Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertSmalls
225HP is a striking number. But remember many of these ridiculous engines end up in 4000lb minivans and 6000lb SUVs. I'd agree with the sentiment that nobody needs more than 33HP per thousand lbs, and if you were to tax horsepower in excess of this, it would be a wake-up call to new-car buyers. Note, the first-gen Insight would be subject to this tax, too. It's overpowered.
Another cute wake-up call would be a Cd*A tax. I doubt it would be enough to drive consumer acceptance of streamlined cars, but it would be a fun tax anyway.
But really, the only tax you need is on fuel consumption. That way, you're penalizing the thing that offends you, while leaving the market free to respond in the most efficient manner. Maybe this means driving less, driving slower, and choosing smaller cars, or some other innovative solution. But leave it to engineers and the public, not legislators, to find the correct balance.
|
2750lbs/90hp==30.566666666666.......
I am there.. doing my part. to explain horspower versus torque leads to confusion.. I won't bother. There will never be at tax on hp. HP is a failing theory altered in more ways to go with marketng and faking peole out than any other number known to man.. aside from the crazy daylight savings time.
I was just reaidng up on caterpillar engines, finding the difference between a 3408 and 3406.. bth ship less than 500 hp at 16+ liters, over six inch strokes on both. the foot pounds can hual 50 tons easily, as oem. HP is absolutely ridiculous.