Gentleman's Agreement removed.
08-09-04, 02:12 PM
#16
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I wonder why I live alone here...
Posts: 4,330
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by 0l33l
I don't see it stopping
New technologies will keep on pushing the speed, horsepower, and torque barriers while still having an acceptable MPG. Why do you think it's bad if a car has over 300hp? It's not... it just means the engine is efficient, and therefore it provides more fun out of driving.
I hate goverment regulation. I'm a supporter of small goverment; the last thing I need the goverment to do is say how much power my car HAS to make.
I don't see it stopping
New technologies will keep on pushing the speed, horsepower, and torque barriers while still having an acceptable MPG. Why do you think it's bad if a car has over 300hp? It's not... it just means the engine is efficient, and therefore it provides more fun out of driving.I hate goverment regulation. I'm a supporter of small goverment; the last thing I need the goverment to do is say how much power my car HAS to make.
You're championing the cause of quantity over quality, so to speak. Just because we CAN make a go from 0-60 in 4s means we SHOULD? Name some roads or highways where that kind of speed is useful, let alone needed.
The Accord is currently avaliable with 240HP. That number is only going to go up in the future because of "competition." Is that right? Increasing HP just for competition's sake?
You have to understand that, in some series, such as the JGTC, the cars don't make anywhere near the power of the new street-legal super/turbo MB's. And yet people buy and drive and wreck them. You can see the stories all over the net. Thankfully, those cars are fairly rare and unattainable to most people. But that will change with time, which is the scary part...
It was the same in the days of American muscle cars. Those days are back, just in a different form. Hopefully they'll fade away in a similar fashion.
And, if you want to get technical, the internal combustion engine is not a very efficient machine.
And you saying that an efficient engine = driving fun makes no sense.
Besides, engine technology these days is great. Chassis development, however, usually does not match the engine. Some cars, like select Hondas, Toyota, and especially the Lotus Elise, among others, show that you do not need 600TQ to make a fun car. A balanced, well-engineered chassis and a capable, but not ridiculous, engine is all that is need for fun.
In a great sort of irony, car makers are being lazy and excessive at the same time, packing cars full of useless crap making them heavy as hell and then compensating with ridiculous engines. This isn't a good thing. It certainly isn't good engineering.
This brings me to Lexus. They have openly stated that while they will increase performance, they will not get into HP game. Smart, guys, kudos. I have a ton of respect for them. Hopefully they will approach future cars, even and especially the performance variants, from a chassis standpoint. Hybrid power, too, which is encouraging, not some huge forced-induction 12-cylinders.
But do think about these things. Five years from now, your life is going to be put in danger by countless newly-licensed drivers who will be able to afford used Evos and WRXs, etc. for cheap...
Last edited by SecPole14; 08-09-04 at 02:52 PM.
08-09-04, 05:13 PM
#17
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by wantAnewLex
It was the same in the days of American muscle cars. Those days are back, just in a different form. Hopefully they'll fade away in a similar fashion.
It was the same in the days of American muscle cars. Those days are back, just in a different form. Hopefully they'll fade away in a similar fashion.
08-09-04, 09:13 PM
#18
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: California
Posts: 1,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by wantAnewLex
That's immaturity speaking.
That's immaturity speaking.
You're championing the cause of quantity over quality, so to speak. Just because we CAN make a go from 0-60 in 4s means we SHOULD? Name some roads or highways where that kind of speed is useful, let alone needed.
The Accord is currently avaliable with 240HP. That number is only going to go up in the future because of "competition." Is that right? Increasing HP just for competition's sake?
It was the same in the days of American muscle cars. Those days are back, just in a different form. Hopefully they'll fade away in a similar fashion.
And, if you want to get technical, the internal combustion engine is not a very efficient machine.
And you saying that an efficient engine = driving fun makes no sense.
Besides, engine technology these days is great. Chassis development, however, usually does not match the engine. Some cars, like select Hondas, Toyota, and especially the Lotus Elise, among others, show that you do not need 600TQ to make a fun car. A balanced, well-engineered chassis and a capable, but not ridiculous, engine is all that is need for fun.
Chassis development is also a key area. Problem with the lighter chassis is that they are made from aluminum. You ever see a Jaguar XJR in a collition? The whole front end gets messed up. How about the Audi TT? One hit a 98ish Grand Am going around 30mph, the Grand Am sustained frontal damage (bumper, lights, fender). The TT did a 180º and would not start, started leaking coolent, hood, bumper, lighs, and engine compartment damage. A well balanced chassis does not necessarily mean a safe one.
In a great sort of irony, car makers are being lazy and excessive at the same time, packing cars full of useless crap making them heavy as hell and then compensating with ridiculous engines. This isn't a good thing. It certainly isn't good engineering.
This brings me to Lexus. They have openly stated that while they will increase performance, they will not get into HP game. Smart, guys, kudos. I have a ton of respect for them. Hopefully they will approach future cars, even and especially the performance variants, from a chassis standpoint. Hybrid power, too, which is encouraging, not some huge forced-induction 12-cylinders.
But do think about these things. Five years from now, your life is going to be put in danger by countless newly-licensed drivers who will be able to afford used Evos and WRXs, etc. for cheap...
Originally posted by Iceman
I think that's all 0I33I was saying--it's not the government's place to arbitrarily limit something like automobile engine power.
I think that's all 0I33I was saying--it's not the government's place to arbitrarily limit something like automobile engine power.
Last edited by 0l33l; 08-09-04 at 09:15 PM.
08-10-04, 12:34 AM
#19
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Thailand
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is hilarious. . . I havn't posted here in a long time, but still read. . . since I no longer own a Lexus I don't feel I have the *priviledge* to post.
HELLO? YOU EVER HEARD OF INSURANCE? Some hippies wanna ban everything that the market desires, jeez. You see there's this thing called insurance, yeah! You see Camaro's and Corvettes are already very cheap and have remarkable performance, and to lesser extent Mustangs. You see, these are the cars that result in the highest % of fatality crashes in the US, and resultingly the most expensive to insure. However, there numbers are fairly limited, so they aren't as expensive as they should be. Man I hate hippies.
If Camry's become incredibly fast cars, insurance companies will have no choice but to jack up the rates to the point where only the elite and careful drivers can afford such commodities. Then, demand for slower cars will be higher.
Secondly, if the manufacture of fast cars became cheaper, that would mean that slow cars would even cheaper than than they are now. . . the demand for an inexpensive automobile far outweighs the demand for a fast one. Hello? Why do you think Hyundai/Kia is the fastest growing manufacturer.
Third, there is this thing called fuel to account for. Hybrids make a car more efficient (by conserving wasted energy). Either way, a fast car will always be more inefficient than a slow one with no exceptions. Fuel prices are expected to double within the next few years, and I'll take any wager that the demand for economic vehicles will grow even greater than now, much faster than the demand for fast vehicles. Fast cars are a luxury, and will remain so. . . basic pickup trucks still are the best selling vehicles around the world by a HUGE margin.
There are so many market forces at work, I would have to type for an hour to explain it all. But those who are for power restrictions on engines, really have no clue whatsoever what they are talking about. I'm not trying to insult you, although it will seem this way, but there really is more at hand than just "saving lives." That's what the Highway Patrol is for. If you sentence every speeder to death, nobody will speed (I'm not for that either)!
HELLO? YOU EVER HEARD OF INSURANCE? Some hippies wanna ban everything that the market desires, jeez. You see there's this thing called insurance, yeah! You see Camaro's and Corvettes are already very cheap and have remarkable performance, and to lesser extent Mustangs. You see, these are the cars that result in the highest % of fatality crashes in the US, and resultingly the most expensive to insure. However, there numbers are fairly limited, so they aren't as expensive as they should be. Man I hate hippies.
If Camry's become incredibly fast cars, insurance companies will have no choice but to jack up the rates to the point where only the elite and careful drivers can afford such commodities. Then, demand for slower cars will be higher.
Secondly, if the manufacture of fast cars became cheaper, that would mean that slow cars would even cheaper than than they are now. . . the demand for an inexpensive automobile far outweighs the demand for a fast one. Hello? Why do you think Hyundai/Kia is the fastest growing manufacturer.
Third, there is this thing called fuel to account for. Hybrids make a car more efficient (by conserving wasted energy). Either way, a fast car will always be more inefficient than a slow one with no exceptions. Fuel prices are expected to double within the next few years, and I'll take any wager that the demand for economic vehicles will grow even greater than now, much faster than the demand for fast vehicles. Fast cars are a luxury, and will remain so. . . basic pickup trucks still are the best selling vehicles around the world by a HUGE margin.
There are so many market forces at work, I would have to type for an hour to explain it all. But those who are for power restrictions on engines, really have no clue whatsoever what they are talking about. I'm not trying to insult you, although it will seem this way, but there really is more at hand than just "saving lives." That's what the Highway Patrol is for. If you sentence every speeder to death, nobody will speed (I'm not for that either)!
08-10-04, 06:52 AM
#20
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I wonder why I live alone here...
Posts: 4,330
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by 0l33l
That's not nice. <restrains comment>
That's not nice. <restrains comment>
Originally posted by 0l33l
Quatnity over quality? Lets say you have two options: 1) using a technology like Vtech to boost horsepower and torque or 2) not using it because it won't do you any good on the highways?
Quatnity over quality? Lets say you have two options: 1) using a technology like Vtech to boost horsepower and torque or 2) not using it because it won't do you any good on the highways?
Originally posted by 0l33l
Horsepower and torque on the Accord are limited because of its FWD architecture. And yes, if the Accord is switched to RWD or AWD they will increase HP to make their car more appealing to consumers. Hey, that's what Mitsubishi is trying to do with the Galant vs. Camry; they claim the Galant is faster, and has better brakeing, making their car more appealing to consumers.
Horsepower and torque on the Accord are limited because of its FWD architecture. And yes, if the Accord is switched to RWD or AWD they will increase HP to make their car more appealing to consumers. Hey, that's what Mitsubishi is trying to do with the Galant vs. Camry; they claim the Galant is faster, and has better brakeing, making their car more appealing to consumers.
Originally posted by 0l33l
The reason for the fade of the American muscle cars was the OPEC embargo. People realized that they needed more fuel efficient vehicles. Att hat time Detroit was producing cars in the range of 6L!!!!
The reason for the fade of the American muscle cars was the OPEC embargo. People realized that they needed more fuel efficient vehicles. Att hat time Detroit was producing cars in the range of 6L!!!!
Originally posted by 0l33l
If should have said more efficient. Car manufacturers are striving to make it more efficient, increasing hp and torque while lowering fuel consumption.
If should have said more efficient. Car manufacturers are striving to make it more efficient, increasing hp and torque while lowering fuel consumption.
Originally posted by 0l33l
Never said that. Said that a more powerful engine = driving fun.
Never said that. Said that a more powerful engine = driving fun.
...it just means the engine is efficient, and therefore it provides more fun out of driving.
Originally posted by 0l33l
Engine technology can still be worked on Chassis development is also a key area. Problem with the lighter chassis is that they are made from aluminum. You ever see a Jaguar XJR in a collition? The whole front end gets messed up. How about the Audi TT? One hit a 98ish Grand Am going around 30mph, the Grand Am sustained frontal damage (bumper, lights, fender). The TT did a 180º and would not start, started leaking coolent, hood, bumper, lighs, and engine compartment damage. A well balanced chassis does not necessarily mean a safe one.
Engine technology can still be worked on
Chassis development is also a key area. Problem with the lighter chassis is that they are made from aluminum. You ever see a Jaguar XJR in a collition? The whole front end gets messed up. How about the Audi TT? One hit a 98ish Grand Am going around 30mph, the Grand Am sustained frontal damage (bumper, lights, fender). The TT did a 180º and would not start, started leaking coolent, hood, bumper, lighs, and engine compartment damage. A well balanced chassis does not necessarily mean a safe one.
Your examples are meaningless. A body structure is supposed to absorb and redirect the energy of a crash. Would you prefer something so ridgid that it would just channel the forces straight through your body and crush your bones? The XJR is a strong, safe chassis. As is the Audi TT, much better than a Grand Am. I would have to see data on this scenario instead of reading some meaningless description. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Originally posted by 0l33l
Define useless crap? A LOT of people find navigation systems useful, some even find them necessary.
Define useless crap? A LOT of people find navigation systems useful, some even find them necessary.
Originally posted by 0l33l
Toyota has cars that have 12-cylinders in Japan. And Lexus is rummored to be developing a performance division. I'm all for Hybrid technology, it brings less pollution, less gas consumption, and higher hp and toruqe figures.
Toyota has cars that have 12-cylinders in Japan. And Lexus is rummored to be developing a performance division. I'm all for Hybrid technology, it brings less pollution, less gas consumption, and higher hp and toruqe figures.
Originally posted by 0l33l
Think about it: people are always getting fast used cars. Look at the preludes, they are fast and now any ricer who has enough sense to save up some more money is able to afford one now. Whenever you are driving you are at risk of some moron running into you, running a red light, opeining his door wide open, etc, etc.
Think about it: people are always getting fast used cars. Look at the preludes, they are fast and now any ricer who has enough sense to save up some more money is able to afford one now. Whenever you are driving you are at risk of some moron running into you, running a red light, opeining his door wide open, etc, etc.
Anyway, I hate aruging semantics on the internet. It's hard to say what will happen, we're just tossing (in most cases) unsubstantiaed opinions around. The coming decade will prove who is correct.
Originally posted by dj.ctwatt
This is hilarious. . . I havn't posted here in a long time, but still read. . . since I no longer own a Lexus I don't feel I have the *priviledge* to post.
HELLO? YOU EVER HEARD OF INSURANCE? Some hippies wanna ban everything that the market desires, jeez. You see there's this thing called insurance, yeah! You see Camaro's and Corvettes are already very cheap and have remarkable performance, and to lesser extent Mustangs. You see, these are the cars that result in the highest % of fatality crashes in the US, and resultingly the most expensive to insure. However, there numbers are fairly limited, so they aren't as expensive as they should be. Man I hate hippies.
If Camry's become incredibly fast cars, insurance companies will have no choice but to jack up the rates to the point where only the elite and careful drivers can afford such commodities. Then, demand for slower cars will be higher.
Secondly, if the manufacture of fast cars became cheaper, that would mean that slow cars would even cheaper than than they are now. . . the demand for an inexpensive automobile far outweighs the demand for a fast one. Hello? Why do you think Hyundai/Kia is the fastest growing manufacturer.
Third, there is this thing called fuel to account for. Hybrids make a car more efficient (by conserving wasted energy). Either way, a fast car will always be more inefficient than a slow one with no exceptions. Fuel prices are expected to double within the next few years, and I'll take any wager that the demand for economic vehicles will grow even greater than now, much faster than the demand for fast vehicles. Fast cars are a luxury, and will remain so. . . basic pickup trucks still are the best selling vehicles around the world by a HUGE margin.
There are so many market forces at work, I would have to type for an hour to explain it all. But those who are for power restrictions on engines, really have no clue whatsoever what they are talking about. I'm not trying to insult you, although it will seem this way, but there really is more at hand than just "saving lives." That's what the Highway Patrol is for. If you sentence every speeder to death, nobody will speed (I'm not for that either)!
This is hilarious. . . I havn't posted here in a long time, but still read. . . since I no longer own a Lexus I don't feel I have the *priviledge* to post.
HELLO? YOU EVER HEARD OF INSURANCE? Some hippies wanna ban everything that the market desires, jeez. You see there's this thing called insurance, yeah! You see Camaro's and Corvettes are already very cheap and have remarkable performance, and to lesser extent Mustangs. You see, these are the cars that result in the highest % of fatality crashes in the US, and resultingly the most expensive to insure. However, there numbers are fairly limited, so they aren't as expensive as they should be. Man I hate hippies.
If Camry's become incredibly fast cars, insurance companies will have no choice but to jack up the rates to the point where only the elite and careful drivers can afford such commodities. Then, demand for slower cars will be higher.
Secondly, if the manufacture of fast cars became cheaper, that would mean that slow cars would even cheaper than than they are now. . . the demand for an inexpensive automobile far outweighs the demand for a fast one. Hello? Why do you think Hyundai/Kia is the fastest growing manufacturer.
Third, there is this thing called fuel to account for. Hybrids make a car more efficient (by conserving wasted energy). Either way, a fast car will always be more inefficient than a slow one with no exceptions. Fuel prices are expected to double within the next few years, and I'll take any wager that the demand for economic vehicles will grow even greater than now, much faster than the demand for fast vehicles. Fast cars are a luxury, and will remain so. . . basic pickup trucks still are the best selling vehicles around the world by a HUGE margin.
There are so many market forces at work, I would have to type for an hour to explain it all. But those who are for power restrictions on engines, really have no clue whatsoever what they are talking about. I'm not trying to insult you, although it will seem this way, but there really is more at hand than just "saving lives." That's what the Highway Patrol is for. If you sentence every speeder to death, nobody will speed (I'm not for that either)!
The absolute LAST thing I need is for someone like you to explain to me the "many market forces at work." You could count on one hand the number of people on CL who keep up the industry on a week-by-week basis, and I can definitely say I'm one of them. I couldn't tell you how to do a 2JZ swap, but I have vast knowledge about the workings of the auto industry.
You make yourself sound ridiculous. Not to mention I can tell you didn't actually bother reading the majority of my post. I'm not supporting flat-out restrictions, but come on, it has to stop somewhere.
Thanks for playing.
Last edited by SecPole14; 08-10-04 at 10:28 AM.
08-10-04, 07:59 AM
#21
Forum Administrator
iTrader: (2)
Guys let's keep this civil and on topic please
08-10-04, 09:23 AM
#22
Lexus Fanatic
Although it is not yet a problem everywhere, what is eventually going to kill off the idea of more and more speed and more and more powerful cars is simply congestion, not " Gentleman's " agreements. It is simply an fact of life that roads in most areas are getting more crowded all the time, especially around cities. And not just CARS.....More and more traffic lights, speed bumps, 4-way stops, etc... Whether you have an AMG, a BMW M, a Porsche Turbo, a Corvette.....whatever......There simply isn't much ROOM to speed anymore unless you are in a sparsely populated state. Yes, I know that places like Montana and Kansas still have the open road, but more and more places just don't anymore.
08-10-04, 12:31 PM
#23
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: California
Posts: 1,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What can I say? I was your age a couple years ago and all I could think about was driving a high-powered car (particularly a WRX), even though the one I had was capable of 130MPH and could easily get me into trouble. Now that I've had turbo even more powerful than a WRX for a couple months, I know that I would not have been ready for it back then. My outlook on cars has changed quite a bit over the past few years. Age and learn, bro.
Like I said, you're arguing for higher HP, which doesn't neccesarily mean a better driving experience. How and why it's used are other matter entirely.
)
Why? Are people that dumb? Because more is automatically better or needed? Braking is one thing. Selling speed in a FWD family sedan is just ludicrous.
What's your point? Fuel economy? Dude, if so, cars like the Hummer, Dodge Viper, various Ferraris, and the new twin-turbo MBs aren't doing much better. My turbo has rougly the same fuel economy as a Corvette.
There is a 700hp Supra that gets 24mpg.. that's higher than the factory fuel specs. Then SCC featurd another Supra that got 30mpg 
More power does not necessarily = lower gas mileage.
You're talking about fuel efficiency. I'm talking about mechanical efficiency. HP/TQ/fuel consumption figures alone are not enough to evaluate the overall efficiency of a machine. The fact is that the internal cumbustion engine is an inherently inefficient machine.
Anyone can tell you I'm the wrong person to aruge with when it comes to car safety. So what that a chassis is made from aluminum? Have you ever seen a Formula 1 race/crash? Those cars are made of carbon fibre, even lighter than aluminum. Just because something is light doesn't mean it's not strong. In fact, many of the strongest materials are also the lightest. You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about many things.
Your examples are meaningless. A body structure is supposed to absorb and redirect the energy of a crash. Would you prefer something so ridgid that it would just channel the forces straight through your body and crush your bones? The XJR is a strong, safe chassis. As is the Audi TT, much better than a Grand Am. I would have to see data on this scenario instead of reading some meaningless description. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Your examples are meaningless. A body structure is supposed to absorb and redirect the energy of a crash. Would you prefer something so ridgid that it would just channel the forces straight through your body and crush your bones? The XJR is a strong, safe chassis. As is the Audi TT, much better than a Grand Am. I would have to see data on this scenario instead of reading some meaningless description. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
How the hell did people find where they were going before NAV? Granted some upcoming technologies like live traffic with NAV are more practical, but when planning a road trip I look at a map. The only reason I would get a NAV system is to stroke my ego. I would never use it.
Hi! Welcome to five years ago!!! Yes, we know Lexus is working on a performance division. Yes, we know about hybrid. Yes, we know that Toyota makes a V12 sedan in Japan. One. And its V12 is frumpy, just a conversation piece for Yakuza and corporate big wigs.
Duh. Of course the risk is always there. I'm saying that the risk is only going to go up, and no one is doing anything about it.
I have vast knowledge about the workings of the auto industry.
Originally posted by DaveGS4
Guys let's keep this civil and on topic please
Guys let's keep this civil and on topic please
08-10-04, 01:16 PM
#24
let the floodgates open... and I don't mean the flames.. I mean the HP's
well think of it this way. As the efficiencies of the engines went up we moved to a cycle of smaller engines that produces more power, I think we are nearing that point again.
When the SC400 was first introduced it produced a lot of power for the displacement 4.0L 250HP 260TQ look at the G35's 3.5L and it's producing 280HP and 270TQ(?) at this pace in 2 model cycles we'll have 300HP and 300TQ out of a 2.5L engine that gets us 25mpg average.... I say it's a good trend...
well think of it this way. As the efficiencies of the engines went up we moved to a cycle of smaller engines that produces more power, I think we are nearing that point again.
When the SC400 was first introduced it produced a lot of power for the displacement 4.0L 250HP 260TQ look at the G35's 3.5L and it's producing 280HP and 270TQ(?) at this pace in 2 model cycles we'll have 300HP and 300TQ out of a 2.5L engine that gets us 25mpg average.... I say it's a good trend...
08-10-04, 02:53 PM
#26
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I wonder why I live alone here...
Posts: 4,330
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by 0l33l
LOL
LOL
Originally posted by VSsc400
let the floodgates open... and I don't mean the flames.. I mean the HP's
well think of it this way. As the efficiencies of the engines went up we moved to a cycle of smaller engines that produces more power, I think we are nearing that point again.
When the SC400 was first introduced it produced a lot of power for the displacement 4.0L 250HP 260TQ look at the G35's 3.5L and it's producing 280HP and 270TQ(?) at this pace in 2 model cycles we'll have 300HP and 300TQ out of a 2.5L engine that gets us 25mpg average.... I say it's a good trend...
let the floodgates open... and I don't mean the flames.. I mean the HP's
well think of it this way. As the efficiencies of the engines went up we moved to a cycle of smaller engines that produces more power, I think we are nearing that point again.
When the SC400 was first introduced it produced a lot of power for the displacement 4.0L 250HP 260TQ look at the G35's 3.5L and it's producing 280HP and 270TQ(?) at this pace in 2 model cycles we'll have 300HP and 300TQ out of a 2.5L engine that gets us 25mpg average.... I say it's a good trend...
08-10-04, 03:29 PM
#27
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Thailand
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, no I didn't read your entire post. I was kinda lacking sleep, so I was a bit groggy, and I sincerely apologize.
I do still, however, stand by my comments. I just perused the thread, not really reading into detail. But limitations on manufacturing are not a good idea. If you are obeying the laws of the road, than there is no issue on safety. Having not read your post, this is more of an off statement than a response to you.
I do still, however, stand by my comments. I just perused the thread, not really reading into detail. But limitations on manufacturing are not a good idea. If you are obeying the laws of the road, than there is no issue on safety. Having not read your post, this is more of an off statement than a response to you.
08-10-04, 03:36 PM
#28
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 3,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by wantAnewLex
How the hell did people find where they were going before NAV? Granted some upcoming technologies like live traffic with NAV are more practical, but when planning a road trip I look at a map. The only reason I would get a NAV system is to stroke my ego. I would never use it.
How the hell did people find where they were going before NAV? Granted some upcoming technologies like live traffic with NAV are more practical, but when planning a road trip I look at a map. The only reason I would get a NAV system is to stroke my ego. I would never use it.
08-10-04, 03:41 PM
#29
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Thailand
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, what I said IS relevant, jeez. You're talking like people are going to die left and right. . . more accidents are caused by negligence than recklessness, just look it up.
Secondly, these gizmo fast cars are what you call a niche market. Check the percentage of these "fast" cars and "gizmo" cars to actual cars. You'll see that it is VERY low; a huge gap between those and basic pick up trucks. YOu might live in CA or some other ritsy neighborhood somewhere in the country, so the numbers where you live may be disproportionate and non-representative of the entire nation. If you ask me, the problem is with the manufacturers of cars, it's with the consumers. We have too many bad drivers, particularly young ones, and I hate to say this, but we do not have enough enforcement either.
The same kind of logic is used against drug dealers, prostitution, and human exploitation(not saying they are even remotely the same as fast cars). People say that we need to shut down the manufacturers. . . dumb move. You only make the few that survive, legal(through loopholes) or illegal, all the more profitable. If there is sufficient demand (which for fast automobiles there will always be), there will always be profitability, and thus there will always be a supply. Squeeze the supply, you up their profits and create monopolies for suppliers. Now this policy helps, but it will not stop the existence. In the case of illegal activity it decreases it, but it makes those who remain stronger. In cars, we're talking about dumb drivers having cars beyond their capabilities. You know what happens? You get import tuners, that turn civics(slow) into decent performance machines through illegal means. An effective policy? Hardly.
Good economic policy = stop the side that presents the problem. Consumers create the problem, tax(restrict) the consumers, not the suppliers. If you make driver's license requirement stringent enough, and punishment for unlicensed driving harsh enough, you will completely eliminate the problem. With no demand, manufacturers will not be profitable. Problem solved.
Secondly, these gizmo fast cars are what you call a niche market. Check the percentage of these "fast" cars and "gizmo" cars to actual cars. You'll see that it is VERY low; a huge gap between those and basic pick up trucks. YOu might live in CA or some other ritsy neighborhood somewhere in the country, so the numbers where you live may be disproportionate and non-representative of the entire nation. If you ask me, the problem is with the manufacturers of cars, it's with the consumers. We have too many bad drivers, particularly young ones, and I hate to say this, but we do not have enough enforcement either.
The same kind of logic is used against drug dealers, prostitution, and human exploitation(not saying they are even remotely the same as fast cars). People say that we need to shut down the manufacturers. . . dumb move. You only make the few that survive, legal(through loopholes) or illegal, all the more profitable. If there is sufficient demand (which for fast automobiles there will always be), there will always be profitability, and thus there will always be a supply. Squeeze the supply, you up their profits and create monopolies for suppliers. Now this policy helps, but it will not stop the existence. In the case of illegal activity it decreases it, but it makes those who remain stronger. In cars, we're talking about dumb drivers having cars beyond their capabilities. You know what happens? You get import tuners, that turn civics(slow) into decent performance machines through illegal means. An effective policy? Hardly.
Good economic policy = stop the side that presents the problem. Consumers create the problem, tax(restrict) the consumers, not the suppliers. If you make driver's license requirement stringent enough, and punishment for unlicensed driving harsh enough, you will completely eliminate the problem. With no demand, manufacturers will not be profitable. Problem solved.
08-10-04, 03:48 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've argued many times, this HP War is stupid. Especially if the rest of the car doen't work as it should or is not put together like it should.
I also think and by being on tons of forums, we have knuckleheads all over with their 240hp Accords, 245 Altimas, etc etc etc and with the SILLY MARKETING fooling people that they are truly world-class sports sedans.
THEY ARE NOT. They are family cars. Go to Wal-mart, pick the kids of from school, go get some Chinese cuisine. The Camry was the best selling car with 200hp last year. And these cars are Ameican made for American desires. So the gentleman's agreement has nothing to do with them.
The gentleman's agreement did not stop;
The GS 400 being the fastest accelerating sedan temperarily
The NSX
The S2000
The Supra
The 300ZX/Fairlady i.e 350Z
EVO
WRX
GT-R
etc etc etc
I thought it did make some sense to have a limit. For gentleman. Look at the Audi, Benz, BMW fight. It's great to look at, it's great to read and hear but WHERE CAN YOU DRIVE TO FULLY EXPLOIT THEIR VALUE?????
What is funny is Honda will be the first to break it with the 300hp RL. Toyota and Nissan are going to have a field day when their 400 and 500hp cars start coming out.
I also think and by being on tons of forums, we have knuckleheads all over with their 240hp Accords, 245 Altimas, etc etc etc and with the SILLY MARKETING fooling people that they are truly world-class sports sedans.
THEY ARE NOT. They are family cars. Go to Wal-mart, pick the kids of from school, go get some Chinese cuisine. The Camry was the best selling car with 200hp last year. And these cars are Ameican made for American desires. So the gentleman's agreement has nothing to do with them.
The gentleman's agreement did not stop;
The GS 400 being the fastest accelerating sedan temperarily
The NSX
The S2000
The Supra
The 300ZX/Fairlady i.e 350Z
EVO
WRX
GT-R
etc etc etc
I thought it did make some sense to have a limit. For gentleman. Look at the Audi, Benz, BMW fight. It's great to look at, it's great to read and hear but WHERE CAN YOU DRIVE TO FULLY EXPLOIT THEIR VALUE?????
What is funny is Honda will be the first to break it with the 300hp RL. Toyota and Nissan are going to have a field day when their 400 and 500hp cars start coming out.