Opinion: Should We Limit Horsepower In Cars?
I love going fast, and I make no apologies for it.
Ok that’s a lie. Sometimes, I feel guilty about going fast, guzzling gas, drooling over 5 mile per gallon muscle cars. I know the world is in a bad way, mostly because of cars. Yet I still love them, especially fast ones, because in my opinion life is too short for a 0-60 mph time of 7 seconds or more.
Still though, the easiest way to increase fuel efficiency is to make everyone go a lot slower. Instead of pursuing billions of dollars in new technologies, if everyone would just let off the accelerator, we would save a lot of gas every year. One such way would be to (again) lower the interstate speed limit 55 mph. Yet that didn’t work too well the first time around. What if we went even further, what if new cars were capped at 200 horsepower, and had a top speed of only 60 mph?
>> Interested in solar power? See if group discounts are available in your city
>> Don’t forget to: Sign up for our electric car interest list.
Ok, so I felt very dirty and un-American for writing that. I believe the government that governs best, governs least. And again… I love going fast. The only car I’ve ever owned that had less than 200 horsepower was a 1992 Nissan 240sx with 200,000 miles on the clock. And it was STILL awesome.
That disclaimer in place, I feel like exploring this notion that less horsepower and less speed might make sense for a lot of people. During the Nixon Administration, the Dick himself enacted the Emergency Highway Conservation Act, which among other things, lowered the national maximum speed limit to just 55 mph. The idea was to save about 2.2% on annual fuel consumption, though studies say it like saved about 1%, and perhaps even less than that. A major reason why is that most people probably still went 65 mph or faster; they just got more speeding tickets too.
But what if automakers were capped at making a car with no more than 200 horsepower? Realistically, 200 horsepower is probably enough power for 90% of America. The first statistic I look at when I come across a car is the horsepower rating, and every year it seems like even regular cars get more and more powerful. That could be because they have to accommodate ever more technology, safety features, and us hefty Americans. Still, 200 horsepower will motivate most family sedans while allowing us yahoos to have (very limited) fun in a coupe or hatchback. This would also seriously cut back on fuel consumption.
Just look at the average fuel economy of cars under 200 horsepower, and those over 200 horsepower. Once you break that 200 horsepower threshold, it seems very difficult to get beyond 30 mpg (the 2011 V6 Mustang being the one exception I can think of off the top of my head). How much horsepower do you really need to get to work? Something tells me most Americans aren’t in a rush to get to their desks every day anyways.
Ask yourself, what is the top speed of your car? Chances are, it is over 100 mph. There are very few places to legally go that fast, and certainly not on any public roads in the US (though I long for an American Autobahn). Why should passenger cars even be able to go that fast?
So lets get crazy, Big Brother-style government here. What if you could only accelerate so fast? Say 6 mph per second, so it would take a minimum of 10 seconds to reach 60 mph, which incidentally, would be the maximum velocity for any car made in the country. You could probably set the horsepower threshold even lower then, save even more gas, and probably reduce accidents too.
Forget for a moment that this would be a totalitarian trampling of the rights of citizens. Just consider how much fuel would be saved, and perhaps more importantly, how many lives could be saved since accidents from excess speed would essentially be eliminated. I have no statistics to back this up, but if everyone were driving the same speed, traffic congestion would probably be seriously reduced too. People might actually get so impatient with their slow cars that public transportation would end up being the expedient way to get around compared to driving a glorified golf cart.
I’d also like to counter the argument that highways have gotten safer since the 55 mph speed limit was repealed in 1995. I would argue that highways haven’t gotten any safer, and drivers certainly haven’t what with cell phones and other digital distractions; rather, cars have gotten safer. Much, much safer. There are just as many accidents now as there were twenty years ago. People just don’t get as badly hurt when there are twelve airbags going off in every direction every time you run over a chipmunk.
While I’m not proposing this kind of legislation, it is something worth pondering I suppose. We Americans want it all, yet most of us probably wouldn’t notice a difference if all of the sudden their cars lost a couple of horsepower or accelerated slightly slower. I love having the option of buying a car with 400+ horsepower, but I don’t need it. I just want it, really really bad. The only vehicles that really need a lot of horsepower (but mostly torque) are trucks or SUV’s employed for hauling and towing duty.
And muscle cars. Because you can’t burn rubber with 122 horsepower (without getting laughed at).
So anyway readers, weigh in with your thoughts. How terrible an idea is this? Or is this something you wouldn’t really mind?
Image: Wayne State University
You Might Also Like
Data Suggests Americans Drive Slower Than the Speed Limit
New Study Suggests Humans Could Run As Fast As 40 MPH
Three Electric Ice Machines Fail At Olympics
Rejoice! Honda Reportedly Working On High Performance CR-Z Type-R
January 20th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
“Forget for a moment that this would be a totalitarian trampling of the rights of citizens.”
I recall having the phrase, “Driving is a privilege, not a right,” when I was learning to drive. Limiting the speed or horse power of vehicles doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. Although, I feel dirty driving a car with only 85 horses.
January 20th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
A thought-provoking question!
Even 200hp is an excessive amount for a passenger car, IMO. My two VW diesels are rated at 100hp and they have plenty of power for normal driving. I don’t know what their 0-60 time is, but I don’t care. I don’t need to accelerate to 60mph in less than 10 seconds, and really don’t believe anyone else does, either, unless it’s on a drag strip. (There’s another “is this the right thing?” topic!)
Crushing government regulation? Nope. We already “crush” people by making them get licensed to drive, making them wear seatbelts, making them buy cars that don’t collapse in a crash, making them obey safe speed limits, etc. etc. All of these things are demonstrably good for the public and for individuals. Our rights don’t extend to harming others with our actions, yet that’s just what is happening when someone buys a 350-horse muscle car “for fun”.
So, you may not want to suggest that we do this, but I would certainly support it if someone else did.
“When 350hp is outlawed, only outlaws will have 350hp.” But that’s fine.
January 20th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
I am in opinion of ‘limiting car speed at street legal speed.’ So if one is driving on freeway car will limit speed 65mph, in small street 25mph. on major street 45mph etc.
It may not give much of fuel saving benefit. But, it will make road much safer, less accidents, less COPS needed to monitor the speed.
As far as question has been raised on speed limit on freeway, I think we should not reduce the speed. Rather push for more aerodynamic shape of car. For better fuel efficiency we should not slow down the country.
January 20th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
What if we can get a slippery vehicle to go 100 mph with only 50 hp? Is that a crime?
January 20th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Instead of limiting horsepower, why not advocate a whopping tax on fossil fuel? That was us speed crazed lunatics could have our sick and perverted fun but we have to pay for it by spending a whole lot more money to drive the same route as the fellow in the Aptera. When you think about it, a fuel tax is like a user fee – how you use your fuel is up to you. Use more in a bigger car – pay more. Use more crossed up in a four wheel drift with smoke billowing off the tires and growls and shrieks emanating from the exhaust – pay more.
January 20th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
This is written from the viewpoint of someone who has driven through what is reported here. My accident record shows nothing chargeable since 1964, and over 1 million miles, with about 20,000 of them in Europe during the early 1960s.
The very idea of limiting speed to save fuel ignores the value of human life. As you pointed out, we have gone this way before. And we have the records to prove that SPEED LIMITS KILL PEOPLE.
The American automobile Association started keeping the Highway Death Rate in 1926. The duty was transferred to the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration shortly after NHTSA was created. The records show that with a very few exceptions that lasted only months after each major military conflict starting with WWII, the death rate decreased at about 4.5% each year except for the one multi-year period in which it increased at 5% each year. That multi-year period was the one in which we had our first big “fuel shortage”. OPEC shut off the oil in Nov. 1973 and the lack of gasoline quickly reduced the number of cars on the road. This is also called reducing CONGESTION. With fewer things to hit and fewer moving things to hit them the accident rate dropped and the deaths from accidents also dropped. Unfortunately some politicians with no knowledge of the causes of accidents decided that it was the reduced speed that caused the reduced deaths, and completely ignored the reduction in congestion. The result was the “Double Nickel” or as they called it the National 55 MPH speed limit.
It went into effect at the end of 1974. During 1975 we became used to paying 75 cents instead of 35 cents for a gallon of gasoline and the supply became much better. The death rate during 1975 was almost identical to that in 1974. However with more gasoline and more people wiling to pay for it, traffic and congestion returned. From 1976 through 1980 the National Highway Death Rate increased at a rate of 5% per year. This was uniform throughout the nation with the exceptions of Maryland, where I lived at the time, and Ohio. Those states used the “Double Nickel” for its only proven use, revenue enhancement. Their death rate increased at 10% per year. Their rigid enforcement kept congestion much higher than in the other states and the deaths kept pace.
Finally amidst much hand wringing and warnings of “carnage on the highways” the states asserted their right to set their own speed limits. People were already driving at pre “Double Nickel” speeds and the accident rate had dropped back to almost the pre OPEC levels. As you are now aware, the carnage never occurred, the return to reasonable speeds reduced congestion on the highways and the death rate is still dropping on an annual basis, just like it did before the “Double Nickel”.
So, the question is: “HOW MUCH POLUTION IS ONE HUMAN LIFE WORTH?”
Your assertion about 200 HP being the limit for 30 mpg cars is missing many elements. My 1986 Mustang regularly delivered over 27 mpg on the highway. On one trip from San Jose. CA to Ponchatoula, LA it delivered over 30 mpg. It was in caravan with a Budget Isuzu turbo-diesel box van, and therefore limited to the speed limit. It should also be remembered that the 1986 Mustang was a rather boxy car. Aerodynamic drag was on the high side. Current sedans are much better. Weight, or rather the lack of weight is most important for city mileage. Aerodynamic streamlining is most important for high speed fuel mileage. We can of course, have both.
The argument about legally traveling at over 100 MPH is only one of correcting the speed limits. The solution is to make them advisory only and only allow them to be introduced in court when they are being used as additional evidence of reckless operation in the case of a crash. Speed limits should never be used as revenue enhancement devices.
All Interstate highways west of the Mississippi river had a design standard of 90 mph based on the performance level of a 1947 American sedan. ALL current production cars are better handling and safer. There are many places where over 100 mph is completely safe and reasonable. It’s just not legal.
January 21st, 2010 at 3:36 am
I feel it is better to limit maximum accilaration of the vehicle,like time for 0-60 should not go below a fixed number, and also the top speed. Limiting power means limiting the size of a car, which is better to be left to the requirement of an individual.
January 21st, 2010 at 8:43 am
I would love to reduce the speed on the roads. I have been doing it myself (http://icandrive55.blogspot.com/), but even I hate the idea of these limits on freedom.
January 21st, 2010 at 9:52 am
I’ll add my two cents. I’m against any horsepower limits or lower speed limits. There are places where 350 hp actually makes it safer driving (not just for the driver, but for people around him/her). Freeway entrance ramps come to mind. The faster you can get up to freeway speed, the fewer cars will need to try to merge left and/or hit the brakes to avoid you.
Plus, with a 6-speed transmission, you can easily get 30-32 mpg with a 350+ hp car. There are countless accounts of that from Corvette, GTO, and V8-Camaro/Firebird owners over at LS1.com. Those guys are not exactly hypermilers either. I’ll bet a good hypermiler could squeak out close to 40 mpg with a manual tranny.
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Such flagrant waste should not be had so carelessly. Its easy, just tax each and every unit of horsepower, increasing the price per unit over certain thresholds to discourage such wasteful habits. This leaves such luxuries to the rich mainly (something would have to be worked out for utility vehicles), with the taxes going to benefit the most efficient systems of transit. High speed intercity rail, light rail, a REAL bicycle infrastructure that gives priority to such vehicles rather than being treated second rate.
This way the rich and/or wasteful can have what they want and benefit the rest.
January 24th, 2010 at 11:31 am
While I am 100% opposed to a mandatory top speed, I think a horsepower cap is actually a GREAT idea … for fossil-fuel burning cars.
Here’s a radical idea for change: if you want more than 200 hp, it will come in the form of renewable energy.
Game. Set. Match.
January 30th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Leshua,
Are you willing to reimburse all of those injured because lack of power directly caused a crash? This really does happen. I was just a whippersnapper the first time. My ‘56 Chevy was “horsepower enhanced” to about 300 to 325 or thereabouts. An old gentleman carefully watched the car in front of me as it crossed the street, and immediately entered the street on a collision vector for the left side of my car. Hitting the brakes would only have stopped me where he would have hit at about the “A” pillar. Instead, I dropped to low gear and floored the accelerator pedal. The result was a very startled old codger, I am one of them now, two black streaks behind my car and NO CRASH.
The old guy pulled to the side of the road as soon as he had cleared the intersection, and stopped. I stopped to see if he was OK. AS it turned out, other than elevated respiration and heart rate, he was. He surprised me by thanking me for having prevented the crash. He said that he just wasn’t paying attention and had just watched the first car. He had not even seen me. Horsepower and the willingness and ability to use it prevented a crash and possibly serious injury. This was the late ’50s and very few cars had seat belts. Us old codgers, I am one now, have more brittle bones than whippersnappers. Bouncing off of a steering wheel, even at only 7 or 8 mph can cause serious injury to one of us. By avoiding the crash, I am sure that I prevented injury to this elderly gentleman.
You call horsepower “waste” but what are crashes except “waste”? Perhaps it would be better to tax crashes.
Tim pointed out that 350 HP Corvettes and Camaros with 6 speed transmissions regularly get 30 to 32 mpg now. I had an “86 Mustang 5.0 that on one trip across the US got over 30 mpg because it was caravan restricted to the speed limit. The average 1950s V-8 got about 14 to 17 mpg when driven conservatively. My Chevy with 3 carburettors delivered a regular 17 mpg city or highway. Of course my final drive ratio was 3.56 to one as opposed to the at or below 2.0 to one that is normal with current high performance cars now. And ‘56 Chevys were boxy, not aerodynamic. Having power available DOES NOT REDUCE MILEAGE. Using excessively does.
Now a few suggestions.
Obedience to the law is not your first priority as a driver. Your first priority is to have no crashes and to harm no one.
When you are driving you MUST look as far ahead as you can see. Your peripheral vision will pick up any motion and with a little experience, you will be able to discern danger from the motion.
At night you can use not only your own headlights, but also those of the car(s) in front of you to spot dangers along the roadside.
The “Two Second Rule” is valid. This means that for safety there should be 2 seconds between the vehicle in front of you and your own vehicle.
And in closing. You must protect yourself and those with you. The law can not do the job any better than the book on the back seat floor.
My qualifications are that since learning and putting these rules to use, I have driven well over a million miles without causing any damage.
I pray that all who read this will be able to do better.
February 21st, 2010 at 12:48 pm
I think this is the craziest thing I have ever heard. Are you serious. For those of you who don’t know, we pollute the ozone more by making ethanol then we do by driving true muscle cars. The only thing a speed limit does for the people is make them want to break it. So think what you will but I will continue to drive my gas guzzler and speed. It is my RIGHT and I plan to exercise it. I have not hurt anyone yet and when I do then I will be to blame not my 500hp car.