Banning fast cars is just envy disguised as concern for the earth.

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=553&fArticleId=3926978 ^ | Doron Levin

[JamesP81]

Don't know much about the newer ones, but the Porsche 911s from the 70s and 80s got pretty darn good gas mileage.

The newer Corvettes get around 26 mpg with manual transmission, depending driving habits. Not bad for a car with a 6.0 liter, 400 hp V8.

[-YYZ-]

If oil and gasoline prices stay up where they are, or (as is likely) go even higher, I doubt if higher government fuel economy standards will actually be required. Already a lot more people are getting interested in more fuel-efficient cars.

[-YYZ-]

Oh, and btw, up here in Ontario, and probably elsewhere in north America, they’re talking about satelite-monitored speed controls for all heavy trucks (maximum 64 mph), and you know there’s some safety-nazi Nancy-boys out there who’d like to do the same thing for cars. In fact, I know there’s some people on this board who would probably like to see government-mandated speed controls on all cars, because the thought of anyone going faster than 70 mph scares the crap out of them.

[Bob]

We have it on good authority that a Prius will go at least 104 mph, because Al Gore III was stopped after he had been traveling that fast on the San Diego freeway. Of course, he was a little hopped up on some very definitely misused and abused drugs in his system....

When he was bailed out, though, his sister picked him up in her Mazzeratti. (Is that some sort of an 'ecological offset'?)

[Clam Digger]

As much as I disdain big brother I have never seen the rational ( other than vanity ) for a car that will exceed much over the max speed limit.

What frickin free country should regulate what the hell people own? Do you want me to justify why I carry a .45 over a .22, when a .22 works? Why the hell should the government decide such things. Who's going to be the decider in suh cases. Giving in to this is one hell of a slippery slope. This is a FREE republic, ours to keep if we can.

P.S., i think you meant rationale)

[teddyballgame]

“When he was bailed out, though, his sister picked him up in her Mazzeratti.”

Is that true?!? I’d love to see anything in print on that.

[teddyballgame]

“What frickin free country should regulate what the hell people own? Do you want me to justify why I carry a .45 over a .22, when a .22 works? Why the hell should the government decide such things. Who’s going to be the decider in suh cases. Giving in to this is one hell of a slippery slope. This is a FREE republic, ours to keep if we can.”

Amen, brother.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

On the other hand, most owners of those cars are arrested development types who actually have anger issue problems with others who choose --- say --- a Prius.

This is a sweeping and unwarranted generalization. Some of us enjoy driving cars with better performance than a Prius. And most of us who do are too busy enjoying our cars and our driving experience to worry about you or your Prius.

Puzzling, that.

More puzzling why someone who is so obviously enraged by sports-cars and their owners would accuse others of being angry. I suspect that this rage and envy is what drives a lot of the attempts to legislate sports-cars out of existence - if you can't join them, ban them.

[wjcsux]

That is a beautiful car! What is it?

[JamesP81]

130+mph when the average urban speed limit is under 55 is asinine. I have always said that they ( manufacturers ) can gear them to get sufficient torque with less top end speed and get better mileage.

You're running into too many practical concerns. My 1.6L, 115 horsepower Nissan Sentra can exceed the speed limit on any highway in the United States. Tell me, how much weaker do you want to make them?

You can't gear them to reduce top speed without reducing fuel economy. If you take any given engine, and gear it so that the final gear won't send the car above the speed limit at maximum RPM, you'd be in a situation where, to run at highway speed limit, you'd be running the engine at near max RPM. This is extremely bad for fuel economy, not to mention it increases wear on the components.

You could re tune the engines to generate maximum torque at low RPM and put an RPM limiter on it. However, even with the most extreme biasing towards torque at low RPMs, I think you'd still be turning too many rpms in the final gear to move at highway speeds.

There is a chance you might be able to do this with diesel engines, which naturally generate a lot of low end torque but don't have high redlines.

The only way to realistically do this is to either electronically limit the maximum speed of the car or produce cars with exceptionally weak engines.

The problem is that what you're talking about is somewhat mutually exclusive. A very tight gear ratio increases fuel economy, but that tight gear is what also allows the vehicle to reach very high speeds given enough time to accelerate and depending on torque generated by the engine.

[teddyballgame]

First sports cars, then SUVs. Libs/socialists won’t be happy until you’re crammed into some government sanctioned rollerskate.

[JamesP81]

I cannot afford a fast sports car, but more power to those who can buy them.

Indeed. I can't really afford a fast car (well, I could, but I couldn't be financially responsible and buy one) but people who own them don't bother or concern me that much.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

As much as I disdain big brother I have never seen the rational ( other than vanity ) for a car that will exceed much over the max speed limit.

Leave aside the fact that a number of us take our cars to the track on a regular basis and don't want to own two cars to do it - why should your inability to to see the reason for a powerful car affect me in any way? As long as I don't drive in an unsafe manner on public roads, I fail to see how my choice of vehicle is anyone else's business - and if you think banning under-the-hood performance is going to prevent or even slightly reduce the amount of unsafe driving in the world, you're badly mistaken.

[Mr. Mojo]

Libs/socialists won’t be happy until you’re crammed into some government sanctioned rollerskate.

They wouldn't be happy unless public transportation were the only option.

Actually, they'd still be miserable.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

No mud flaps is enough for me — I’ve had too many windshields busted to ignore that infraction.

[Bob]

“When he was bailed out, though, his sister picked him up in her Mazzeratti.”

Is that true?!? I’d love to see anything in print on that.

There was an FR thread with a picture. I'll see if I can find a link to it.

[JamesP81]

In fact, I know there’s some people on this board who would probably like to see government-mandated speed controls on all cars, because the thought of anyone going faster than 70 mph scares the crap out of them.

FR does have a depressing number of nanny staters. Hell, the Republican party here in the US is practically overrun with them now.

[stevio]

I use this argument with anti-gun people when the clinton gun ban was in place. They would ask; “Why do you need a gun that can shoot more than 10 rounds at a time?” I would say to them that it is a Constitutional right to bear arms. Then I would ask; “Why do you need a car that can go over 70mph?” When driving is only a privilege. I usually got no response. If they can take your rights away, they damn sure can take anything else.

[RightWhale]

But, the slicks wouldn’t pick up as much gravel. So the driver argued and the ossifer paused a moment before handing him his ticket.

[JamesP81]

and if you think banning under-the-hood performance is going to prevent or even slightly reduce the amount of unsafe driving in the world, you're badly mistaken.

I've seen enough ricers driving 4 cylinder cars with fart cannons and rear spoilers on them do enough dangerous stuff to know this is true.