70mph, the new 55mph...

[99LeCouch]

Driving the speed limit around me is passe. People get mad if you're going the PSL and holding them up. Many times people have whipped around me, only to get stopped at the next red light, or cluster of cars further up the interstate.

If they want me to go faster, then they should pay for my gas and whatever fines/increased insurance/new car I'd need after going faster.

[ALS]

Originally Posted by 99LeCouch

Driving the speed limit around me is passe. People get mad if you're going the PSL and holding them up. Many times people have whipped around me, only to get stopped at the next red light, or cluster of cars further up the interstate.

I can relate to that on I-26 between I-77 and I-95.

[99LeCouch]

ALS, I used to drive that stretch of I-26 almost every weekend, heading to points further south. When gas was $3.50 a gallon, I had company going ~60-65 mph. After gas plunged to $1.43 a gallon, everybody was doing 80. Now with gas at $2.65 a gallon, lots of folks are driving about 70-75.

My car is dinged up enough I don't care how the paint looks, as long as it's intact and not rusty.

[superchow]

From the WSJ article:

Modern cars and light trucks have an average of 225 horsepower under the hood [...]

Can this be true? I would have guessed something closer to 150... This explains why legislature is reluctant to increase the speed limit. Imagine an elderly driver with 200+ hp barreling down the Autobahn in Germany. Yeah, that seldomly happens.

I call for a limit in hp for passenger vehicles. You could always increase taxes and insurance for "high powered" cars, no? Anything over 150 hp for example. Or do it by engine displacement - anything over 2.0L = higher taxes and insurance. It's not fool proof, but then again, what is?

Let's be honest, who really needs more than 100 hp?

[gone-ot]

...which are you trying to "save"--GASOLINE or TIME (1/mph)?

[RobertSmalls]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...which are you trying to "save"--GASOLINE or TIME (1/mph)?

Me? Both. I'm trying to save time like it's worth $9/hr (because I don't really mind driving, yet there are things I'd rather be doing), and gasoline like it's $6/gal (because I care about more than its impact on my wallet). Based on this, I ought to drive the Insight at 85mph. But one must also consider safety and what the police and courts will let you get away with.

Sometimes it amuses me to get large mpg numbers, in which case I slow down. Other times, I want to spend less time in transit and I drive PSL +9 or ~70mph, whichever is lower.

[RobertSmalls]

Originally Posted by superchow

From the WSJ article:

Can this be true? I would have guessed something closer to 150... This explains why legislature is reluctant to increase the speed limit. Imagine an elderly driver with 200+ hp barreling down the Autobahn in Germany. Yeah, that seldomly happens.

I call for a limit in hp for passenger vehicles. You could always increase taxes and insurance for "high powered" cars, no? Anything over 150 hp for example. Or do it by engine displacement - anything over 2.0L = higher taxes and insurance. It's not fool proof, but then again, what is?

Let's be honest, who really needs more than 100 hp?

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.

[gone-ot]

...my "point" was GASOLINE is tangible, while TIME isn't.

[bgd73]

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.

[99LeCouch]

Darn. 3500 lbs/205 hp/230 ft-lbs. I'm 106 HP too high. I'll gladly keep the torque!

Torque accelerates you, HP keeps you moving. Having lots of twist means you accelerate like stink. I'd rather have torques instead of ponies. Accelerating quickly has saved my neck more than once. Going fast has only led me to trouble.