Tiff "suggests" HP caps.

[I'm not Takumi]

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/208813/tiff_needells_column.html

Should the motor industry voluntarily bring in a maximum horsepower limit?

25th May 2007

Being a fully paid-up member of the common sense party, it's scary how I can mix and mingle with all sorts of people, and end up with a consensus regarding cars and their emissions. Most of us agree that even if the entire planet swapped from a vehicle putting out more than 200g/km of CO2 to one which emits less than 110g/km, such as a Toyota Prius, not a lot would change on the global weather front. Yet, if you listen to any politician - or worse still, the BBC News - us drivers are dooming the planet to be drowned and then fried! Now, don't get me wrong. I think the industry should keep working on improving fuel efficiency, but I also reckon people need to try and keep things in perspective.

Oh lordy. Tiff shot himself in the foot.

 

[bartboy9891]

From the last paragraph, he is saying that companies shouldn't just go after bigger hp numbers so they can focus on other things.

Now, I haven't done a detailed survey of outputs, but any form of limit should work on a sort of sliding power-to-size-to-weight ratio scale. And once all the manufacturers have got their models up to the respected benchmark figure, they can focus their research and development solely on improving the efficiency and safety of future models. Which means we can keep what we all want - performance - and yet get cleaner, greener, safer cars... which cost less to run. Common sense or what?

 

[the Interceptor]

He's got a point there. Take Mercedes for example. You can buy a top class car that puts out over 600hp. Now forget what you've got used to over the years, and try to think ... more than 600 hp ... in a limousine. Yet, it doesn't consume six times the fuel than the 100 hp Merc that was available many years ago and top of the range at the time. That means that engines have been developed very well in the past few decades, and that you get much more out of it today than in the past, putting in the same amount of fuel.

The problem is that cars have also gotten much heavier. All the luxury even in the lower models, and the safety gadgets, made them heavy. Now, if you take todays engine sophistication, and stop making the cars even more powerful, and instead use your brain to make the car lighter, you can get just the same performance, but with less fuel. I am very happy that the car industry is slowly starting to get to this point. The new Audi TT for example, is pretty light with just above 1.300kg, at least in comparison to its competition. The V6 one weighs "only" 1.410kg, compared to the 1.510kg of the smaller Golf R32.

They know what to do, now make a modern, nimble car below 1.000kg, and you don't need a twin-turbo V12 with 612hp to power it. Therefor, it won't need as much fuel.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[awdrifter]

HP caps means nothing, just like Japan has the "280hp" Skyline GT-R, Evo and STi for years.

 

[fbc]

He's got a point - the never-ending power chase will just lead to cars becoming one-dimensional. Let's instead have the manufacturers focus on ways to make the cars lighter, but still safer than previous generations. That way not only does your power go further, but you get all the extra benefits of lower weight - better handling & response etc.

 

[Rapier]

He's got a point there. Take Mercedes for example. You can buy a top class car that puts out over 600hp. Now forget what you've got used to over the years, and try to think ... more than 600 hp ... in a limousine. Yet, it doesn't consume six times the fuel than the 100 hp Merc that was available many years ago and top of the range at the time. That means that engines have been developed very well in the past few decades, and that you get much more out of it today than in the past, putting in the same amount of fuel.

rubbish, that only holds under the same load for both engines. Let's say full throttle, and the 600bhp will indeed take in (nearly) 6 times the fuel.

It takes just 30 odd hp to keep doing 70. So doing that in both the 100hp car and the 600hp will give equal mpg. However because the 600bhp engine will most likely be some kind of V12 it's internal friction (and the gear, shafts, driveshafts, wheels, brakes which all have to be beefed up to handle the power, which means more friction) will be al lot more then the 100hp 4-pot, and therefor ruins the mpg figure.

The actual "fuel => kinetic energy" at the crank - effeciency only advanced a few % in 20 years.
All the rest is down to minimizing friction.

 

[the Interceptor]

rubbish, that only holds under the same load for both engines. Let's say full throttle, and the 600bhp will indeed take in (nearly) 6 times the fuel.

I simply don't believe that, unless you can back it up.

It takes just 30 odd hp to keep doing 70. So doing that in both the 100hp car and the 600hp will give equal mpg. However because the 600bhp engine will most likely be some kind of V12 it's internal friction (and the gear, shafts, driveshafts, wheels, brakes which all have to be beefed up to handle the power, which means more friction) will be al lot more then the 100hp 4-pot, and therefor ruins the mpg figure.

Still, with a much higher performance, more friction and more weight to carry around, the modern engine averagely uses about the same amount of fuel. How has efficiency not moved on then?

Take that old Merc, throw out the original engine and put in a modern one of similar kind. Given the pretty low weight, slim tires and so on, the new engine will use a lot less fuel than the old one in average.

 

[Rapier]

I simply don't believe that, unless you can back it up.

Easy, just compare consumption of roughtly equal cars with diiferent power outputs.
I found that a Civic Type-R uses on average the same fuel as a 1.4 Civic(okay a bit more, but is't heavier, has wider tires, aircon and so on)

Also Ask Clarkson what happens when you use all the power in say a lambo murcielago, it was about 4 Mpg I thought. Yet the brochure says something about 20 probably, that's because they test the cars a curtain way, and during that test the engine isn't asked to produce much power.

Still, with a much higher performance, more friction and more weight to carry around, the modern engine averagely uses about the same amount of fuel. How has efficiency not moved on then?

I said Efficiency of producing power(crank), the business of expaning gas => piston movement => crank rotation. That was quite clear I thought, and that has remained roughtly the same.

All efforts have been focused on REDUCING friction, there isn't more friction today compared to 30 years ago but WAY LESS. In the engines themselves but also the cars.

Weight is of influence on MPG offcourse, but not really when the car is allready moving. That's why trucks make a lot of sense.

And AGAIN, performance isn't issue in these matters. During consumption tests, the full potential of the cars isn't used.

Get it in you head that the the MPG is very much dependent on the drivers right foot. Found only last great example => the corvette. Compare the mpg from the C1 till the C6 (just pick the 350~400 bhp engines) and you will find that they have become a bit better, thanks to aerodynamics(air-friction), longer gears, and the frictionreduction in the powerplant.
So its a bit better(about 25% less fuel), but nowhere near the 85% reduction you claimed. (600bhp with the fuelbill of and old 100 bhp engine)