PDA

View Full Version : Do Cars have too much horsepower?



jmcclain19
01-19-2005, 12:07 PM
Don't know if I fully agree with Easterbrook's idea that regulating it will help automotive safety and fuel consumption, but it's an interesting take I hadn't heard or thought of, thought I would pass it along for digestion.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=easterbrook011705


Hold Your Horsepower
by Gregg Easterbrook

Only at TNR Online | Post date 01.17.05

The 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.

Red Heeler
01-19-2005, 12:20 PM
Rigorous drivers' education classes will do far more to stem auto fatalities than reducing horsepower. It is the driving practices of many Americans which gets them into accidents, not the cars they are driving.

RedsBaron
01-19-2005, 12:27 PM
No.
I'd rather see SUVs counted as cars for EPA mileage regulation purposes. Horsepower alone does not equate poor gas mileage. By way of example, we have three vehicles. Our 2000 Ford Ranger has four wheel drive and a V-6 probably making 200 horsepower; it gets about 16-18 mpg. My wife drives a 2005 Chrysler Pacifica with all wheel drive and a V-6 putting out 250 horsepower; I think it averages around 18 mpg. My 1992 Corvette has a 5.7 liter V-8 that makes 300 horsepower and 330 footpounds of torque-I'd guess it would be good for a 0-60 time of just over 5 seconds; I average 25 mpg.

Steve4192
01-19-2005, 12:27 PM
I don't see one shred of evidence to support the theory that increased horsepower = increased accidents/fatalities. Heck, forget about causality, he doesn't even bother demonstrating that auto accidents are on the upswing versus 'the good old days'.

It's a nice theory, and it might be true, but he really offers nothing to support his opinion.

dman
01-19-2005, 12:31 PM
Rigorous drivers' education classes will do far more to stem auto fatalities than reducing horsepower. It is the driving practices of many Americans which gets them into accidents, not the cars they are driving.
I've been a State Trooper for nearly 10 years. I could not agree with you more on your take. In 10 Years I've handled nearly 25 fatal crashes. Only once did one of those crahes involve a high performance or high horsepower vehicle. As was said, it is all in the driving practices of the drivers. Also what I have found out about high performance vehicle owners is that they have the mentality that they spent so much money on their vehicles that they don't want to go around dogging them all of the time. Babying their vehicles, if you will.

REDREAD
01-19-2005, 12:54 PM
Interesting take by the article.

I'm not sure how much government influence I want in the car market place. If someone wants to buy a monster truck that only gets 2 MPG and is willing to pay for the gas, they probably should be able to.

On the other hand, the article makes a good point about how it would be nice if the US did drive more efficient cars. Less gas consumption would probably also lead to lower heating oil costs, which would help lower income people as well. So I can see his arguement for forcing people to buy higher MPG cars for the greater good. (Aside from whether the solution is reducing HP or not, he makes a good point there).

Redsfaithful
01-19-2005, 02:45 PM
Interesting article, thanks for posting it.

At least the guy is talking about a way to reduce our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. Something has to be done, and this might not be that something but it should be discussed at least.

CbusRed
01-19-2005, 04:26 PM
At least the guy is talking about a way to reduce our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. Something has to be done, and this might not be that something but it should be discussed at least.


Hydrogen Fuel Cells

Wave of the future.

Redsfaithful
01-19-2005, 04:30 PM
Hydrogen Fuel Cells

Wave of the future.

I agree with you if this isn't true.


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.

Rojo
01-19-2005, 04:35 PM
If someone wants to buy a monster truck that only gets 2 MPG and is willing to pay for the gas, they probably should be able to

And if someone wants to open a rendering plant next to your house?

I'm not overly concerned about horsepower but I am concerned with MPG. Regulate the MPG and the horsepower will follow.

CbusRed
01-19-2005, 04:35 PM
I agree with you if this isn't true.

There are alot of other issues that must be resolved too before these would go into production, like safety. A high impact crash, causing the burst of a hydrogen fuel cell would cause the car, its contents, and anything in very close range to it, to become cryogenically frozen instantly. kinda scary.

As far as the nuke plants go, I think it would be a good trade off to have 500 nuke plants, but take away the pollution caused by gasoline cars.

Redsfaithful
01-19-2005, 04:46 PM
As far as the nuke plants go, I think it would be a good trade off to have 500 nuke plants, but take away the pollution caused by gasoline cars.

You might, and I might as well, but the people living next to those 500 plants are going to disagree. And they're going to be very loud with their disagreement.

Red Heeler
01-19-2005, 05:33 PM
What should bother people is that the technology exists right now to become almost completely independent of foreign oil. Ethanol is clean burning, cheap to produce (from renewable resources grown right here), and will fuel a gasoline engine with only a small amount of modification. The biggest problem is keeping it "dry" as it is miscible with water. However, this is also a big advantage. Spill it somewhere or light it on fire, and it can be easily taken care of.

Johnny Footstool
01-19-2005, 06:06 PM
I'm not sure how much government influence I want in the car market place.

The government already has a ton of influence. It regulates emissions, safety standards, etc. Requiring automakers to produce a certain percentage of cars that pass MPG standards wouldn't be so terrible.

Redsland
01-19-2005, 06:10 PM
What should bother people is that the technology exists right now to become almost completely independent of foreign oil. Ethanol is clean burning, cheap to produce (from renewable resources grown right here), and will fuel a gasoline engine with only a small amount of modification. The biggest problem is keeping it "dry" as it is miscible with water. However, this is also a big advantage. Spill it somewhere or light it on fire, and it can be easily taken care of.
It also produces only 2/3 as much energy per gallon as gasoline, so we'd need to use more of it per trip. Oh, and it actually takes 29% MORE energy to make it than is recovered by using it. That 29% comes chiefly from fossil fuels in the form of tractors, trains, distillation equipment, and so forth, thereby depleting nonrenewable fuels MORE quickly after switching to ethanol.

Oh, and corn prices would rise.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html

Redsland
01-19-2005, 06:14 PM
The government already has a ton of influence. It regulates emissions, safety standards, etc. Requiring automakers to produce a certain percentage of cars that pass MPG standards wouldn't be so terrible.
Government regulations required passive restraints, leading to automatic seatbelts and then airbags.

Government regulations required a percentage of all cars sold to be hybrids or use alternative fuels by 1995, IIRC.

That second one isn't doing so well.

Red Heeler
01-19-2005, 08:59 PM
It also produces only 2/3 as much energy per gallon as gasoline, so we'd need to use more of it per trip. Oh, and it actually takes 29% MORE energy to make it than is recovered by using it. That 29% comes chiefly from fossil fuels in the form of tractors, trains, distillation equipment, and so forth, thereby depleting nonrenewable fuels MORE quickly after switching to ethanol.

Oh, and corn prices would rise.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html

I can't say that I agree with the article. I looked up the study done by Dr. Pimentel http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Pimentel_98-2.pdf. He makes some comparisons that are not really truthful. For example, he makes an apples to oranges comparison between the production cost of alcohol and gasoline. He consistently uses the gross BTU value of gasoline and never considers the fact that the refinement of crude oil to gasoline also consumes a significant amount of energy (about 50,000 BTU)Source (www.gan.ca/en/reports/Fur/energyconsump.htm)

Also ignored is the fact that ethanol burns more efficiently in an internal combustion engine than does gasoline, meaning that ethanol begins to make up ground in the BTU per gallon battle.

According to this article Link (http://www.ca.uky.edu/agripedia/Classes/GEN100/EEPEC.asp) the energy required to distill one gallon of ethanol is 43,000 BTU, far less than the figure used in Dr. Pimentel's work.

Also ignored in Pimentel's work is the fact that ethanol could be used to fuel the tractors, trains, distillation equipment, etc.

One bushel of corn will produce about 2.5 gallons of ethanol. Using today's corn prices, the cost of a gallon of ethanol would be:

Corn price per bushel: $1.96 = $0.78/ gallon ethanol

Since distillation is only 46% (37000 BTU/ 80000 BTU) efficient, the cost to produce a gallon of ethanol would be $1.69 per gallon.

With a further economy of scale and technological advances, this could be brought into competetiveness with gasoline.

Unassisted
01-20-2005, 01:14 AM
I think the last paragraph is the most troubling. Young drivers shouldn't be driving those high-performance vehicles. The temptation to drive fast and show off is too great. My area has had fatal crashes involving groups of young drivers at least once a month for the last year. In almost every case, there was evidence of the driver operating recklessly or driving too fast, and probably showing off for the passengers.

I'd like to see young drivers limited to operating vehicles with a governor that prevents them from operating over the prevailing speed limit.

Steve4192
01-20-2005, 01:29 AM
I think the last paragraph is the most troubling. Young drivers shouldn't be driving those high-performance vehicles.
Those vehicles are a heck of a lot safer than what my peers were driving when I was in high school. Souped-up 1970s rear-wheel drive muscle cars, stripped-down flip-prone jeeps, and rear impact combustion Pintos were the order of the day. Of course, even those beasts were a lot safer than the 1950s model death-traps my dad used to cruise around in as a teenager.

... and the beat goes on.

RedsBaron
01-20-2005, 07:47 AM
Those vehicles are a heck of a lot safer than what my peers were driving when I was in high school. Souped-up 1970s rear-wheel drive muscle cars, stripped-down flip-prone jeeps, and rear impact combustion Pintos were the order of the day. Of course, even those beasts were a lot safer than the 1950s model death-traps my dad used to cruise around in as a teenager.

... and the beat goes on.
Absolutely true.
In our family's case, my oldest son is a couple of years away from being old enough to get a license. He's already been told that, assuming we have the same vehicles then as we do now, he will get to drive the Ford Ranger-he isn't driving the Corvette.
I wish the minimum driving age would be raised to 35. :mhcky21: