there is a reason there arent more fuel efficient cars, and we are turning to hybrid technology. internal combustion engines as we know them cant get much better MPG than what we see now. hell, you could get 35-40 MPG out of a chevette, and that isnt a new car. pacer-x i think summed it up very well.

detltu, from what i have always been told by automtive engineers is that to acheive a much higher percentage of efficiency than roughly 35 percent would be nearly impossible due to several reasons one of which would be the need to redesign engines dramatically and the cost of the materials to do so.

 

I've warned about this anti-hp thing at least twice on this board, some people thought I was nuts, some thought I had a good point.

All it takes is a few nutties in the media like this commie bastard (that's tongue-in-cheek for those that take yourselves too seriously) and a couple of do-gooder legislators in Congress or even just in California, and we have a full blown assault on HP.

Wait till a couple people die in accidents with 500hp cars and this writer hears about it. Perfect way to make a name for yourself, crusading against the "antisocial" greedy capitalistic excess of macho cars.....

 

You're very correct, "extremely" is pretty vague. Maybe I should have said "nearly optimal".

 

A complete editorial with 0-60 times mixed in. There is so much nonsense that it hardly warrants a reply.

Needless to say, the writer can be run over by a 500hp Corvette while crossing a street just as easily as by a 135hp Mini (both vehilces can also reach speeds of 100+ mph). It's really a matter of driver's willingness to obey the law, regardless of what vehilce they are driving. Should sixteen year-olds be driving high-horsepower vehicles? Probably not. Trouble finds sixteen year-olds regardless; why make it easier? That's a judgement for the parents to realize and enforce. But shouldn't I be able to purchase and drive such a vehicle as a responsible adult?

Nostalgia, unsupported bias, and opinion aside, she/he does present good points regarding the viability of hydrogen and the automakers intentions to build favorable image with such concept vehicles while neglecting improvements that can be made for today. Of course, all credibility was subsequently extinguished with the "horsepower kills" tirade.

 

Chris 96 WS6 I agree with you - for once .

We're here on this forum 'cuz we all love mega HP and auto-motive muscle - the bottom line and yes, between us we have a varying specrum of personal views on the environmental impact of cars and what should be done to lessen or negate it (or not if that's your viewpoint). That article is so warped and anti-automotive that it's not funny. Even if we drove 500 HP cars that managed 100 mpg, did not contirbute to global warming, fed the homeless, rescued orphan kittens & puppies and could protect the occupants from a 300 mph crash without a scratch there would still be such folk clamoring for a ban on our high HP cars.

 

So I guess someone who enjoys driving a sports car/roadster is just SOL because if you want to survive on the road, you need to be driving a gigantic SUV? If any restrictions need to be made, it's on the number of gas-guzzling, hardly-regulated, large SUVs and trucks that people seem to have adopted as everyday family transportation.

This is all a separate issue from the original topic, but you seem to be bragging of running over small vehilces because, basically, it is more safe to drive a tank and the other driver should have known better. And you're right; the smaller car's driver won't live to buy bigger next time. But not everyone who drives a sub-compact is doing so for tree-hugging, fuel sipping reasons. I'd wager there's a fair share of drivers who can only afford a $10k Aveo, not a $40k SUV. And there are plenty more who wouldn't want one anyways.

Unlike the the hp issue, where improved safety and fuel economy can be sited, the march for bigger, heavier trucks and SUVs does nothing to improve safety for anyone and compromises the freedom for others to be reasonably safe while driving smaller cars (which most likely are much more fuel efficient).

 

calm down, and breathe....this is an opinion/editorial....Easterbrook personally does not make the cars, he does not work for the industry in any way, and he caters no influence over those in the industry...He gets paid to write his opinions, and that is what he has done here...write a rebuttal to the "commie bastard" if you feel that strongly about it...

and for the record, i may be a communist, but i'm NOT a bastard (or is that the other way around? )

 

I drive faster in my 190hp Jeep than i did in my 330+hp z28. Guess the author has a lead foot or something. And the majority of wreckless drivers and speeders that i have run into on the road are driving underpowered pos's. Just about any car today can reach triple digit speeds. The problem isn't hp but a lack of control on the drivers part. You want to reduce accidents and improve safety? Don't waste your time and money on restricting cars...spend that money and time on making better drivers out of the general public. A dumbass will get him/her-self and the people around them into real trouble regardless of the vehicles output.

 

exactly
we need better drivers, not slower cars

and yea, i don't see us getting much better economy out of our existing ic engines without hybrid tech or some other kind of method
the problem is the efficiency (as stated above) is about as good as it gets with the design of the current engines (just the way the parts move, work, etc.)
so yea, until somebody really really wants some high economy (like say CAFE), we won't be seeing a groundbreaking revolution in engines

 

http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au...55E902,00.html
this is too funny to not post

"I'm just sorry I got caught"

 

I knew somebody would take exception, because there's always somebody here that thinks their opinion is relevant enough to make a mountain out of a proverbial mole hill that I create.

I am aware it is an editorial. But the popular media pushes it agenda through editorializing.

And for the record Communism is the greatest evil that has ever been perpetrated on Earth, as communist regimes are responsible for at least 30 million deaths worldwide, mostly their own people. Stalin alone presided over the murdering of 20 million Soviet citizens. This makes even Hitler, who was evil enough in his own right, look like a pansy in comparison. Just because we never fought an all-out war vs. communism doesn't make it any less of a monumental struggle for the will of mankind.

Communism is (was, as its basically intellectually dead outside of cloisered universities) a godless, hopeless, corruption of an idea of utopia that cannot ever actually be achieved, all while glorifying the society above individual identity and rights.

If you are a Communist, I sure feel pity for you.

Oh, wait....I can hear you typing your reply now. It'll go something like "communism in its truest form has never actually been implemented, and if it was then it would work." Riiiiiiight. It continues to be an ideology of dreamers and not doers, of rich trust fund kids and college professors, all guilty that they have it better than someone else. I suppose China and its rampant human rights abuses are your last best hope, or the hopelessly poor Cuba. I'm sure the Cubans prefer their destitute poverty over America, because at least they are all equally poor.

You just couldn't let my bastard comment go....that's precisely my point...there's always somebody in this forum that has a chip on his shoulder and thinks he has to respond to me and try to cut me down. I find it simultaneously entertaining and annoying. There's plenty of fellers in this forum that I like and enjoy reading, and there are a lot of people here that constantly annoy the crap out of me because they take exception to every little quip. I can always count on somebody thinking they have to take some sort of stand....

 

He shoots...He scores...

 

Preach on brother!


BTW... I think you have the number of deaths low by about 70 million or so... but hey... after surpassing 29 million, I think the numbers lose their impact anyway.

 

True. Who cares how many workers have to die to create the workers paradise?

Sorry to steer the post so off course though. I just found it fascinating this guy decides now is a good time to inform us all that he is a Communist. What possible relevance does this have to the thread itself? Like I was suggesting in my first post, the comment was tongue-in-cheek....yet invariably there is at least one guy who takes a comment personally (even though since I don't know the person, it couldn't possibly be personal) and decides he has to respond. I'm sure I will get blamed for something subsequent to this (like being a big meanie), but IMO he picked the fight by opening his mouth, because if I were really trying to make a political statement, I would have, like I did in my response.

 

Yeah... 29 million... 110 million... as long as they died for a good cause, what's the difference?