Jump to content

Are cars too powerful?


Théière
 Share

Recommended Posts

[6] With all the posts on the forum lately its very obvious that in Britain and soon to follow suite France, there is a major crack down on speeding.

Is it time for the European Central Government (those people with our best interest at heart) to restrict engine performance as they do motorcycles in France.

We are running out of oil slowly but surely and engines in excess of 200 bhp are now common place.

Do we need them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="JMB"]There is no such thing as a "too powerful car". [/quote]

Yes there is, the're the ones wrapped around street furniture. too powerful for todays needs. Still enjoy watching Top Gear but without a private airfield to play on they are a bit pointless and will be getting more pointless as time goes on.

Used to have just as much fun in my 76bhp mini cooper S.[:)]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These days 76bhp is about enough to power the aircon, electric windows, seats, power steering, electronics for abs, traction control, navigation and emissions control, and to get the extra weight of seat belts, crumple zones and other safety gear into motion.  Passengers and drivers are bigger and heavier too, so add another 20bhp to compensate for them.  There's even electric heated screens, washers for screens fore and aft, and for lights (lots more lights now, of course) - all that's extra weight, so add another 20 bhp or so.

So nowadays your mini cooper s would need all its original 76 bhp plus another 110 or more to have any sort of acceptable sporty performance.  This is why the 200bhp car is so common now.

As for cars with too much power, Porsches used to be simple, sporty, exciting but not scary and powered by a not particularly powerful motor.  Then came the 911 - handled hopelessly so they widened the track and flared the wheel arches.  Then it handled reasonably well so they gave it more power.  Oh dear, they had to widen the wheels, track and arches again.  OK, now it sort of handled but then they gave it more power - once again more rubber and track width to compensate.  The once pretty car ended up looking like a muscle-bound gym animal, and the bloody thing would still swap ends at the drop of a hat.  

Extra power doesn't always make a better, or even faster car.

Patrick        

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="giantpanda"]If you see the last negocations in Brussels, they gave way to Germany on the CO2 new limits question ( gave them extra time ) , because they had more powerful cars in average.[/quote]It's not just a question of more powerful cars but the unrestricted sections on the autobahns.

Notwithstanding the huge emissions produced by 2 tonnes of metal travelling at 250kph there are so many changes of limit on the autobahns that you find yourself slowing down every few km to mere mortal speeds then giving it full benefit again a few minutes later at the next unrestricted section. It's hard to imagine a more pollution producing driving style but one you'll never deprive the Germans of.

Still good fun though [Www]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am kind of following you Mike, but disagree with heavily taxing. Simply do not produce them for the road, taxing just makes them elitist and therefore creates desire.

High perforemance for the race track only, you used to have to drive your racing machines to the circuit now its all done by trailers.  Watching a re run of Top Gear tonight, a star in the resonably priced car, still great fun in an ordinary saloon not some fire breathing 250+ bhp monster 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's burning the fuel that contributes to pollution, not owning a car.  Engine size limits are definitely not the answer.  If you penalize cars with engine capacity over (say) 2000 cc, you will simply develop a market in 2-litre engines tuned to deliver as much power as an "ordinary" 3-litre - and not necessarily more economical.

The solution is not to tax the vehicle, but to tax the fuel.

Somebody who buys a big car that he likes to have for occasional family trips, but which he uses rarely (because he can go to work by some other means) shouldn't pay more tax than somebody with a small car who drives to work each day and uses more fuel in a year.

And why the obsession with four-wheel drive?  Not all four-wheel drive cars have big engines.  Someone who really wants four-wheel drive (e.g. to get around in the winter) shouldn't be penalized if he decides to use the same vehicle for other purposes.   He shouldn't be forced to buy a second car: it should be an economic decision.

But for me the ultimate argument is this: a tax on the vehicle provides no disincentive to use it, and no incentive to use it economically.  A tax on fuel, on the other hand, is a permanent incentive to use the car as little as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="allanb"]

The solution is not to tax the vehicle, but to tax the fuel.

[/quote]

There has never, in my memory, been a UK Government brave enough to do this. Exactly the same argument exists for replacing the road fund license with a hike in fuel duty.

Pigs and fly are two words that spring to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="LyndaandRichard"]Have I missed something here? Isn't fuel already heavily taxed (or whatever word you want to call it) by the governments? In other words they make heaps of money from people buying fuel.

R.

[/quote]

Yes but.... it isn't all the tax they take as a result of people driving is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="LyndaandRichard"]Isn't fuel already heavily taxed (or whatever word you want to call it) by the governments?[/quote]Yes.  There are already taxes on vehicles, too.  But I think the question is: if you're going to use taxes as a way of reducing the amount of fuel we use, is it more effective to increase tax on vehicles, or tax on fuel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems with putting another tax on fuel is that it transfers a slither of power to the people who can choose not to buy it and whilst this would go towards the issue of emission reductions at the same time, and perhaps more pointedly, could significantly dent the governments rake off.

There is also a potential sting in the tail because there will always be a requirement for vehicle registration and whilst the fee for this might initially be set at a low level it would be an irresistable target for year on year budget rises to the point where you could end up paying just as much as you do now in road tax, PLUS the extra on fuel [:-))]

I think the only way to limit the usage of the most excessive vehicles is by individual massive taxation similar to that currently being phased in based on Co2 emissions and not totally dissimilar to the French CV rating system actually when you think of it. Possibly even the introduction of a graduated surcharge on the purchase price too.

Yes, there will always be people with enough money to simply not care of course but such a scheme would seriously curtail the use of such vehicles by the proletariate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we talk about tax to try and reduce CO2 emissions, we should consider the amount of fuel used by cars. My car uses about 1000 liters a year for 13000 kms. We can round that up and call it a ton of fuel.

The average Tornado aircraft that takes off from RAF Marham in the UK will burn 2 or 3 tons for a flight. I would guess that there are 40 or so sorties every day at this one base. There are three or four Tornado bases in the UK. These aircraft do not go anywhere, they land back where they started from. They don't carry more than 2 passengers and no cargo as such.

How is the government trying to reduce the CO2 from the Tornados?

Does this make you think that the tax is just another income and CO2 has nothing to do with it?

I know what I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a fine balancing act between having a car with too little power, that has to be thrashed to get it to do anything, and one, where somebody, with little or no skill can happily kill themselves without trying. A little car, thrashed is not ecologically friendly, nor is a huge engine.

The current road tax reg's in the UK are a joke. I know of restored 70s cars that are tuned weekly, and are very very efficent, and modern cars that get no maintainence and kick out clouds of smoke, yet the UK government tax "low emmisions" without really knowing how to measure them, on a day to day basis, instead they are happier using a very broad brush to say "modern small car efficent, old big car not", which isn't always the case.

As to the dangers of powerful cars, no, the danger is always, but always the nut holding the wheel. Whereas motorcyclists are legally required to advance through a system, if you rich enough, you could by a HUGE car after just passing a test, bizzarre!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="f1steveuk"]. 

.... they are happier using a very broad brush to say "modern small car efficent, old big car not", which isn't always the case.

[/quote]

Well, it is the case pretty much all the time.  Modern car motors are hugely more efficient in terms of the amount of fuel they burn for a specific output than older engines, and to a great extent it's government regulation and fuel taxes that have brought this increased efficiency about. 

The problem is that cars have got much heavier at the same time.  In the sixties a performance saloon car might have weighed 1150 kg and 110 - 125 bhp would have been considered adequate.  Now the same size car weighs 1600 -1700kg and 150bhp is not adequate, especially as a lot of the power is absorbed by aircon units and the big alternators needed to power all the electric accessories.  Emissions minimising exhaust systems also take a toll on power output and there's more rolling resistance, too, because of the wider tyres needed to confer decent handling on heavier vehicles. 

Perhaps we should be putting a tax on vehicle weight.  Excess weight is why we need more powerful engines, and bigger engines mean even more weight and greater fuel consumption.  Colin Chapman said there was nothing more useless in a racing car than weight - the same might be said for any vehicle other than a road roller.

Patrick     

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi

As a slow carefull driver, I agree that cars and 2 wheelers are too powerfull for the speed limits.  I suggest that future vehicles have engine management systems that don't allow them  to exceed a given speed limit.  It would stop people being 'taxed' for speeding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some excellent views coming across here,  I personally think a maximum horse power limit should apply to road cars. Driving around major cities I am regularly sitting in queues of traffic behind cars producing 300 bhp +.  It would give larger cars the option of  a bigger engine to produce the extra torque, maybe linked to weight?

I know from the hire cars that modern small engines and the light weight flywheels means these cars are pretty quick and fun (citroen C2 is the exception, worst car I have ever driven).

It would be interesting to see if a government would specify a Co2 scale as they are in Britain at the moment BUT with the aircon switched on! I bet your 120 gram figure will be a joke and these people could be getting away with £35.00 road tax. Don't get me wrong, aircon in a French summer is very welcome but it comes at a cost, more fuel.

A 5.5 litre Merc for example is big and heavy and seems to use a colossal amount of fuel for a short trip to our local airport compared with the Renault hire car I used last week.  What was the point of the brother in law taking it to carry on our discussion on are they neccesary?  He did get there first, but with the speed trap it would have cost him a lot more if the on comming traffic had not flashed him to warn of the Gendarmes. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble with statutory limits is that you will never get everyone to agree what they should be based on (cubic capacity, bhp, maximum speed, vehicle weight, etc) nor on what the values ought to be; and you will distort design by making engineers strive to produce something that is just below the limit but performs like something bigger - which won't necessarily be more efficient.

I remain convinced that the only effective approach is to say: if we want to reduce fuel use, we should tax fuel. Too simple for the average politician, no doubt.

Maybe I should just add that I wouldn't enjoy paying more for fuel. But I don't like any of the alternatives, either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="allanb"]Patmobile wrote: "Perhaps we should be putting a tax on vehicle weight...."

Not a bad idea. And it would create a wonderful business opportunity: detachable accessories.[/quote]Would that include the weight of the heaviest 'detachable accessories, the occupants ?

Perhaps Mr O'Leary could be given the task of working out the options and pricing [:D]

Overly powerful cars will die out naturally anyway. It won't be too long before all new vehicles will be GPS controlled making it impossible to exceed speed limits or accelerate unneccessarily. It's a small step from there to monitor Co2 emissions in real time and automatically relieve your credit card of x amount per kg. The technology is already here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...