I cannot think of a time in the last 20 years when I have driven at over 95mph anywhere in the world and in the UK, I probably cruise at about 75mph (actual not indicated). So, I don't need the performance and even the in gear acceleration could be less strong.
..................
Am I missing something?
Yes, it's all about YOU, and what YOU want! ;-)
I happen to think that a more powerful car can, in most circumstances, be safer. It allows you to overtake more quickly. It gives you another option to get out of trouble. It usually has better brakes. It usually has grippier tyres. The weak link is, as always, the driver.
You ask whether there is a need for the increase in top speed. Probably not...but reducing the top speed alone won't make any difference to fuel consumption unless you reduce the power as well.
I don't arrive at my destination in a sweat. I'm more relaxed because I know, that should I wish, I could blow most other cars off the road. But I don't. I can overtake safely. I have plenty of space inside the car.
And, of course, no manufacturer loads the lowest-powered model in the range with all the kit that most people seek these days, thus providing no incentive to downsize and "downpower".
It's all about choice. If I had the money, I'd probably choose something more eco-friendly, but I wouldn't go down the route of buying small and low-powered that's for sure!
Edited by Mike H on 13/09/2014 at 23:39
|
|
Hmmm I'm note quite sure I have got my message across as I wanted.
Of course I could buy a lower powered, smaller engined car, but what I am trying to say is that the average car today is far faster and more economical than the average car of 35 years ago. So if the manufacturers reduced the performance to say 10% better than the car from the 1970s would there be a significant improvement in economy? If so, why don't they provide it, because the majority of car buyers these days are ignorant of the performance abilities of the cars they drive.
Since I first started driving 32 years ago, I have driven a wide range of cars with performance spreads from a 1.3 Fiat Uno to a 3.0 Subaru and everything in between. I don't think I have driven a car I have bought for myself that did not have adequate performance for the car and my needs. I don't drive the average car. But if I did, my needs for the average car in terms of performance have not changed and yet the performance has improved significantly despite heavier cars and emissions controls. So, if the average car's performance was reduced to that of 35 years ago, surely the economy would improve as a response? If so, why not do it?
|
|
I'm no expert, but I would have thought that the increased efficiency of engines comes s a package.
35 years ago I was driving an Austin Maxi HL - a better car than people who haven't driven one make out, but it had 1750 cc, about 80 bhp and gave mpg in the low 30s at best. Current Octavia vRS estate - petrol - has 2000cc, 217 bp and mpg from 32 to 42. I agree that top speed is irrelevant unless you travel extensively in Germany, but that comes as a necessary adjunct to the increased performance.
As an aside, HB, if you'd rented a lower-powered Fiat, you'd have needed a heavier rght foot to make reasonable progress and probably gained little if anything in economy. A diesel Octavia would of course be more economical than mine, but I'm not sure a 1.6 petrol would be.
Edited by Avant on 14/09/2014 at 00:35
|
|
|
|
I think you have a point. It's become an arms race. Somebody actually said to me recently that he wouldn't even consider a car with less than 200bhp.
I was quite pleased with my 1965 Morris Oxford, top speed 80mph and 0-60 in just under 20s.
Not long afterwards I had a Hillman Hunter GLS, with for the time a highly tuned engine with two twin 40mm choke Webers and a close ratio gearbox - 0-60 in about 11.5s and 100mph top speed, a performance now surpassed by the boss's Skoda Roomster 1.2TSI!
Later, the first new car I had was a 895cc Mk1 Polo, with about 40bhp. The performance must have been fairly similar to the Oxford, but in truth it was all the car I actually needed, or really need now from day to day, though the caravan holidays might be a challenge!
|
|
I know, that should I wish, I could blow most other cars off the road.
That is a rather sad statement. Are you 12 years old?
|
I know, that should I wish, I could blow most other cars off the road.
That is a rather sad statement. Are you 12 years old?
Ha Ha! No, he has a large wind machine.
Nobody's mentioned drag coefficient yet, or tyre technology which has reduced friction.
I would imagine if you put the Cortina 1.6L's mechanicals in a slippery 2014 body and under-carriage, the economy and performance figures would be rather better.
Nevertheless I welcome the improvement in efficiency in todays cars and agree that the increased performance can also mean safer in the right circumstances.
In the wrong circumstances it can mean lots of twisted metal and injured or dead people.
|
|
|
I know, that should I wish, I could blow most other cars off the road.
That is a rather sad statement. Are you 12 years old?
Lol, no! I was once LW... I went on to say that I don't. I was simply making the point that it does make driving much more relaxed when you aren't sweating whether you'll get up the next hill because you've got two passengers, and I'm of an age where I don't need to challenge every young blade that tries to get past me in his pimped up Golf or whatever. I'm more likely to pull over and let them past, so that when they have their accident I'm not part of it. Did exactly that last night on the way home late, to get rid of someone driving a car's length behind me.
I don't need to justify my comments to you LW, but for info, I am 61, drive 17000 miles a year, down from 24000, of which around 4000 are on German autobahns. My wife and I are both ex-members of the IAM, only lapsed because we live abroad. My Saab Aero estate is almost as economical as the Renault 12TS I had back in the 70s but a lot safer and more powerful.
GB said the same re easy, comfortable power.
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on what the buyer wants.
White goods they have no interest in driving well, and nothing wrong with that, then so long as it looks nice in a cloned way, starts and drives (for them) they will be happy, often such people are incapable of overtaking a tractor let alone try and make some safe rapid progress on the road...nothing wrong with that, we have different needs and wants thank goodness.
At the opposite end are people who enjoy driving, or simply enjoy more powerful cars for a variety of reasons, those people have different ideas of performance and will have massively different driving styles and capabilities, automotive white goods don't feature in their desires, some for driving reasons some for image/kudos.
All sorts of requirements in between the two.
Very few people choose the lowest powered versions of larger, usually more powerful cars, there is nothing more frustrating than a nice car that has to be thrashed to death to make it move, it will usually be a dog to drive and difficult to sell on when the time comes...too often becoming Barry's car in its later years and 'customised' to replicate the one with the proper engine.
Anonymous easy power is my pleasure, i don't enjoy thrashing engines, i like cars that are easy to drive, but easy to drive well which usually but not always translates to TC autos, i like effortless instant acceleration so i can make use of overtaking or pulling out opportunities without having to plan ahead too much or abuse the vehicle.
I can't abide engines that have to be driven precisely to give their power, especially small capacity (for the car's weight) turbo Diesels, dire things which have to be kept in narrow rev bands below which there is nothing there...those in the white goods category probably wouldn't have a clue what we are talking about, nor have any interest which is fair enough.
Edited by gordonbennet on 14/09/2014 at 08:40
|
You're right of course GB. A good big un is usually a better bet. And whilst I did plenty of overtaking in that Polo, by stealth and planning well ahead, it would be so much outgunned now that it would be very hard work getting past all those straight line racers with three or four times the power under their feet.
It's a truism though that one can adjust to almost anything within reason. I've always loved driving, and a modestly powered car is just a different cup of coffee to me once I am used to it.
|
|
|
|
Much the same as I was trying to say GB, but as usual you said it much more eloquently!
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm I'm note quite sure I have got my message across as I wanted.
My reply was a bit tongue in cheek HB, I think what you are saying is that the thrust of development research should be put into into improving economy rather than performance. I agree, but as I think has been said there is a relationship between the two. Certainly my current car (Saab Aero estate at 265bhp) isn't far off the economy of my old Renault 12TS (around 70bhp IIRC) that I had in the 70s. Electronic engine management, which was enabled by fuel injection and electronic ignition, coupled with engined design improvements, will all have contributed.
Interesting thought - if all cars were limited to similar power and performance, we could clag up the entire motorway system, as everyone would be travelling at the same speed, unable to overtake - just like a convoy of lorries really...
There's no easy answer, there is a big mindset to change.
|
|
Now just for comparison, my smokey barge is a Saab 95 Estate, but with the old 2.2tid engine of 120bhp. It still gets about reasonably briskly up to the 130kph allowed on French motorways and wafts along in comfort. Sure, it makes a bit of smoke and particles when asked to accelarate hard ....
|
|
|
Interesting thought - if all cars were limited to similar power and performance, we could clag up the entire motorway system, as everyone would be travelling at the same speed, unable to overtake - just like a convoy of lorries really...
Thats where i things things will head with cars too eventually, i hope they're not electronically speed limited to an increased motorway speed limit...having had years of limiters in lorries, it's not something any of you will enjoy, imagine for yourselves all the cars on the road you are on at the time all restricted to within 1mph of each other.
Back to power, I've had lower powered cars of course, have enjoyed my ownership of them too in some cases, jolly hard work though to get the best from them.
My pet hate is any engine that lacks low rev torque, nothing more dire, was quite happy in my old NA Diesels of yore, hopeless for overtaking but for general driving marvellous, almost impossible to stall making traffic and junctions simple.
No replacement for displacement.
Edited by gordonbennet on 14/09/2014 at 10:18
|
Back to power, I've had lower powered cars of course, have enjoyed my ownership of them too in some cases, jolly hard work though to get the best from them.
My pet hate is any engine that lacks low rev torque, nothing more dire, was quite happy in my old NA Diesels of yore, hopeless for overtaking but for general driving marvellous, almost impossible to stall making traffic and junctions simple.
My son's first car was a 1.4 8V Megane, no ball of fire but great fun to drive. Being 8V, had reasonable low-down torque and was more than adequate around town. I could have lived with it if all my time was spent in purely localy driving.
|
|
|
Interesting thought - if all cars were limited to similar power and performance, we could clag up the entire motorway system, as everyone would be travelling at the same speed, unable to overtake - just like a convoy of lorries really...
Thats where i things things will head with cars too eventually, i hope they're not electronically speed limited to an increased motorway speed limit...having had years of limiters in lorries, it's not something any of you will enjoy, imagine for yourselves all the cars on the road you are on at the time all restricted to within 1mph of each other.
Back to power, I've had lower powered cars of course, have enjoyed my ownership of them too in some cases, jolly hard work though to get the best from them.
My pet hate is any engine that lacks low rev torque, nothing more dire, was quite happy in my old NA Diesels of yore, hopeless for overtaking but for general driving marvellous, almost impossible to stall making traffic and junctions simple.
No replacement for displacement.
If all cars travelled at a similar speed on motorways, traffic would actually flow more smoothly, like it tends to on 'managed motorwys' - or at least it used to. Now we get the clowns who speed up after one overhead sign and slow down for the next.
There's no reason why any car needs to have more than 150 bhp. I'm not saying cars should be limited to that power, but nowadays you can buy cars with 500bhp, and if you have hundreds of thousands to burn, you can get a car with nearly 1000 bhp. Clearly that's crazy - as crazy as a stereo that can cause permanent deafness (yes, I know you can get such things) or as crazy as a curry that's too hot to eat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
< .... a more powerful car can, in most circumstances, be safer. It allows you to overtake more quickly. It gives you another option to get out of trouble. It usually has better brakes. It usually has grippier tyres. The weak link is, as always, the driver >
Ah, this hoary old chestnut again - though the kernel is in the final sentence. A more powerful car can get you out of trouble, but also get you into trouble which lower-powered cars don't. Risk-taking drivers get into more trouble than risk-averse ones - end of story. The car just does what it is told, within its own limitations, which may be tested more by risk-taking drivers
|
|
|
|
