Link HERE (http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/greenwheels,view.spy?artid=38584)

Don't agree with everything he said & argument a little simplistic, but interesting read.

I agree with most.....not all....of what this guy said.
AUTOWEEK also did a story in the current issue on the HP and torque race...How much is enough?

http:www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=102146

That's one of the dumbest articles I've read in a while. So many mistakes, unproven assumptions and conveniently missed out information.

How about some examples...

- doesn't take weight into account - he mentions the Porsche Carrera is heavier but that's all and doesn't say why that might be the case

- doesn't take increased safety equipment into account - those 4-10 air bags, anti-lock brake actuators, side bars, roll bars, and on and on, all make the cars heavier.

- doesn't consider how driving has changed - with more and more crowded cities and more and more people in longer commutes, many have to wait in cars that they don't want power robbed by air conditioners or other devices, and with so many SUVs, tractor trailers and trucks on the roads, drivers of regular 'cars' can often feel intimidated and have a hard time passing or merging in with, so extra power is a comfort factor.

- doesn't consider how data is measured by the EPA and whether that has or should have changed over time - I believe the EPA still measures "city" and "highway" numbers the same way they always have but that doesn't factor in how much of each people really do and whether a lot of 'highway' driving is really like city because it's clogged.

- presents different data differently to help his case - he gives percentages for power increases yet only give absolute values for differences in economy - that 3mpg difference from 30 to 33 is a *10%* improvement but he just has it listed as '3'.

- mentions global warming as a fact - the jury is still out - the planet is ALWAYS CHANGING whether humans are here or not, our data window is brief, and the percentage of 'greenhouse' gases humans cause vs. 'nature' is miniscule.

- he says "maybe they should just reissue their 1985 models" - I'm sure people would be standing in line to buy those! (not)

- he says "our world oil supplies are dminishing and within 50 years max there will be none left" - that's massive speculation.

- he wants to blame car makers (easy target) but they are competing with one another and go where customer trends demand (or die). Even people I know who don't care about cars know when one is "gutless" and they don't like it. He says people weren't complaining about cars being slow in 1985 - I'm not sure if he was there for one thing - but they didn't have any choice! More powerful cars tend to be quieter too because they aren't straining as hard.

- he does mention briefly about maybe we got fatter, and there he's on to something! WE DID GET FATTER - I believe obesity is a direct connect to larger and more powerful cars.

- he does mention govt has wimped out but he doens't really talk about why. If govt agrees with him they could offer giant tax incentives for people to drive more fuel efficient vehicles couldn't they? Why don't they? Well they do already for electrics and hybrids of course. Instead he just says the public is "irrational" for wanting bigger and more powerful vehicles (while he is oh so clever) and the vehicle makers are "irresponsible".

He does make one good point - that demand for big fast vehicles is a response to endless media broadcasts making people fearful ("especially in the u.s.") and thinking they'll be safer in bigger faster vehicles. His "especially in the u.s." shows his loathing for this country that loves cars because he obviously can't see that Canada has at LEAST as many shrill exaggerated news pieces about "dangers" of this or that, especially from their awful government run social engineering service the "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation".

So despite all the problems with his article, is he right? Do cars have "too much horsepower and too little economy"? For the reasons I mentioned above I don't believe so - I think the biggest problem for vehicle makers is WEIGHT (not just the vehicle, but also for people and all their 'stuff', including stuff they want to tow!). Except for niche vehicles like sports cars, people want SPACE to hold people, bikes, strollers, lots of shopping, home improvement stuff, and they want every safety widget they can get. All that adds to size and weight, and if that's happening then you need more power to haul it around.

Back on Lexus, the new GS300 V6 is truly a marvel, offering 245HP and GREAT economy - this and their hybrids will help Toyota quell some of this guy's whining even if based on false reasoning.

That's one of the dumbest articles I've read in a while. So many mistakes, unproven assumptions and conveniently missed out information.

How about some examples...

- doesn't take weight into account - he mentions the Porsche Carrera is heavier but that's all and doesn't say why that might be the case

- doesn't take increased safety equipment into account - those 4-10 air bags, anti-lock brake actuators, side bars, roll bars, and on and on, all make the cars heavier.

- doesn't consider how driving has changed - with more and more crowded cities and more and more people in longer commutes, many have to wait in cars that they don't want power robbed by air conditioners or other devices, and with so many SUVs, tractor trailers and trucks on the roads, drivers of regular 'cars' can often feel intimidated and have a hard time passing or merging in with, so extra power is a comfort factor.

- doesn't consider how data is measured by the EPA and whether that has or should have changed over time - I believe the EPA still measures "city" and "highway" numbers the same way they always have but that doesn't factor in how much of each people really do and whether a lot of 'highway' driving is really like city because it's clogged.

- presents different data differently to help his case - he gives percentages for power increases yet only give absolute values for differences in economy - that 3mpg difference from 30 to 33 is a *10%* improvement but he just has it listed as '3'.

- mentions global warming as a fact - the jury is still out - the planet is ALWAYS CHANGING whether humans are here or not, our data window is brief, and the percentage of 'greenhouse' gases humans cause vs. 'nature' is miniscule.

- he says "maybe they should just reissue their 1985 models" - I'm sure people would be standing in line to buy those! (not)

- he says "our world oil supplies are dminishing and within 50 years max there will be none left" - that's massive speculation.

- he wants to blame car makers (easy target) but they are competing with one another and go where customer trends demand (or die). Even people I know who don't care about cars know when one is "gutless" and they don't like it. He says people weren't complaining about cars being slow in 1985 - I'm not sure if he was there for one thing - but they didn't have any choice! More powerful cars tend to be quieter too because they aren't straining as hard.

- he does mention briefly about maybe we got fatter, and there he's on to something! WE DID GET FATTER - I believe obesity is a direct connect to larger and more powerful cars.

- he does mention govt has wimped out but he doens't really talk about why. If govt agrees with him they could offer giant tax incentives for people to drive more fuel efficient vehicles couldn't they? Why don't they? Well they do already for electrics and hybrids of course. Instead he just says the public is "irrational" for wanting bigger and more powerful vehicles (while he is oh so clever) and the vehicle makers are "irresponsible".

He does make one good point - that demand for big fast vehicles is a response to endless media broadcasts making people fearful ("especially in the u.s.") and thinking they'll be safer in bigger faster vehicles. His "especially in the u.s." shows his loathing for this country that loves cars because he obviously can't see that Canada has at LEAST as many shrill exaggerated news pieces about "dangers" of this or that, especially from their awful government run social engineering service the "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation".

So despite all the problems with his article, is he right? Do cars have "too much horsepower and too little economy"? For the reasons I mentioned above I don't believe so - I think the biggest problem for vehicle makers is WEIGHT (not just the vehicle, but also for people and all their 'stuff', including stuff they want to tow!). Except for niche vehicles like sports cars, people want SPACE to hold people, bikes, strollers, lots of shopping, home improvement stuff, and they want every safety widget they can get. All that adds to size and weight, and if that's happening then you need more power to haul it around.

Back on Lexus, the new GS300 V6 is truly a marvel, offering 245HP and GREAT economy - this and their hybrids will help Toyota quell some of this guy's whining even if based on false reasoning.

This is what happens when a fanatical enviromentalist pretends to be a car journalist. He writes "factual" articles that have noting but personal agendas and biases instilled. Having said that i will argue that anyone that DEMANDS that we have limits FORCED upon us when it comes to performance vehicles is in my oppinion advocating that our freedom as consumers be withered away.

Having said that I would force this moron to drive the original peoples car. What was the name of the leader that advocated that his people drive the "peoples car" again?

As to what the salesman said, I would have said that some buyers of the compact segment are enthusiast drivers that participate in legal motorsport events. That in turn have more experience behind the wheel when driving at the limits which in turn makes them more skilled and focused drivers. Thus safer drivers then this idiot driving 10 mph under the speedlimit on the fast lane while contemplating the evil that is performance cars. In fact I might as well argue that this guy could potentially be a great hazard to our roads, since he might merge at unsafe speeds in the holy pursuit of gas mileage. (Was that assumption to idiotic? Well its about the same level as the one that insinuates that more power makes EVERYONE an irresponsible driver.)

This guy is obviously a missinformed "activist" that has no bussines "informing" the general public as a car journalist. Instead he spouts missinformed propaganda. And thats just a major pet peeve of mine. Some one give this jack ass his bicycle with a matching save the Dodo sign!

This is what happens when a fanatical enviromentalist pretends to be a car journalist. He writes "factual" articles that have noting but personal agendas and biases instilled. Having said that i will argue that anyone that DEMANDS that we have limits FORCED upon us when it comes to performance vehicles is in my oppinion advocating that our freedom as consumers be withered away.


This is not a question of him " demanding " or " forcing " anything on us. I agree that some of what he said was just politics and not facts, but there are enough true facts in place that are going to force some changes in the future. Some of those limits and loss of freedom have already happened.....and more are coming whether we like it or not. For instance, increasing congestion on the roads and higher gas prices are already taking their toll on our ability to drive what we want and where we want in "freedom"....especially in large urban areas. There is also the fact that freedom to drive performance vehicles does not mean the "freedom" to break traffic laws or to drive as fast as we want any time we want, even when clear roads allow it.

So, in a nutshell, there are two BIG facts that we're going to have to accept...and deal with. One is that, in many areas, the number of vehicles on the roads is simply exceeding the amount of road space available.....and the result is congestion. There are many reasons WHY traffic is growing at a faster pace than road space....that is too complex to discuss here and is the subject for another whole thread.
And, like it or not, demand for gasoline and diesel fuel is increasing all around the world...especially in China and India. There is nothing we can do to stop that...it is happening in Asia and is beyond our control. Calling this guy a moron is NOT going to stop that...it is happening, period. The world has a huge amount of oil, but there is a limit....and eventually we are going to run into that limit. We have a current shortage of refinery capacity in this country....even if we had enough refineries (which we don't) eventually there will be a supply problem with continued growth in demand. In the meantime, the result is going to be higher prices and possibly spot shortages. Yes, we could turn to price controls, but what would that do?.....just ceate more shortages by discouraging more production.

In many ways I am just as much of a car enthusiast as you are....much of my life has been centered around cars and airplanes. Like you, I don't particularly some of the things we are going to have to face....especially road congestion, which I dislike intensly.. But the fact is that the world is changing, and sooner or later we are going to deal with some unpleasant realities. I agree with you that this guy should not be "demanding" change....but SOME change is coming whether he "demands" it or not.

Change is not always a bad thing, either. I grew up at a time when we lost the big-engined luxury and high-performance muscle cars of the late 60's and early 70's due to emission controls and mileage requirements....and for a time the cars that replaced them in the 70's and early 80's.....were awful, no question about it. But those emissions and mileage requirements were a blessing in disguise.....they eventually led to the manufacturers dumping those lousy carburators and old-fashioned ignition systems and giving us modern, reliable EFI and electronic engine controls.....which are just light-years better in so many ways. Almost no one I know of today outside of old-car collectors wants to go back to those days again....with unreliable cold starts / warm-up and tune-ups every 5000-10000 miles.

BTW....I agree with you 100% about the global warming....there is no way to prove it is coming from emissions. This is where you have to separate facts from politics. There are too many other variables in place.....as you said the climate has ALWAYS changed, long before there were automobiles or the burning of fossil fuels.

OK mmarshall, I agree we have increasing congestion and we have increasing global fuel demand. But not sure what that has to do with the article - do you believe the car makers have 'irresponsibly' focused too much on adding horsepower and not enough on improving fuel economy? And if so, do you believe anything should be done about it?

OK mmarshall, I agree we have increasing congestion and we have increasing global fuel demand. But not sure what that has to do with the article - do you believe the car makers have 'irresponsibly' focused too much on adding horsepower and not enough on improving fuel economy? And if so, do you believe anything should be done about it?

As far as automakers being "irresponsible" adding HP and torque, the answer IMO is yes for some companies, no for others. Hyundais, Kias, Suzukis, some entry-level Toyotas and Scions, lower-line Civics, the Mitsubishi entry-level Lancers, and some other vehicles have been low on HP and torque and could use a little more....they sometimes feel a little sluggish. But BMW M cars, Mercedes AMG's, and a number of sports cars like the Dodge Viper, Corvette Z06, and high-line Porsches are already running what in my opinion are already excessive amounts of HP and torque.....I see no sense whatsoever in adding even more just for numbers' sake.

It's like adding more and more sugar and creamer to your coffee.....some of it is NICE and really adds flavor to those bitter cups every morning. But after you reach the point where you are satisfied with the coffee's taste, adding more and more not only defeats your purpose but is a waste of money.

You ask what could or should be done about them? Well, the public already has the freedom to buy certain cars as well as NOT to buy them. Increasing gas prices and congestion are already driving some people away from gas-guzzlers with excessive power. The point has been brought up that increasing efficiency in the future...particularly with hybrids....may allow both power and high gas mileage both. The Lotus Elise is a good example of this....0-60 times in the 4.5 - 5.0 second range with less than 200 HP, mostly through ultra-light weight. Even so, congestion or speed limits may not allow the use of power and fast acceleration or high top speeds even if it is efficiently possible.

If they can increase HP (my question is when is enough HP enough? :confused: :egads: ) at the same time as increase fuel economy then I say keep going.......in this day & age when the cost of fuel is going through the roof, & more HP means less fuel economy, then there is not much point imo. :rolleyes:

The corvette Zo6, viper and even the M class cars and AMG cars are really targeted to people that like weekend warriors.


Sometimes its like some of you are not even aware that such track events even exist! No not everytime you drive will be in a congested traffic zone with speed limit of 55 mph max. Noted some cars are meant to be a primary source of transportation, but the cars stated on this thread, truly are not. Every car has it purpose. No they should not limit that cars purpose because some as a driver cannot handle the hp a car has. If the gas economy is kept the same what is the harm done? Very few of these cars will be used as transportation only, (or should i say missused?)

You know there is a place where you can legally drive your car at the limits. There are many organizations that cater to peoples need to speed. In my city alone there is 2 main racing facilities. there used to be 3 but despicable anti-car enthusiasts shut down one of them. (Done out of greed so some more senior citizen homes could be built.) Total they accumulate to over 5 road courses, plus countless acress of skid pads. There is quite a few drag strips in the valley as well, over 3 easily. That is within a 50-60 mile radius alone. A few hundred miles to the west is even more famous road courses like willow springs, and laguna seca and countless others, to the north even more. A few hundrew miles to the east, lies arroyo seco and other challenging tracks. In short there are MANY, I mean MANY oppurtunities where a buyer could easily use ever single stinky hp out of the mega power cars that will be sold soon. These cars are designed and catered to car enthusiasts like me that would gladly use or attempt to use all the cars capabilities if given the chance.

The high performance and high powered cars are a specialty cars that are not designed for the mass consumer, thus these cars will only sell in low volumes (compared to the more economical and practical offerings.) and are meant to be cathered to a specific type of buyer. (although some will be unfortunately be bought for status symbol purposes only.) Different people have different needs out of a car, perhaps you and the author would be better fit with a lower hp more economical practical car, that is fine, it just means that the high performance cars are not meant for some people.

I for example, have never off roaded, and thus have no need for a lifted off road vehicle. And in my oppinion I would consider one useless. FOR MY PURPOSES. I also have an understanding that some people have a different automotive passion then I and DO and have a use for such vehicles and take the time and effort, to go and sastify their passions in a responsible manner.

The thing that bothers about this author and find it insulting the most is that he is close minded enough to not see the many different purposes of different cars. Rather he down right accuses car enthusiasts... (actually car enthusiast is to broad of a term..) sport car enthusiasts of being irresponsible "insane" people, because we simply like having and using a higher powered car (even though I have already proven that were not always confined to normal traffic laws and have venues to legally explore a cars limit)? There are many offerings that would suit this guys needs. (Honda Hybrid? Toyota Prius? Chevy Aveo? Scion xA or xB?) Not everyone sees a car for transportation purposes only.

And Ill leave the post with more food for thought before I go to sleep.

Going by this guys logic, what is the purpose of having the bajillion proffesional racing leagues that we all enjoy watching? What useful transportational purpose only do they provide?

"Two words can clearly illustrate the image of a large number of vehicles put on the market these days: machismo and insecurity. More and more vehicles have an aggressive look (machismo) and are getting bigger (insecurity). Do you know why so many SUVs and cars are getting bigger and bigger? Because it's safer? No. Because we need more room? Neither. The reason is simple. It's because a consumer psychology and branding guru recommended manufacturers to build them bigger and with bigger wheels, because he discovered in a lot of people a need to compensate a sense of certain shortcomings by a sense of domination you would have at the wheel of your big SUV or big car. For many others, it would create a sense of security to offset the omnipresent fear that is broadcasted daily by our society and by the media; especially in the United States. I am dead serious, this is the plain truth."

In a poorly written and even more poorly edited article in which a number of assertions and opinions were presented as fact (a common ploy to exploit public ignorance of a particular subject because, as we all know, if THEY printed it, it MUST be factual), I thought this particular paragraph contained the biggest howler. NOW, at last we know who/what to blame for the proliferation of Expeditions, Suburbans, and Escalades: one single "consumer psychology and branding guru".

Oh, wait, HE isn't identified. Regardless, that certainly simplifies my understanding of market forces.

I think that there were some reasonably valid, conservative points to be made in the writer's original subject matter but he certainly lost them in that blizzard of half truths, logical fallacies, and unsupported contentions. I don't disagree that there is a certain irrationality in setting up the mutually exclusive conditions of increasing weight and performance while desiring (or even mandating) improved economy. But our hero veered all too quickly off track when he began flailing about, attempting to indict those irresponsible manufacturers. (What WERE they thinking???? Surely they wouldn't be attempting to give the consumer what the consumer wishes to buy???)

Enough for now; I've got to go work out and, as Colin Chapman once said, "add lightness".

"Two words can clearly illustrate the image of a large number of vehicles put on the market these days: machismo and insecurity. More and more vehicles have an aggressive look (machismo) and are getting bigger (insecurity). Do you know why so many SUVs and cars are getting bigger and bigger? Because it's safer? No. Because we need more room? Neither. The reason is simple. It's because a consumer psychology and branding guru recommended manufacturers to build them bigger and with bigger wheels, because he discovered in a lot of people a need to compensate a sense of certain shortcomings by a sense of domination you would have at the wheel of your big SUV or big car. For many others, it would create a sense of security to offset the omnipresent fear that is broadcasted daily by our society and by the media; especially in the United States. I am dead serious, this is the plain truth."

. ".

What a lot of people consider "big" today, size-wise, is not really that big at all. True, Suburbans, Expeditions, etc.....today are HEAVY (5000-6000 lbs. empty), but they are not as long or as wide as many of the big cars I grew up with several decades ago (and certainly not as smooth-riding). Back then, 225-230" lengths and 125"-129" wheelbases were commonplace. Even compact cars had 105-110" wheelbases, roughly comparable to today's " full-size " cars. A late 60's-mid 70's Cadillac Fleetwood or Lincoln Continental, even normal, non-stretched versions, EASILY exceeded the length and width of today's largest SUV's. That's why I laugh when I hear so many people complaining about how " big " today's vehicles are getting.

HP, though....that is another story. Inabj2 made the point that these cars are sometimes used for track events....which has some validity, but for street use, the amount of HP/ torque being put into some of today's high-performance cars truly borders on insane. While others share in this, Mercedes AMG cars are perhaps the classic examples.

In my city alone there is 2 main racing facilities. there used to be 3 but despicable anti-car enthusiasts shut down one of them. (Done out of greed so some more senior citizen homes could be built.)
?

Point noted...........but don't forget, you will be old yourself some day. You may be young and strong now, but the clock is ticking.

Folks, also remember everything is cyclical. Big horsepower wars are not new, especially to those of us old enough to remember the muscle car wars. Names like Superbee, Mopar, Edelbrock, GTO, 442, Shelby, Hurst....and many more conjure up memories of fast cars on the deserted strip of land on a Saturday morning. Eventually, gas shortages and cleaner running engines became the new thing and the HP wars faded away.
Now here we are with AMG, BMW M, Ruf, Saleen, Gemballa and many many more creating enormous levels of power in daily driven cars. It's true lots of people want to take their car to the track but I'll wager the little old guy buying the S55 AMG has no intentions on doing so. He wants the best the company has and that's what is perceived with mega power. And there are many others who just want to be traffic light kings.....to be the fastest to the next stop. Now that gas prices are getting higher and predicted to continue doing so, I'll bet we see lots of folks parking the the big heavy cars, the powerful gas guzzlers and driving their hybrids to work. In fact, yesterday I heard a news item where used Toyota hybrids were selling for higher prices than new because of the wait to get a new one. It make take a while for things to completely change because some of the cars with big power actually are pretty good on gas mileage.....but they can't be as good as a 4-6 cylinder econo engined car. Americans do like space and power and beautiful cars. What we need is a new sleek, roomy, fast, clean, beautiful, safe, fuel efficient, powerful, optional flight and cost concious car to be invented.

Now that gas prices are getting higher and predicted to continue doing so, I'll bet we see lots of folks parking the the big heavy cars, the powerful gas guzzlers and driving their hybrids to work. In fact, yesterday I heard a news item where used Toyota hybrids were selling for higher prices than new because of the wait to get a new one. It make take a while for things to completely change because some of the cars with big power actually are pretty good on gas mileage.....but they can't be as good as a 4-6 cylinder econo engined car. Americans do like space and power and beautiful cars.



What we need is a new sleek, roomy, fast, clean, beautiful, safe, fuel efficient, powerful, optional flight and cost concious car to be invented.



I agree. AMG's and M's have been repair shop queens for years....now they may be garage queens as well.

As far as one car being all things to all people, it's fine to fantasize, but in the real world every car to some extent is a trade-off. Modern engineering, to some extent, has narrowed those trade-offs some but you still sometimes have to rob Peter to pay Paul.....especially in the ride-vs.handling department.

That article reminds me of the research papers we all had to write in high school and college that you don't really agree with....but you write it because it's an easy topic to research from one point of view.

Does he ever mention that fuel economy has a lot to do with how you drive, not just what you drive? I stopped reading after the 2nd or third page.

If he thinks he's a good writer that is very :cry:

Re-reading this article, painful as it was given this poor soul's grammar, spelling, and thought process, to say nothing (and I do mean nothing) of the editing (or lack thereof) that went into it, I'm again brought to a differing conclusion, vis a vis the status of the automobile. (And mmarshall, I agree with a number of your points regarding roadway congestion, excess of weight ((thanks also to bitkahuna here, too)), and a possible overemphasis on performance which can't be safely exercised as well as the general lack of pilot skill to take advantage of same.)

But (and this is an old argument from me that some of you have already heard), I maintain that we are in a golden age of automotive performance. Never before have we had such a combination of acceleration, top speed, real world cornering/handling ability, braking, and build quality/materials in conjunction with economy that we see today.

Like mmarshall, I grew up in the era of the lead sled school of American car culture. And God knows, producing a car that would run 13s in the quarter on the skinnyass bias ply tires of the day took some decent engineering to get the requisite amount of traction. But the high performance engines of the day MIGHT produce 1 hp/ cu in, with rough idle, ******y gas mileage, and godawful driveability around town. Plus, they were liable to grenade themselves if pushed, and the vehicles themselves............well, we thought they were great at the time. Anybody sat in a top of the line Lincoln, Cadillac, or (for that matter) Mercedes of the day recently?? Notice the (lack of) quality of the materials? Notice the incredible panel gaps? How 'bout them window cranks?? And, OMG, there's Bill Lear's 8 track (which probably made him more money than his jets ever have)!!!!! Hey!!! I forgot about leaded gas!!! Anybody want some???

Boys and girls, I'm not about to say that it don't get any better than this, but it damn sure hasn't ever BEEN any better than this, by ANY measure that looks at more than one simplistic aspect of automotive technology.

I'm going to go have another beer, now.

Point noted...........but don't forget, you will be old yourself some day. You may be young and strong now, but the clock is ticking.


Ill leave a memo for when the time happens (if it happens... there is no guarantee ill make it to get old .. but hopefully ill get there.) To not exclude myself from those generations younger then me, but rather continue to interact with them and co-live with them. This country seems to be the one where I see the most "retirement communities". Its sad when different generations seem to feel so distant from each other and attempt to segregate each other as much as possible. A lot of richness could be had if there was a much stronger mutual respect for each other, the older for their experience and hopefully wisdom from said experience, and the younger for their vitality and whatever ambitions they may have.

This is all besides the point however. I hope I can be one of those young at heart guys though, a perfect example of this is Paul Newman, that guy is still kicking ass at amateur racing events. A lot of it might have to do with a persons outlooks and not solely by physical age and limitations?

Anyways... didn't mean to get sidetracked.

Ill give you this, though how about.. keep the mega hp cars still but sell lower hp more economical versions of said same sports cars? Kinda how its being done now but to a greater extent? For the corvette have the 500 hp ls7 zo6, the 400 hp ls2.. and the corvette for the masses, anyone that just wants to be in a vette just cause its a vette a 300 hp vortech 5.3l C6 or hell maybe the 3.6 liter dohc v6 with a hybrid helper?? Even if this were to be done someone somewhere would be whining about it still...

I do have to say, some car makers, namely Toyota and Honda are finding out ways to increase HP and fuel economy through technology. Some are doing a good job in Europe, with diesals and now the new generation of turbo-diesals.

Then there are others with they're butts stuck up their behinds giving people the same engines with more hp and the same or worse economy year after year. Or new, bigger engines with the same or worse fuel economy.

And it STILL depends on how you drive, which can be attributed to marketing. Take some family cars, they are advertised like Mustangs, and people buy them for hp, instead of the family attributes.

Then you have HP killing FWD, where these applications will be useless the way things are going.

I don't believe most people track they're cars, even if they are marketed as sports cars or sedans. Most buy just so they know OTHERS know what it is capable of. The limits are never explored.

I think ya'll make better points than the article. :thumbup: