streets in 1963, nor as fresh conceptually as the BMW 2002 sedan, which arrived in the United States in 1971, nor as original in utilitarian terms as the first minivan, the Dodge Caravan of 1984. Several hydrogen-powered prototype cars were on display, but bear in mind that Detroit is talking hydrogen to divert attention from the fact that it is doing nothing about regular MPG. If hydrogen is to be used by vehicles on a large scale, the element will need to be manufactured using substantial amounts of electricity generated by nuclear power. A recent issue of the technical journal Nature estimated that replacing current U.S. automobile petroleum with hydrogen would require construction of 200 new Three Mile Island-scale nuclear power plants to generate the electricity that makes the hydrogen. Whenever you hear an automaker or our president or the governor of California rhapsodize about hydrogen, bear in mind that this is strictly to divert attention from inaction on raising fuel economy using existing technology.





The big "more" of the auto show is more horsepower. Eighteen models on display at the show boasted 500 horsepower or more. And these aren't race cars, but rather models intended for the street. Five-hundred horsepower is not only obscene but antisocial: Such power is useful only for drag-racing, cutting off other drivers, and speeds well beyond 100 miles per hour. The other day I was motoring down the wonderfully named Democracy Boulevard in Montgomery County, Maryland, doing 50 miles per hour in a 35 zone. A middle-aged woman yakking on her cell phone blew past me at perhaps 75 miles per hour in a shiny new BMW 545i, which has 330 horsepower. Driving 75 miles per hour on a suburban street with pedestrian crosswalks and bus stops is socially irresponsible. But in a high-horsepower car, all you need to do is tap the throttle pedal for an instant and you're at 75. The more horsepower, the easier it is to drive like a maniac.

And more horsepower is everywhere. This chart shows that in 1975, when the fuel crunch hit, new cars in the United States averaged 136 horsepower. The average declined to a low of 99 horsepower in 1982, as manufacturers scurried to raise fuel economy. (Higher horsepower means more gasoline burned.) Really, 99 horsepower isn't enough for anything larger than a minicar; you need enough horses to be able to accelerate, especially at freeway merge lanes. But in the last two decades, average horsepower has been climbing steadily. In 2004, the typical new car had 184 horsepower, and the typical new SUV or pickup truck used as a car--SUVs and pickups used as cars now account for about half of new vehicle sales--had 235 horsepower. That rolls together for an average of about 210 horsepower in new passenger vehicles sold in the United States. In other words 2004 cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks offer more than 50 percent better horsepower than passenger vehicles in 1975. (At that time there were no SUVs, and using a pickup truck as a car, rather than for commercial work, was rare.)

Ever-higher horsepower is the reason the overall fuel economy of new U.S. vehicles is now at its lowest since 1988. Engineers have steadily made automotive power trains more efficient--but nearly all the efficiency has gone into power, not MPG. Other things being equal, a one-third reduction in the horsepower of new vehicles would lead to roughly a one-third increase in their miles-per-gallon numbers. And a one-third increase in the MPG of new cars and SUVs is all that is required to eliminate petroleum imports from Persian Gulf states! The calculations are here.

Cutting average horsepower by one-third would still leave the typical new vehicle sold in the United States with more horsepower than the typical new vehicle of 1975. Yet Congress and two consecutive two-term presidents have taken no meaningful action to raise fuel economy of vehicles, and horsepower isn't even being discussed as a problem. Do you think there's a "right" to horsepower? Puh-leeze. Perhaps you've got a right to horsepower for vehicles used exclusively on private property. Cars and SUVs are driven on public roads, and courts have consistently held that government can regulate vehicles for public safety and for public-interest issues such as pollution reduction and petroleum savings. You don't have any "right" to test a rocket engine in the street or drive a bulldozer on the highway, because such things imperil public safety. High horsepower, which imperils public safety, needs to be regulated.

But suppose you don't care about petroleum imports, greenhouse gases (which are proportional to fuel burned), or the fact that aggressive, overpowered cars and SUVs are a root cause of road rage, which makes driving unpleasant for everyone. Wouldn't you still care that more horsepower means more people dead--especially, more young people dead? How fast was the BMW 2002, the first really cool car that many Baby Boomers lusted after? The 1971 BMW 2002 did zero-to-sixty in 11.3 seconds. Today the average new car or SUV does zero-to-sixty in 9.9 seconds--the average new vehicle is now faster than the BMW 2002. Many cars are much faster, and not just sports cars. The new Honda Accord V6, a family sedan, does zero-to-sixty in 6.7 seconds. The Mazda Protégé, an affordable small car, does zero-to-sixty in 6.9 seconds. The new Ford Mustang GT does zero-to-sixty in 5.6 seconds, which used to be a Ferrari time, and costs only about $25,000, placing it within the reach of most Americans. Volvo now builds a model that does zero-to-sixty in 5.4 seconds.

All this power makes it increasingly easy for drivers, especially young drivers, to get in trouble. A Ford LTD of the 1960s, the sort of land yacht so many Boomers learned to drive on, did zero-to-sixty in 13 or 14 seconds--you had to work really hard to spin it out. A car that does zero-to-sixty in just a few seconds, on the other hand, is distressingly easy to lose control of. High-horsepower cars that gain lots of speed with just a touch of the throttle are practically a death sentence for teens or careless drivers. Horsepower, surely, is the reason road fatality numbers aren't dropping much, despite the spread of air bags, antilock brakes, and other safety improvements.

The other day I was dropping two of my kids off at high school, and noticed a girl in the seniors' parking lot stepping out of a shiny Acura TL with paper tags, indicating it was brand new. The Acura TL has a 270-horsepower engine and does zero-to-sixty in 6.0 seconds. Basically, it's a machine designed to kill that girl. There are lots of such machines, designed to kill customers, on display at the auto show. What did the press reports talk about? Styling.



Gregg Easterbrook is a senior editor at TNR and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution.

 

His point was lost when I read the phrase / word "Puh-leeze." Is he in 8th grade?

 

Glaring errors:

Higher horsepower does not inherently mean lower fuel economy.

The statement that a 1/3 decrease in horsepower would equal a 1/3 increase in fuel economy is utter bull****.



"or the fact that aggressive, overpowered cars and SUVs are a root cause of road rage"

I wanna see the science behind the statement that road rage is directly related to engine output. Very curious causality there if ya ask me....



"Horsepower, surely, is the reason road fatality numbers aren't dropping much, despite the spread of air bags, antilock brakes, and other safety improvements."

Define "much." Deaths per million miles driven have dropped like a stone since 1975.


"There are lots of such machines, designed to kill customers, on display at the auto show."

Killing your customers tends to be a negative contributor with regard to repeat business.



"But in a high-horsepower car, all you need to do is tap the throttle pedal for an instant and you're at 75."

Or not. Duh.



"Several hydrogen-powered prototype cars were on display, but bear in mind that Detroit is talking hydrogen to divert attention from the fact that it is doing nothing about regular MPG."...

I will GUARANTEE that the use of DOD on the GM trucks will have a greater impact on fuel usage than the Toyota and Honda hybrids COMBINED will.



"Washington still has not mandated that cars have heated side mirrors, a safety feature whose cost is minimal."

Define "minimal."


Other points to ponder:

Safety = mass. Safer cars are heavier cars, without fail. Mass works against fuel economy, so take your pick... lighter, less safe and more fuel efficient or heavier, safer and less fuel efficient. Physics are physics, and the #1 physics rule of vehicle collisions is "be the cue ball."

Wanna get better fuel economy? Accelerate more slowly, maintain a constantly low speed and shut any and all accessories off. Because someone has 300hp available doesn't mean they have to stick their foot in the throttle body all the time, and I'd like to know what Mr "Holier-than-Detroit's" driving habits REALLY are. Does he ensure that his A/C is NEVER used to ensure that the rain forest (jungle...) is protected? His A/C causes extra greenhouse gas emissions... so does his radio... and his heater... So if he's so darned concerned, I suggest he pulls EVERY power accessory off of his car so that we know he's genuine.

Electric cars aren't mentioned in here, but they're as stupid an idea as the author's. We make electricity in this country BY BURNING COAL. Hydrogen, on the other hand, can be produced all kinds of ways - including coal gassification, which is MUCH cleaner than BURNING THE ****.

 

Hmm, if an acura tl with 270 hp is designed to kill its owner, our fbodys with 350hp must be like a a 5000lb bomb or soemthing

Ranting about trucks and suvs having more HP then cars is insane. They weigh 2 times as much! 235 HP in a truck that weighs 5300lbs is not a lot.

 

eh...it's just an op-ed piece...there are no doubt plenty of sites which offer their own dissenting opinion (the autoextremist for starters)...

I've read Easterbrook before, and he's usually good about showing all sides of an arguement (but not in this piece, evidently)...It would have been proper for him to mention that for starters, about 80% of the 500+ HP cars at the show are concepts that will never get built, or built with seriously downgraded engines...He also neglected to mention that overall, cars are MUCH safer than they used to be at speed...Technological advances in brakes, tires, suspension, aerodynamics and active handling have darn-near idiot-proofed many performance cars (yes, i know, nature always invents a better idiot)...These aren't exactly the mid 60s, with the skinny polyglas tires, torsion bar suspensions, and drum brakes that when added to high horsepower could have equaled danger in the hands of the careless

 

The only thing that stuck in my mind that entire article.

 

I agree with him almost entirely...We are being over-saturated with HP and its at the expense of important things like fuel economy...
Maybe on paper, but in reality, if manufacturers had spent more money on fuel saving measures and implementing them on all vehicles rather than researching and developing more powerful engines, we would have a much higher fuel economy average today. We have basically hit a ceiling ever since the mid-80's while HP has almost tripled. If cars today were a 1/3rd as powerful as they are, we'd probably have AT LEAST 1/3 better average fuel economy, or at least cheaper cars.
Thats why I said I 'almost' agree with him entirely, this is just a dumbass comment. Idiots are the source of all road rage


BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA4325k45lfa;lkfdjdl f;dlfjaait43l,mc!!!!!!!

:blah: Tell that to Smart drivers

The radio doesn't use nearly as much power from the engine as A/C does, hense affecting fuel milage MUCH less.

Cars that can regenerate electricity are wasting no burning coals Not that I know, but I'd imagine coal gassification costs much more than burning it. Also, if an electric car driver owns a house that is completely self-sufficient and doesn't use out-side electricity, then he is not wasting any coal.

 

I understand his points. Don't agree with them all but I understand. And frankly if the horsepower wars keep going there WILL be government intervention. Yes those 500 horsepower cars are limited production and high dollar cars NOW. But the 300-400 horsepower cars are soon to be common place. Hopefully the government visionaries will not strangle off the car makers by instituting some kind of kill joy government regulation that states you can only manufacturer cars with 250 or less horsepower. But I wouldn't be adverse at all to reguiring a special hi-po vehicle license for people who want cars of that power level. It would keep the power out the hands of the people who don't have any business behind the wheel of such a monster. Put the requirement of any street car with over 400 bhp requires a special license like a motorcycle. I'd do that if I knew the 19 year old kid next to me had to have gone through the same kind of drive training so I wouldn't worry that he's going to paste himself or me because he couldn't handle it.

 

Did that "land-yacht" sized LTD of the 1960s he mentioned going 0-60 in 13-14 seconds have the fuel economy of today's cars?

And uhm... based on the argument... how much horsepower was in one of those same LTDs?

FANTASTIC EXAMPLE

 

So go buy a gas-sipper. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head here. You wanna putt around in a little rattletrap, fine. Gimme 5500lbs. of steel any day.

Nope. Efficiency is efficiency. What's the fuel economy on cars at the top end of the efficiency scale??? That's right, it hasn't moved much in the past 20 years. Why? There's only so much energy in a gallon of gas. Changes in engine efficiency are much more difficult to come by than making power is. With power, you're just figuring out how to get more fuel and air into a motor in a given period of time- nobody EVER SAID YOU HAD TO USE MAXIMUM POWER EVERY TIME YOU ACCELERATE. With fuel economy you're trying to squeeze the last Joule of energy out of a given amount of gas, when you're already dealing with an extremely efficient system in the first place. Fuel economy is governed by the law of diminishing returns - power is just a function of ramming more air and fuel into a motor.

Won't have to, they'll learn the hard way the first time they try conclusions with a Suburban.

Quantity is not the issue here, that it does is. And since he's so damned concerned about baby seals and the rain forest he needs to yank out his radio... or he's a hypocrit.


WRONG. Cars use MUCH more energy than a home does. Go figure out how much energy it takes to run a car down the road at 70mph for an hour and then figure out how much energy your house uses per hour. The car uses VASTLY more.

 

"It is not commonly known, and certainly seldom published, that the very best automotive internal combustion engines are only around 28% efficient, when considering the energy in the gasoline and that actually developed in the spinning crankshaft. Many of the common automobile engines are only around 21% efficient. (This is actually considered good, since common automotive engines of 1970 had around 15% thermal efficiency!)" Note this measures the power of the fuel versus the return at the rear wheels

The maximum Thermal effeciency of the Otto cycle is around 56.5 percent. Most ENGINES in todays cars are 25-30% efficient. I wouldn't say that is extremely efficient but you are definately right that it is easier to increase horsepower than fuel effiiciency and I think the advances in fuel efficiency are very impressive. We have twice the horsepower of a lot of the cars he is talking about and many of the cars with twice the horsepower get much better fuel economy than their older counterparts. I'm sorry but the guy who wrote this article gives a lot of partial truths and speculation to make a point that is not accurate. Too much horsepower. NO SUCH THING!

edit: not disagreeing with PacerX at all really just thought I would point out some stuff.