sedan hp wars & high gas prices??

[imported_Aurora40]

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE HP a the ability to haul ***, I do so daily in my Rex, but am I willing to give some of it up to better the environment and lessen our usage of fossil fuels, damn straight I am!

:lol Ha ha ha!!! That is classic! You call Americans pompous and greedy, imply we pollute more than the rest of the world (ever been to a third world country?), and say the government needs to make the choice for all of us. Yet you don't even practice what you preach! You start out saying you're willing to give up some power to save some fossil fuels (and therefore, apparenlty, we all should be not only willing to as well, but should be forced to). Well then do it already, the government doesn't have to make you. There are many, many cars with better fuel economy than a WRX. Why aren't you out selling your car and buying one right now? :tribe:

 

[imported_Amused]

:lol Ha ha ha!!! That is classic! You call Americans pompous and greedy, imply we pollute more than the rest of the world (ever been to a third world country?), and say the government needs to make the choice for all of us. Yet you don't even practice what you preach! You start out saying you're willing to give up some power to save some fossil fuels (and therefore, apparenlty, we all should be not only willing to as well, but should be forced to). Well then do it already, the government doesn't have to make you. There are many, many cars with better fuel economy than a WRX. Why aren't you out selling your car and buying one right now? :tribe:

Yes, I do call Americans pompus and greedy...and we do as a nation pollute more than the rest of the world...and I have been to third world countries...and I have experienced life outside of the US as I used to live in China and Australia(have you?). Did I say the government needs to make our personal choices? No, I actually said they should raise the standards at which cars are rated against to lower pollution and dependence on fossil fuels. It's a part of their job, to look after the welfare of the environment. We elect them to do this and I don't think they're honoring their end of the bargain. If cars are held to higher standards, the technology will be there to push those limits to offer the consumer better, faster, stronger, which doesn't mean sacrificing precious hp in the long run, just in the short term for the industry to catch up. The industry knows what we want and will innovate to provide the goods. It's guaranteed.

And about my WRX...yes, it's fun as hell to drive, but it's a guzzler, and I'm not happy about it. I actually bike to work now and take more public transportation. Will it be on the market? Sure will, as soon as I find a condo.

 

[Florida-LS]

The other day I was stuck on I4 here in Orlando. Next to me was a brand new, 505HP Vette and apparently a friend of his in a Lambo of some sort. Absolutly amazing cars.



Then there was me, sitting in my 260 horsepower V8 LS. And we were ALL at a deap stop. Next to me was some high school kid in an 80 horsepower Geo Metro and he was at a dead stop as well.



Point being, horsepower is fun but there comes a point when I think it's overkill.



My Lincoln goes like stink and is plenty for me.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

The real kicker is that SUVs, which take up a hefty chunk of what's on the road these days, aren't subject to the regulations cars are held to and they spit out a much higher concentration of exhaust pollutants. What's up with that

This is no longer true (finally!). This was one of the true tragedies of the mid-70's CAFE and the Clean Air Act, that "trucks" were excluded, because back in the day, a "truck" was what the plumber drove to your house, trucks were almost exclusively commercial vehicles. By the late 90's, over 50% of vehicles sold (Pickups, SUV's, many minivans) were classified as "trucks" and were exempted from the fuel economy, emissions, and safety regs that passenger cars have to comply with. I don't even think that covers the weight discrepancies and bumper height differences that made "truck"/car collisions so dangerous.



We all want to have a free country, but it's the government's responsibility, as has been noted, to act as a "parent" and apply "tough love". BTW, CAFE was never structured to prevent anyone from buying a gas guzzler, it was a method to increase the average fuel economy, that means you can still have guzzlers on the bottom end. Anyone here who lived thru the 70's gas crises and the early 80's when a "fast" car clicked off a 10 second 0-60 run would have to agree it's pretty absurd when family sedans are regularly in the 6-second range. A CAFE increase wouldn't mean you couldn't buy a fast car, it would just cause the car makers to dial back a bit, trade a bit of hp for mileage.



As has been alluded to, I don't think the average Camry owner is going to miss 30 hp from their V6.

 

[imported_Amused]

This is no longer true (finally!). This was one of the true tragedies of the mid-70's CAFE and the Clean Air Act, that "trucks" were excluded, because back in the day, a "truck" was what the plumber drove to your house, trucks were almost exclusively commercial vehicles. By the late 90's, over 50% of vehicles sold (Pickups, SUV's, many minivans) were classified as "trucks" and were exempted from the fuel economy, emissions, and safety regs that passenger cars have to comply with. I don't even think that covers the weight discrepancies and bumper height differences that made "truck"/car collisions so dangerous.

Thanks Mike, I stand corrected...I forgot that SUVs were clumped into the light truck category, which is subject to CAFE regulations.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

Thanks Mike, I stand corrected...I forgot that SUVs were clumped into the light truck category, which is subject to CAFE regulations.

Well, it was just a year or two ago that the laws finally caught up to the current reality of who drives light trucks.

 

[imported_Aurora40]

It's a part of their job, to look after the welfare of the environment. We elect them to do this and I don't think they're honoring their end of the bargain.

I think you meant "I" not "We". You elect them to look after the welfare of the environment, or at least you seem to claim you do. Everyone is not you. If you want to talk pompous, try re-reading your posts. Personally I'm a lot more interested in electing people who will impinge the least on my free choice.

If cars are held to higher standards, the technology will be there to push those limits to offer the consumer better, faster, stronger, which doesn't mean sacrificing precious hp in the long run, just in the short term for the industry to catch up. The industry knows what we want and will innovate to provide the goods. It's guaranteed.

You just said the industry knows what we want and will provide it. And earlier you suggest we all want to save the environment (because deep down you must be right and we must all secretly feel the same way). So then, how do you reconcile this with saying the government should force these standards on us? You just said we all want it, and that industry knows this and will strive to meet it. So why the need to force it on people as well?

And about my WRX...yes, it's fun as hell to drive, but it's a guzzler, and I'm not happy about it. I actually bike to work now and take more public transportation. Will it be on the market? Sure will, as soon as I find a condo.

Amazing, so it sounds like there's a solution for people who care already.

 

[imported_Amused]

I think you meant "I" not "We". You elect them to look after the welfare of the environment, or at least you seem to claim you do. Everyone is not you. If you want to talk pompous, try re-reading your posts. Personally I'm a lot more interested in electing people who will impinge the least on my free choice.

I think it's funny you consider instating tighter regulations on emissions and MPG as a breach of your freedoms. How does lowering emissions and increasing MPG affect your freedom of choice? If technology is able to meet these marks and continue to deliver high output high performance vehicles, how does that affect your freedom of choice? Would you prefer a car that can produce 500bhp/500lb-ft that gets 32MPG or one that outputs 500bhp/500lb-ft and gets 26MPG?

We elect officials to look after the country and the world. The environment is only one of the many issues that they address. I don't think anyone wants to elect anyone into office who will limit our freedoms, but we as citizens aren't responsible enough to parent ourselves in many areas, hence the government steps in. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need a governing body, but this isn't an ideal world.

 

[Florida-LS]

My 2002 Explorer XLT 4X4 is a LEV.

 

[imported_Aurora40]

If technology is able to meet these marks and continue to deliver high output high performance vehicles, how does that affect your freedom of choice? Would you prefer a car that can produce 500bhp/500lb-ft that gets 32MPG or one that outputs 500bhp/500lb-ft and gets 26MPG?

If technology were able to meet those marks, then as you said, we'd already have them. Because industry wants to provide people with what they want, and that's what they want. Right? Isn't that exactly the argument you previously made?



In regards to your choice, it all depends. Would I take a 500hp car with 26mpg over one with 32mpg? Possibly. What if the 32mpg car cost twice as much? What if it was less reliable? What if maintenance was both more expensive and more frequent?



There are 500hp cars now that make 26mpg, while other 500hp cars make much less. Why do you think they don't make 500hp cars at 32mpg? Is it because no one cares? Or because it's not feasible? If the government said today "you can't sell this 500hp car until it makes 32mpg", would the technology to allow that magically appear? Is the current and near future technology capable of enabling this without an increase in cost or complexity?



Or would peoples' choices just be limited to what you feel is acceptable...

 

[imported_Amused]

If technology were able to meet those marks, then as you said, we'd already have them. Because industry wants to provide people with what they want, and that's what they want. Right? Isn't that exactly the argument you previously made?

Not necessarily. Without regulations, there is little incentive for the industry to invest in cutting edge technology. They'll do what's least impactful on their bottom line in order to make profits and maintain enough revenue to continue trudging along with R&D.

In regards to your choice, it all depends. Would I take a 500hp car with 26mpg over one with 32mpg? Possibly. What if the 32mpg car cost twice as much? What if it was less reliable? What if maintenance was both more expensive and more frequent?



There are 500hp cars now that make 26mpg, while other 500hp cars make much less. Why do you think they don't make 500hp cars at 32mpg? Is it because no one cares? Or because it's not feasible? If the government said today "you can't sell this 500hp car until it makes 32mpg", would the technology to allow that magically appear? Is the current and near future technology capable of enabling this without an increase in cost or complexity?



Or would peoples' choices just be limited to what you feel is acceptable...

Ok, let me scale it back even more. Would you rather have a 500/500/26 vette or a 500/500/32 vette at a comparable cost? No matter what, the cost of R&D will trickle down to the consumer until it becomes common, hence no regulations are set for the immediate future and are forecast years and years down the line.

 

[tustah]

To get all the old people to drive faster instead of accelerating 0-20 in 6 seconds.



Joking.

 

[topnotchtouch]

You're an optimistic one, Bob! :laugh:

Gotta tell ya, I would rather be an optimist than a pessimist. :2thumbs:

Well, once China hits its stride in development/expansion, the oil crisis will really start to blow up. When we begin paying what the people pay in the UK($7/gal regular) I think our feelings on this subject will all change.

50 MPG and a heck of a lot more fun than a Prius

 

[imported_Aurora40]

Ok, let me scale it back even more. Would you rather have a 500/500/26 vette or a 500/500/32 vette at a comparable cost? No matter what, the cost of R&D will trickle down to the consumer until it becomes common, hence no regulations are set for the immediate future and are forecast years and years down the line.

I think we are going around in circles here. I don't think you're really getting what I'm saying. Perhaps I'm not explaining it well or perhaps you aren't interested, or perhaps you just think it's wrong.



So I'll try once more. You say those are both possibilities at comparable cost. I say they aren't. Two years ago, what was the best economy you could get in a 500hp car? Probably nowhere close to 26mpg on the highway. GM had, let's say a tech breakthrough. Now you can. How is it you think that enables a 32mpg 500hp car? It may someday, after another breakthrough. But it doesn't today. GM strove for that breakthrough today without any sort of government push, but rather because they felt a customer would want one, and they were right. Saying the car needs to be at 32mpg today won't make it achievable. If you think it is achievable today, where's the proof? Where's a car that does that? And does it do it in an appealing way? A car with, say 1,000 lbs of batteries that can make that power for a short burst is probably not appealing, in spite of meeting the criteria.



Now say it's 10 years later and the technology does exist. Why should a car company be limited to making a 500hp car at 32 mpg when maybe I would prefer to buy a 650hp car at 26mpg (that would be possible also). Who are you to say which should be an available choice?



Some of you think 268hp is too much for a sedan. Some of us think 268hp is nothing. Why is it one group should be able to force their opinion on another? If you don't want 268hp, buy a less powerful car. They are out there for the buying.

 

[Tasty]

I think he was just making the point that, all other things about the two cars being equal, would you buy a 500 hp car with 26 mpg, or a 500 hp car with 32 mpg. It's a no brainer. If everything else were the same you'd take the car with better fuel economy. That's what I was getting from his post. He's not necessarily saying it's achievable right this second.

 

[imported_Aurora40]

I think he was just making the point that, all other things about the two cars being equal, would you buy a 500 hp car with 26 mpg, or a 500 hp car with 32 mpg. It's a no brainer. If everything else were the same you'd take the car with better fuel economy. That's what I was getting from his post. He's not necessarily saying it's achievable right this second.

Well if it's just some arbitrary thing with no basis on reality, then of course it's a no brainer. I'd also take a 10,000hp car with 100mpg over the 500hp/26mpg one. Or how about a million horsepower in a car that produces gas? What's the point of mentioning some pie-in-the-sky thing though?

 

[Tasty]

Actually it was a well made point I thought. If you could have power AND economy of course you would want both. The fact is that the technology for better fuel economy is out there NOW without pricing the consumer to death. When is the last time CAFE standards were revised? The answer: When they were created in 1975 due the the oil embargo of the '70s. Do you think in that period of time that there haven't been major advancements in fuel economy that could have been implemented? Why is it that this country only talks about better fuel economy when our oil lifeline is in jeopardy of being severed? We should be moving toward better fuel economy constantly. It's just smart for the economy and everyone's bottom line. There is only so much of this stuff in the ground, and it amazes me when people lose sight of that fact.



Even if CAFE standards increase it is argued that greater efficiency leads to greater consumption. If people get better mileage then they are inclined to drive around more and burn up more energy. Also, people argue that to meet CAFE standards automakers have resorted to building smaller, lighter cars which has lead to more deaths on the highways. This is a complex problem that can't be solved on these forums obviously. I just think that our reliance for energy on a country that hates us, and yes the Saudis do hate us, is irresponsible. Other answers are only sought when crisis becomes imminent. It's an idiotic policy, and one that will stagnate this country when the poop finally does hit the fan.

 

[imported_Aurora40]

Actually it was a well made point I thought. If you could have power AND economy of course you would want both. The fact is that the technology for better fuel economy is out there NOW without pricing the consumer to death. When is the last time CAFE standards were revised? The answer: When they were created in 1975 due the the oil embargo of the '70s. Do you think in that period of time that there haven't been major advancements in fuel economy that could have been implemented?

Absolutely there have been. Which is why horsepower on average has gone up a lot. An average car today is much much more capable and performs better than one from 1975. If you look at what happened when those were introduced, and more importanty when emmissions requirements were introduced, it had a big negative impact on the cars available for purchase because the technology really wasn't there. The government could impose the requirements, but it couldn't make it possible to meet them. It really wasn't until the 80's and electronic engine controls (plus better catalytic convertors and such of course too) allowed cars to push up in horsepower while still being clean and economical. This innovation didn't stem from government mandates, though. It stemmed from buyers wanting performance, and the technology finally coming into place to support it. That's what has pretty much pushed all advances in cars, is knowing people will buy it. Cars have come a long way since 1975, and that's without any changing of CAFE since then. So how is it you think updating it now will somehow create huge automotive advances?



Again, you are saying the technology is out there now. I disagree. But shut me up. Show me the 500hp car that gets 32 miles per gallon.

Why is it that this country only talks about better fuel economy when our oil lifeline is in jeopardy of being severed? .... .... ....

I wouldn't have been a fan of CAFE in the 70's either. Your argument hinges on a person accepting that CAFE initially was a good idea in order to say that it therefore makes sense to modernize and update it. Those regulations had a terrible immediate effect on automobiles then, why would I want to see that happen again? Like I said, there are cars that barely sip gas for sale right now. If people want that, they can buy it. If they don't want it, who am I to say they have to?

 

[Tasty]

Did you read my posts? I pointed out some very negative effects of CAFE standards, and I think I made it pretty clear they are not the total answer. I also pointed out in a previous post that the 500 hp 32 mpg car doesn't exist. However, I stand by the fact that the technology is there. You pointed right to how it has been used incorrectly in most instances. We have increased HP and torque exponentially with the tweaking that has been done. It could have been used for other things. Once again, you can't look at where the auto industry is and the global energy situation and think that it is a smart direction. If you can, then have fun putting your Hummer and giant V8 engines in mothballs when gas goes even higher.



If the automakers could double mileage on cars in ten years back then why have they basically stagnated in the following 20 years? Aren't we MORE technologically advanced than we were back then? I would say so and that again we reveled in cheap fuel that has been priced artificially low in this country. Therefore you see cars like the ridiculous H2 and Ford Excursion being built.

 

[imported_Amused]

I think my hypothetical of 500hp/500lb-ft/32mpg was taken too literally and I probably should have used more realistic figures. I think Tasty understood what I was talking about and tried to clarify it in his posts above. There definitely isn't an engine out there that can do this at the moment, and probably won't be for a long time, if ever. GM, DCX, and Toyota have taken strides in developing engines that can shut off banks of cylinders when cruising. This in itself is one example of technology that has been developed to satisfy both the consumers desire for hp and the governments desire to up mpg. I think it's pretty impressive stuff!



With respect to early on when CAFE was introduced, auto makers clearly weren't investing in R&D in this area, hence the numerous years of ramp up. As with anything, there is ramp up time when tackling a new venture. But, technology has advanced exponentially in the past decade in all areas...computers, manufacturing, textiles, medical, etc. Companies now won't face such a gigantic hurdle in order to achieve higher goals. They have most of the necessary machinery and software in place for R&D and are capable of hitting their marks easier and quicker.



EDIT: Post was edited because I hit submit by accident.