• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Easterbrook: Kill the Horsepower, Save the World.

Status
Not open for further replies.

AstroLad

Hail to the KING baby
Easterbrook is always good for an interesting and often pragmatic digression.

Hold Your Horsepower

Gasoline demand has declined slightly since 2005. And a few months ago, Congress enacted the first tightening of vehicle fuel economy rules in two decades; barrel prices of oil are declining. So far, so good. But oil is still well over $100 per barrel, versus about $74 at this time last year, and gasoline still costs nearly a dollar more per gallon than at this time last year. The longer-term picture is bleak. In 1973, America imported 6 million barrels of petroleum daily. Currently it imports more than 13 million barrels each day. Yesterday I heard a radio announcer say, "Now that the gasoline price crunch is over …" Don't make the mistake of thinking for one minute that America's petroleum addiction is even close to fixed.

For cars, SUVs and light trucks, there are two forces at play in oil-addiction trends, but only one is generally recognized. Everybody knows the fad of big vehicles increases petroleum needs -- according to the EPA, the average weight of passenger vehicles has risen 30 percent since 1988, while average MPG is down. The other factor, little acknowledged, is horsepower, which has risen even more sharply than weight. Twenty years ago, the average new passenger vehicle sold in the United States had 120 horsepower. For this model year the figure is 230, almost double. There will be no fundamental change in oil import levels until horsepower numbers change.

Like weight, horsepower depresses fuel economy. Simply knocking a third off the horsepower of new U.S. passenger vehicles would, in about a decade -- as efficient new vehicles replace wasteful old ones -- eliminate approximately the amount of oil the United States imports from the Middle East. Yes, it's that simple. Race cars need lots of horsepower; suburban family cars do not. Excessive horsepower causes the United States to be dependent on Middle East dictatorships, engages military commitments to those dictatorships, drives up the price of oil and pushes down the value of the dollar. Horsepower is also the enabler of road rage -- rapid acceleration allows cutting off, drag racing and sudden lane changes. Road rage entered national consciousness as a problem in the mid-1990s, exactly when the horsepower ratings of new vehicles began to spike.

Yet nearly all auto companies selling in the United States continue to introduce overpowered cars that require far too much fuel. The problem transcends brands, whether domestic or international. The new BMW 550i sedan has 360 horsepower and records just 18 MPG. Pontiac's new 361-horsepower G8 GT is a small car that gets just 18 MPG. Only in America do small cars waste gasoline. Ford's new Taurus sedan has a 263-horsepower engine which delivers only 22 MPG in its front-wheel-drive variant, an awful 19 MPG in the all-wheel-drive version. The Taurus isn't a sports car, it's a family car! Toyota's new Camry, another family car, offers 263 horsepower and just 22 MPG. The Dodge Avenger, a family car, when ordered with the optional 255-horsepower engine posts just 18 MPG. Infiniti's 320-horsepower FX45, Cadillac's 403-horsepower Escalade and the 500-horsepower Porsche Cayenne Turbo achieve a dreadful 14 MPG. (All mileage figures in this column are the "combined" numbers that blend city and highway driving. Under real-world circumstances, especially stop-and-go commuting, many drivers average well below the official number.) Plus, the more horses, the more greenhouse gases. According to the EPA, a Porsche Cayenne Turbo emits 13.1 tons of greenhouse gases annually. Check any car's MPG and greenhouse numbers here.

Less horsepower would mean better fuel efficiency, diminished petroleum imports and lower carbon emissions but, inevitably, reduced acceleration. Don't buyers crave speed? Most cars are already too fast! Thirty years ago, the average passenger vehicle did zero to 60 MPH in 14 seconds; for 2008, the average is about 8.5 seconds. That new 263-horsepower Ford Taurus family sedan does zero to 60 in 6.5 seconds -- the same acceleration as the 1968 Corvette with the famed 427 big-block V8. The new Camry and Honda's comparable new Accord do zero to 60 in about 7 seconds. Acceleration of this type is not needed for everyday driving; such power is useful mainly for speeding, running lights and cutting others off. Lexus has aired ads boasting that its new IS-F model, with a 416-horsepower engine, does zero to 60 in 4.6 seconds; the new 480-horsepower Nissan GTR is even faster at 3.8 seconds. Both have dismal mileage ratings. Lexus is telling the business media the IS-F is intended for the United States and won't be pushed in the company's home market of Japan. There, the IS-F's road-rage engineering and 10.2 tons of greenhouse gases released annually might be controversial.

In addition to reducing fossil-fuel use, dialing down horsepower would reduce highway deaths. Researcher Michael Sivak of the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute has found that highway fatalities dropped sharply earlier this year as gas prices shot up, with highway deaths declining 22 percent in March and 18 percent in April. (Note: You can reach the Transportation Research Institute only by car.) This spectacular decline in deaths, receiving little public notice, came about, Sivak found, mainly when drivers slowed down in order to improve MPG. High-horsepower vehicles encourage speeding, because they make soaring above the speed limit feel effortless. If horsepower were reduced by sensible amounts, there would be less driving 80 MPH in 60 MPH zones, or 50 MPH in 30 MPH zones. Sivak's numbers suggest that if America became sensible about speed, perhaps 8,000 lives per year could be saved. Eight thousand lives per year would represent more Americans saved than if all incidents of drowning were eliminated.

Federal legislation to regulate the horsepower of passenger vehicles, perhaps by establishing a power-to-weight standard, would reduce petroleum consumption, cut greenhouse gas emissions, lower U.S. oil imports, strengthen the dollar, and take some of the road-rage stress out of driving. So what are we waiting for? Whatever your answer, don't reply, "No one can tell me what I can drive." Courts consistently rule that vehicles using public roads may be regulated for public purposes, such as safety and energy efficiency. NASCAR races occur on private property -- there, horsepower is nobody's business. On public roads, horsepower is very much everybody's business. You'd be laughed at if you asserted a "right" to drive a locomotive down the freeway. Where is it written we have the "right" to operate an overpowered car that wastes oil and pollutes the sky?

Meanwhile, all the talk lately has been about getting drivers into hypothesized future vehicles that might get excellent mileage, such as plug-in hybrids. Even assuming such cars someday are in showrooms, the payoff is greater for getting people out of low-mileage vehicles right now, because low-mileage vehicles are disproportionate consumers of fuel. Assume an average year of 12,000 miles traveled. The driver who trades in a 15 MPG SUV or high-horsepower car for a 20 MPG standard-engine full-size car would reduce fuel use by 200 gallons. The driver who trades in a 20 MPG full-size car for a 25 MPG midsize would reduce fuel use by 120 gallons. The driver who trades in a 25 MPG midsize for a 30 MPG compact would cut fuel use by 80 gallons. The driver who trades in a 30 MPG compact for a 35 MPH current-technology hybrid would save 60 gallons. And the driver who trades in a 35 MPG current-technology hybrid for a 40 MPG advanced plug-in hybrid would save 40 gallons. By far the best oil-reduction bang for the buck lies in people giving up large SUVs, pickup trucks used for commuting, plus any type of overpowered vehicle, in favor of driving regular cars. The math is presented in detail in this paper by Richard Larrick and Jack Soll of Duke University. This suggests that instead of tax policy being focused on credits for buyers of high-mileage hybrids, and federal subsidies being focused on the development of high-mileage hypothesized future designs, tax policy should reward those who junk SUVs in order to buy regular cars. Tax programs to encourage drivers to junk old high-polluting automobiles were successful, so a junk-your-SUV program might work, too.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/080909

Obligatory:
HagarFordGT_75_HR.jpg
 

Fordzilla

Member
This is highly groundbreaking. I had absolutely no idea that if I drove around in a 100 HP Civic hatchback instead of my truck I'd save money on gas. Give this man a medal!
 

AstroLad

Hail to the KING baby
Fordzilla said:
This is highly groundbreaking. I had absolutely no idea that if I drove around in a 100 HP Civic hatchback instead of my truck I'd save money on gas. Give this man a medal!

so obvious that congress and state govts haven't done shit about it while enacting all manner of hybrid subsidies and average HP has almost doubled.

did you even make it through the thread title? i know it was pretty long
 

eznark

Banned
I guess it all depends on who gets to define "excessive"

His unfounded attempt to link horsepower and road rage makes me think he isn't really being intellectually honest in his debate (and why should he on Page 2). He says things like "far too much horsepower" "too much fuel" "sensible" reductions...without giving any basis for why this is "too much."

His unfounded arguments, as a result of the space he is writing or his disinterest in forming them, undermine whatever point he is trying to make.
 

Cheeto

Member
Does this take into account the increase in idle gas wasted as traffic backups on busy roadways? Can you imagine the traffic a single 66hp minivan carrying 7 kids taking 2 minutes to reach 50mph would cause?
 

AstroLad

Hail to the KING baby
eznark said:
I guess it all depends on who gets to define "excessive"

His unfounded attempt to link horsepower and road rage makes me think he isn't really being intellectually honest in his debate (and why should he on Page 2). He says things like "far too much horsepower" "too much fuel" "sensible" reductions...without giving any basis for why this is "too much."

His unfounded arguments, as a result of the space he is writing or his disinterest in forming them, undermine whatever point he is trying to make.

pretty sure his thesis is just that reducing horsepower (which absolutely no one cares about) would much more effectively reduce gas consumption than nearly every other measure that has been undertaken in the past and that is planned to be undertaken in the future.


edit
the road rage stuff is speculation, and i'm not sure if any apposite studies have been done on it; which is why I didn't bold it.

i'm not really on either side of the fence here (new yorker, couldn't care less about cars) but i can't say it's a terrible thesis.
 

bluemax

Banned
eznark said:
I guess it all depends on who gets to define "excessive"

His unfounded attempt to link horsepower and road rage makes me think he isn't really being intellectually honest in his debate (and why should he on Page 2). He says things like "far too much horsepower" "too much fuel" "sensible" reductions...without giving any basis for why this is "too much."

His unfounded arguments, as a result of the space he is writing or his disinterest in forming them, undermine whatever point he is trying to make.

Welcome to a Gregg Easterbrook article. Interesting, semi though provoking ideas formed lazily and hastily that are skipped over by almost everyone who reads him.
 

eznark

Banned
AstroLad said:
pretty sure his thesis is just that reducing horsepower (which absolutely no one cares about) would much more effectively reduce gas consumption than nearly every other measure that has been undertaken in the past and that is planned to be undertaken in the future.

I understand that, but his reasoning is built around a weak grasp of causation v. correlation.

Who doesn't care about horsepower? Pretty sure anyone merging onto a highway from an on-ramp certainly cares about horsepower, even if they don't know it.

You're part of the problem then.

no you are
 

AstroLad

Hail to the KING baby
eznark said:
I understand that, but his reasoning is built around a weak grasp of causation v. correlation.

but the salient fact for his main point is simply that "horsepower depresses fuel economy" unless you are disputing that, assume not tho. see my point about the road rage thing above
 

eznark

Banned
Sir Fragula said:
Nuh-uh. I walk.

With every step you take someone probably dies somewhere. Easterbrook thinks you are the problem.

but the salient fact for his main point is simply that "horsepower depresses fuel economy" unless you are disputing that.

Not disputing that at all. His point may be sound but his argument is awful. I will not stand for it.
 

tedtropy

$50/hour, but no kissing on the lips and colors must be pre-separated
I think my little Mazda meets a happy medium for me. A scant 130HP, but it's small, yet can still fit four or five people well enough for short jaunts. Gets up to highway speed just fine, especially when it's just carrying my scrawny ass around. Averages 25-30MPG. Could be better, but for an automatic and my driving habits I don't think that's too bad.
 
Less horsepower would absolute not make speed speed less. In fact, gas usage would shoot up because they gotta push those little engines more to get to those higher speeds.
 

cilonen

Member
The problem is that traditionally American engineers are incredibly inefficient at getting HP out of small volume engines, they resort to increasing cubic inches and that leads to increased gas use.

Of course, thats a really broad generalisation and somewhat historical - they're getting better at it but the Japanese and to a slightly lesser extent, the Euros have been able to get better BHP/litre ratios.

Edit: BHP/engine cc; not per litre of gas.
 

eznark

Banned
If that happens I am just going to have a carriage driven by a team of 2 dozen horses fed only beans. Their gas will mitigate any potential environmental gains.

Cause I'm spiteful like that.

I would say that I would then move to Buffalo so Mr. Easterbrook would have to deal with the full effects, but that place already smells like horse shit.
 

AstroLad

Hail to the KING baby
eznark said:
If that happens I am just going to have a carriage driven by a team of 2 dozen horses fed only beans. Their gas will mitigate any potential environmental gains.

Cause I'm spiteful like that.

I would say that I would then move to Buffalo so Mr. Easterbrook would have to deal with the full effects, but that place already smells like horse shit.

it pains me to think how many owls and trees you have indirectly murdered. probably in the hundreds.
 

Meier

Member
Put me in the walking/bus/train column. Before that, I had a Mini Cooper -- a scant 115 HP and I still could get it up to 80-90 with relative ease and got almost 40 mpg on the highway. I miss it.
 
I dont see why most people need all those horsepower anyway.

Just declare this a national emergency and just limit the horsepower for people who do not use it for business. No outright ban, just tax them accordingly so that those people who really insist on actually wanting one of those for recreation gets to pay the actual cost of their luxuries.
 

eznark

Banned
titiklabingapat said:
I dont see why most people need all those horsepower anyway.

Just declare this a national emergency and just limit the horsepower for people who do not use it for business. No outright ban, just tax them accordingly so that those people who really insist on actually wanting one of those for recreation gets to pay the actual cost of their luxuries.

I would also like to nominate my current lack of NHL09 a a national emergency. I want Dick Cheney to personally deliver it to my office. In a G1 Hummer. Going 95 mph.
 

dionysus

Yaldog
I like my horsepower. I also live 5 miles from work in the urban center of Houston. I'll give up my horsepower when everyone else decides to live closer to work. I could drive a 10,000 hp locomotive to work and pollute less than 90% of the people who work in Houston.

Horsepower isn't evil. How about we tackle urban sprawl first, seeing as it does way more damage to the environment.

Also, average gas mileage has only gone up along with horsepower. So technology has allowed improvements on both fronts, power and efficiency.
 

dionysus

Yaldog
titiklabingapat said:
I dont see why most people need all those horsepower anyway.

Just declare this a national emergency and just limit the horsepower for people who do not use it for business. No outright ban, just tax them accordingly so that those people who really insist on actually wanting one of those for recreation gets to pay the actual cost of their luxuries.

They already do tax people on gas consumption, the people who use more gas pay more gas taxes. So what you are actually advocating is penalties.

How about they also penalize you for how far you live from work. How many appliances you have in the home. How long you leave your lights on in the house.
 

AstroLad

Hail to the KING baby
dionysus said:
How about we tackle urban sprawl first, seeing as it does way more damage to the environment.

I wouldn't really know how to go about quantifying it, but yes it's amazing the sort of urban "planning" the cheap gas hath wrought. People cite LA as prototypical sprawl, but LA's got absolutely nothing on cities like Phoenix and Houston.
 

eznark

Banned
AstroLad said:
I wouldn't really know how to go about quantifying it, but yes it's amazing the sort of urban "planning" the cheap gas hath wrought. People cite LA as prototypical sprawl, but LA's got absolutely nothing on cities like Phoenix and Houston.

Indianapolis is probably a case study in every related course.

I like urban sprawl though. My gilded palace of sin wouldn't fit in Boston proper.
 
D

Deleted member 20415

Unconfirmed Member
Since moving to New York, I gave up my car... long gone... I walk and take public transit everywhere...

The only car I've ever driven has been Honda Civics. Not big on power, but they sure as hell make driving cheaper.

Ultimately, this guy is right... but it's tied to the bigger "why?"

Why do you need the SUV, the fast car, the super charged engine?

If you really looked at it... you probably don't need it, or at the least need something as big or fast as you have now.

If you're a contractor, that's one thing... but if you're just a dude going to work, you're doing yourself no good running around in a Hummer.
 

dionysus

Yaldog
Davidion said:
I think I'll go set a few cars on fire. That should liberate some horses.

Horses fart though. Most of a fart is methane, and methane is a much worse "greenhouse" gas than CO2 and CO, something on the order of 10x. So that would actually hurt the environment.
 

dionysus

Yaldog
El_TigroX said:
Since moving to New York, I gave up my car... long gone... I walk and take public transit everywhere...

The only car I've ever driven has been Honda Civics. Not big on power, but they sure as hell make driving cheaper.

Ultimately, this guy is right... but it's tied to the bigger "why?"

Why do you need the SUV, the fast car, the super charged engine?

If you really looked at it... you probably don't need it, or at the least need something as big or fast as you have now.

If you're a contractor, that's one thing... but if you're just a dude going to work, you're doing yourself no good running around in a Hummer.

So in your opinion people should only be allowed to purchase things they need. Most people would revolt if that was the case. Gas guzzlers aren't the only discretionary purchases that cause polution. Actually, pretty much everything is. What is next? People are only allowed to purchase 3 children's toys a year to save the environment, people can only have a house that meets the formula 1,000 sqft x # of people living there. Etc etc.
 

AstroLad

Hail to the KING baby
El_TigroX said:
If you're a contractor, that's one thing... but if you're just a dude going to work, you're doing yourself no good running around in a Hummer.

Unfortunately it bit a lot of people in the ass before that was clear enough for them to realize. When gas was cheap, tons of middle-class people in Arizona bought gigantic pickups and trucks for their 60-mile-a-day commutes to their offices. I imagine the housing market there + gas has really hit many of these people hard.
 

Flo_Evans

Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8XDscWleKw

A test aired Sunday on BBC's Top Gear television program, however, casts doubt upon the notion that a hybrid would be the most fuel efficient in every circumstance.

"This is a BMW M3," the show's host Jeremy Clarkson said in introducing the car that would compete with a Prius. "It is not designed to be as economical as possible; it is designed to be fast."

Clarkson chose the most extreme examples to make the point -- a sedan equipped with a V-8 engine producing 414 horsepower against the Toyota Prius with its 76 horsepower hybrid motor. The EPA rates the BMW at 14 miles per gallon in the city, and 20 on the highway which compares unfavorably to the 48 and 45 figures for the Prius. In this test, the M3 matched the speed of the Prius as the hybrid ran flat-out over ten laps of the 1.8 mile Top Gear Test Track in Surrey, England. Measurements taken after the run show that the Prius returned just 14.3 miles to the US gallon, while the BMW had 12 percent better fuel economy at 16.1 miles per gallon.

"It was one of the dullest drives of my life, but in the interest of science I stuck with it," Clarkson said. "Seriously, what I'm saying is, it isn't what you drive that matters, it's how you drive it. That is everything."
 

rykomatsu

Member
yeah so i have ~300awhp...doesn't mean i'm whomping on the gas pedal all day.

long highway trips, i average about 32mpg
normal commute (60% street, 40% fwy) i average about 26mpg

if you're light on the pedal and only using a fraction of the engine's total capable output, you'll still get solid/good mpg.
 

~Devil Trigger~

In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
everytime someone start talking about HorsePower, out of nowhere i start imagining if there were no cars and we kept the more Horse power concept:lol

i know, weird
 

Davidion

Member
El_TigroX said:
Since moving to New York, I gave up my car... long gone... I walk and take public transit everywhere...

The only car I've ever driven has been Honda Civics. Not big on power, but they sure as hell make driving cheaper.

Ultimately, this guy is right... but it's tied to the bigger "why?"

Why do you need the SUV, the fast car, the super charged engine?

If you really looked at it... you probably don't need it, or at the least need something as big or fast as you have now.

If you're a contractor, that's one thing... but if you're just a dude going to work, you're doing yourself no good running around in a Hummer.

In a place like NYC it's completely unnecessary. But again, the grander issue ties into urban design and sprawl as Dionysus mentioned. In NYC you can own your car and not drive too much regardless. In LA, you don't have much of a choice.

Fun fact, I don't have a driver's license.

dionysus said:
So in your opinion people should only be allowed to purchase things they need. Most people would revolt if that was the case. Gas guzzlers aren't the only discretionary purchases that cause polution. Actually, pretty much everything is. What is next? People are only allowed to purchase 3 children's toys a year to save the environment, people can only have a house that meets the formula 1,000 sqft x # of people living there. Etc etc.

Not necessarily, but taking away the need would see the usage diminish significantly. The whole freedom of consumption bit is another conversation, really; in the context of automobile usage and its environmental impact, the discussion can't ignore the fact that many people don't have the option of ditching their cars. Like you said, I think the issue is more with urban sprawl.
 

AstroLad

Hail to the KING baby
as usual the ultimate point is that nyc is just better than everywhere else. especially the "flyover states" but california too.
 

andthebeatgoeson

Junior Member
I like his points. At some point, we have to do something about this. They just started advertising for an Escalade hybrid. Gets 12 MPG, w/o a hybrid. It would go up by a whopping 56%. If I'm not stupid, I'm sure 56% of 12 is around 6. A hybrid going from 12 to 18....wow. All these big fricken cars just because we have the money. I wish Congress would get tough and force those fuckers to sell cars with, at least, 30mpg. Or you pay 50K extra. Seperate the soccer moms from the trumps. Fuck yeah, pay 50 grand if your car can't average 30 mpg. Force car manufacturers to come up with real solutions.

Now, they are just making a mockery of the environment. No need for an Escalade to only get 12 MPG.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom