I'm probably going to get roasted for mentioning this, but am I the only person that thinks cars are getting too powerful for John Q. Public? Seriously, the entry level Mustang has 300 hp now. It wasnt too long ago that supercars had mid 400's, and you can get that for <40k. Unless you like to drive sprited (like me, and still even then), you really have no use for more than about 200-250 hp on the street. How much is too much?

 

How dare you sir...

 

Sure, but its an easy way to say "hey look, this year's model is better than last years model because it has 20 extra horsepower".

To bad its so **** addicting, recently I drove a Scion TC (a friend's car) it was an eye opening experience. To get anywhere near the level of performance I've grown accustomed to, I had to run that thing pretty hard.

Speaking of which, about the only good thing I can say about a Scion TC is that it is sorta nimble, otherwise there isn't anything terribly complelling about it, but I suppose you can't expect to much from a Corolla hatchback.

 

True, but they are also getting heavier as well and need the extra horsepower to offset the weight gain of these vehicles. Remember when an 87 Mustang GT weighed in at under 3200lbs I believe. Also, the safety items as well as stability control and abs along with much better tire compounds makes this possible. In fact I believe hp is a safety feature...

Well thats my spin on it..

 

Good point. My '00 V6 weights ~3,000 lbs.

It's kinda embarrassing that today Mustang weights same as full-size Toyota Avalon.

 

they do need some power to help out with the extra weight.

I guess I'm just old school, I despise all the computerized aids cars have now, it makes people think they can drive a whole lot better than they can, until they've gone over the limits of what the computer can compensate for and then they're waaaay over their heads.

 

It doesn't matter how much power a car has. If driven recklessly, even on a 40 horse three cylinder or in a 25hp VW bug, you can get into trouble, even die or kill somebody. And the majority of the public buys cars with less than 300 hp anyway. Look the sales #'s for Camry, Accord, Fusion & Malibu for example.
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2010/06...-may-2010.html

 

I like the added horsepower. I do agree that cars these days are beginning to come to the point where they do everything for you(look at the GTR) and people aren't learning as much about driving except how to push an On button, set cruise control and let the car park itself. However, with all this technology we also get goodies, like buttons that'll instantly give you more horsepower, or suspension adjustments. Cars are getting better and worse as time goes on. Its all personal preference after that.

 

...Until you find a use for it, and wish you had more. Ever try to pass a car on a 2 lane highway while you're driving a 4 cylinder with less than 200hp? It's unsettling when you stomp on it, and go nowhere... We, as a country, need to stop saying that "driving is a privilege, not a right", and actually start meaning it. I'm tired of computer aids trying to make up for lack of driving skill, cuz everyone thinks they know how to drive and shouldn't have to take drivers ed.

 

Hey,hey,hey wait a minute...
I've passed many, many cars with a 4 cyl. with less than 100HP.
If you know how, it is easy.
Hang back before the passing zone.
Downshift and floor it.
Hit the higher gears as needed.
Fly by the slowpoke at the passing zone.
Never a problem.
Maybe you think you know how to drive, maybe you don't.

 

It doesn't matter the horsepower. It matters the driver.

Anyone can go fast. I see 4 cylinder Corollas going 100MPH on the freeway all the time. On the spare, no less.

Now, if the spare blows, or they hit a patch of oil or something... that's the question. How will they do?

Again, anyone can go fast. And as such, anyone can wrap their car around a tree. The only difference is how fast do you get to 100? Other than that, a 50HP car is too much car for some.

It's not the horses. It's the guy with the reins.

 

david, you arent the only one searching for an answer to this...

 

I do that exact thing you described...but the problem of seeming to go nowhere when you stomp on the gas is still unsettling.

 

I agree to a large degree. It's not so much how fast a car goes, but how a car goes fast that really matters.

Manufacturers do seem to be caught in a spiral of ever fatter cars needing ever more power resulting in even fatter cars needing even more power... A similar spiral happened in the sixties and early seventies and that ended badly for a decade or two (remember when the top dog Mustang had all of 132 hp).

I think future Mustangs should cap the power levels pretty much where they are now (305, 412, 550) and rather, focus on reducing size, weight and drag while improving efficiency, handling and overall vehicle dynamics. If you want to increase straight line performance, do it from the mass side of the mass vs. power equation.

In the end, I think we'll end up with cars that are just as fast if not faster in a straight line put are far more enjoyable to actually drive and yet take a smaller bite out of one's gas budget.

 

i think it has alot to do with the weight problem with cars these days. then add into the fact that our technology is advancing far quicker than the average drivers competence. i know too many people who are unsafe in whatever car their in. i drive way too fast but i PAY ATTENTION TO THE ROAD, something thats beyond 95% of the population in berkeley, and people like ME are the ones getting tickets. these people wouldnt be safe in my oold protege.

yeah the cars should be lighter instead of being rocketships that weigh a million pounds. thats alot of mass and inertia and most folks dont even know the basic physics of how cars work. its a bit terrifying thats for sure.

but as annoying as the car problem is its really a people problem. its way too easy to get a license in this country. people are too entitled without having earned anything these days. everyone thinks they can handle 300hp rwd cars without a bat of the eye. my old roomate wanted to get a 400hp firebird as her first muscle car. her only driving experience was a VW new bug convertible. i am pretty sure if shed gotten it shed be fatally injured or worse. she cant drive a bug for a ****, and she wanted a car that people with experience find wily..

so yeah, ive been blabbing on and on, but to sum it up. the cars are not a big issue. they are the way they are because people are too dumb to know anything about cars and just want things. and everyone knows if you want it you should totally just get it

 

I had one other thought.

How many Mustangs are involved in runaway vehicle issues, versus, oh, Toyotas? Hm?

And no Toyota comes close to the 5.0's power except a truck's.

I think I just rested the case... it's definitely not a power problem.

 

Thats not limited to Berkeley, inattentiveness is pretty high everywhere. Now for the real question? Is it due to a general decline in the number of drivers who take driving seriously or is it an aggregate of reasonably competent drivers who occassionally mess up.

I'd still argue that cars may have gotten too powerful and weight hasn't been the primary driving factor. As an example, the foxbody cars were pretty svelte and generally could only muster low 14 to high 13 second 1/4 mile times and while a bit heavier, it was the same for the F-body cars up until the introduction of the LS1.

Now in 2010, the heaviest Mustangs area easily capable of eclipsing the 13 second mark and so is the heaviest Camaro.

Also, I've noticed people tend to be more heavily spec driven than in the past with no real clue as to how those ever increasing levels of power translates into a ::term I hate:: real-world ::end term I hate:: experience. Ergo, I'm still convinced more power is mostly a result of having been driven by marketing and the need to show how this year's model is improved over last year's model.

 

The whole Toyota Prius issue is a farce..blow hard politician trying to make hay. Don't get me wrong I don't like Prius's but to be fair to Toyota the whole thing especially the runaway Prius on the freeway turnes out to be a fraud.

Dave

 

I have indeed, my first car was a 91 Nissan pickup, with 275k miles on the odo and a hardly powerful 4 cyl, with maybe 120 hp, and I had no problem passing people when I needed to.

you hit the nail on the head my friend. people just dont pay attention to their surroundings anymore. awareness is the one thing that has kept me from several accidents over the past few years when I've been paying attention and others havent.

that may have been a "fake", but the premise was real, and it was a problem indivitive of many other issues Toyota has had over the past year.

 

Oh, I don't think it was a fraud at all. Not in any sense of the word whatsoever.

I firmly believe that Jane/John Doe can't save their life in a car that coddles them in every way, and aren't even trained how to approach an un-lined entrance/exit to a parking lot correctly. That 'middle lane' is not where a car goes, people. You're blocking the entrance, kthx.

Doesn't surprise me one bit that Toyota, much like Ford and the SUV/Tire thing, is being blamed. Not one bit at all. It's quite obvious that nobody on earth could possibly know that shifting into neutral will allow the car to not keep accelerating... must be the manufacturer's fault.

Next, the manufacturers will be blamed because the car ran a red light. It should have known the light was turning red and stopped the car automatically, right?

Don't laugh... it's not that funny, and besides, we got laser cruise control which slows the car down if there's one in front of you... it's not all that far a stretch with red lights... and speed controls... And if Oregon (I think) had it's way, road use monitoring for taxation purposes.

/too much automation isn't good for people.