Why would they care to have performance at high speeds? They're not even allowed to go fast. Even if they were, the performance of the engine mainly matters for acceleration, and when going fast you shouldn't accelerate much anyway.
AI Controlled Cars, or Your Right to Drive
- Thread starter illram
- Start date
Why would they care to have performance at high speeds? They're not even allowed to go fast. Even if they were, the performance of the engine mainly matters for acceleration, and when going fast you shouldn't accelerate much anyway.
I don't know what your experience with driving is. Germany has some roads with very high speeds permitted. The US has limits on how fast you can go. But most people on those roads, traffic permitting, are driving a small amount faster than the posted limit. What that means in practice is that the car has to comfortably drive at 70 miles per hour. If it doesn't, few Americans would choose to buy that car. So the market for that car may be too limited for the automakers to believe that that model is worthwhile to even offer. Further, those cars must be able to reach road speeds from a stop in a short enough period of time to comfortably merge with traffic which is moving at those high speeds. So acceleration matters, and few American drivers are comfortable with cars that lack that acceleration. Then there are a lot of hills, and the car needs the power to maintain speed on those hills.
Now I'm not saying those tiny engine cars are entirely not capable of meeting these factors. But if the cars are marginal, or at least believed to be marginal, to these performance goals, then the market for those cars could be very small. And if the automaker thinks the market is too small, then they just won't offer the cars.
The automakers who sell in the US, and that excludes a lot of automakers, have found from experience that it is difficult to sell small engines to the American consumers. And as smaller and smaller engines are actually capable of performance that would be acceptable to American drivers, there is still the problem of convincing the buyers to look at them. And since gas really isn't that expensive yet, the smallest cars are still a very small part of the American market. As are the smallest engines. American drivers, if they can afford it, simply want more than that. And if they can't afford buying more new, they buy used.
Two words: interstate on-ramps.
I'm convinced that problems here are almost exclusively due to poor driving. I drive a car with positively anemic acceleration to highway speeds and it's never given me problems.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Just think how everybody else feels. If you aren't going the same speed as the other traffic by the end of the acceleration lane, it is hardly "good driving".
azzaman333
meh
When did he say anything about being unable to get to a reasonable speed by the end of the acceleration lane?
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
There are numerous on-ramps where you will not be up to the speed of the traffic if your car really has anemic acceleration. It is a very common problem and results in a multitude of accidents.
azzaman333
meh
If it's a very common problem causing a multitude of accidents, that suggests that the on-ramps are too short and/or drivers are not sufficiently skilled.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
It is a combination of all 3.
I'm never not going the same speed as the other traffic by the end of the acceleration lane.
I really don't think it's ever a problem that isn't easily fixable by a competent driver.
The problem is that people drive slowly 80% of the way along onramps with the gas pedal 20% depressed, and then push the gas pedal 40% of the way down for the last bit of the onramp and wonder why they have trouble merging. (Cars are engineering around this with electronic throttle control that give proportionally greater power at less pedal depression, similar to ABS systems that auto-threshhold-brake when they detect emergency situations with minimal pedal depression, because drivers aren't competent enough to properly jam down either pedal.)
Even in my 63 hp car I had no problem getting up to speed by flooring the gas in an appropriate gear as long as I left enough room so the driver in front couldn't get in the way.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Do you have a source for this throttle theory, as well as how ABS brakes allegedly now work?
But I agree completely that many people aren't comfortable flooring their cars under any circumstances. Even so, there are numerous on-ramps in the US where a 63 hp car cannot accelerate from a near standstill to 10-15 over the speed limit, which is what is necessary on many crowded interstates.
But I agree completely that many people aren't comfortable flooring their cars under any circumstances. Even so, there are numerous on-ramps in the US where a 63 hp car cannot accelerate from a near standstill to 10-15 over the speed limit, which is what is necessary on many crowded interstates.
Am I reading this correctly that drivers don't want to floor their gas pedal during on ramps and instead just buy a car with more power so they don't have to floor? 
btw, does anybody have some insight about what exactly are the differences in emission requirements between the US and the EU? I have to admit, I have never heard about that before.
btw, does anybody have some insight about what exactly are the differences in emission requirements between the US and the EU? I have to admit, I have never heard about that before.
Sorry, no good source on throttle info, car manufacturers don't make much information easily accessible about how they configure throttle response curves. Personally, asides from my daily driver I'm most familiar with the Subaru SI-Drive system, it's user-selectable between shallow/linear/steep throttle response. Generally the largest effect of throttle-by-wire will be to compensate for sub-optimal conditions - so on a clear, flat road, 30% pedal will do about what you'd expect, but if you've got the car full of passengers with a roof-box going up a hill, 30% throttle will gear down and give you wide-open throttle - this further conditions people to never floor the gas pedal. You can take any recent Corolla for an awfully boring test drive with the trunk full of sandbags if you want to test it out.
Emergency brake assist should be easy to find any number of sources on if you search the right terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_brake_assist
It's not a conscious decision like that, people just don't normally use their cars at their limits, so aren't comfortable doing so. When you take people to a track for the first time, they find it hugely counter-intuitive, since you've essentially got either the gas or the brakes pressed to the limit (either pedal limit or traction limit, depending) the entire time, which are situations that occur very rarely while street driving.
Emergency brake assist should be easy to find any number of sources on if you search the right terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_brake_assist
Am I reading this correctly that drivers don't want to floor their gas pedal during on ramps and instead just buy a car with more power so they don't have to floor?
It's not a conscious decision like that, people just don't normally use their cars at their limits, so aren't comfortable doing so. When you take people to a track for the first time, they find it hugely counter-intuitive, since you've essentially got either the gas or the brakes pressed to the limit (either pedal limit or traction limit, depending) the entire time, which are situations that occur very rarely while street driving.
Mise
isle of lucy
Flooring my Dad's 1.8T Passat in 2nd gear up to 60 was hella fun. I think most people just don't understand gears.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
So you are saying you need more powerful cars to going slower, since 70mph (110kph) is not even considered "high speed" in any Europen country. in fact in most EU legal speed limit is 120kph (75mph) or higher and many people drive not "slighty" but well above the limit (i would like to see you driving around Madrid where 150kph is considered annoyingly slow by many) And btw here in EU there are also accelerating lanes and even hills!
So, since any European car even the smallest ones can manage typical EU speeds it will manage US typical speed very easily.
Two words: interstate on-ramps.
Sorry, the
wasn't clear enough. In clarifying my answer to Uppi's question: I don't need my Mustang GT's 300HP and 320ft-lbs of torque (and a five-second 0-to-60) for superhighway on-ramps. It's just hella fun.I've been in total agreement with you until you wrote that part. If they are going 10-15 over, then it is THEIR problem, not the problem of the person trying to merge. Exceeding the speed limit makes every single traffic problem caused by exceeding it the fault of the person/people exceeding it. No ifs, ands, or buts. Nobody should ever feel obligated to exceed the speed limit just because that's what everyone else is doing.
So you are saying you need more powerful cars to going slower, since 70mph (110kph) is not even considered "high speed" in any Europen country. in fact in most EU legal speed limit is 120kph (75mph) or higher and many people drive not "slighty" but well above the limit (i would like to see you driving around Madrid where 150kph is considered annoyingly slow by many) And btw here in EU there are also accelerating lanes and even hills!
So, since any European car even the smallest ones can manage typical EU speeds it will manage US typical speed very easily.
It's not about need really. It's about what people want! It may be doable in a smaller engine car. But not comfortably doable, or at least the buyers don't believe that it is doable.
But Americans also very commonly drive more car than they need, because that's what they want. And they often convince themselves that they need them, when they really don't.
Now the automakers both try to fuel this trend, through aggressive advertising and marketing, and respond to what the consumer wants, by watching what works. Even when what works is often what they fought to make work.
Marketing works in the auto world. And automakers would rather sell higher end cars than lower ones. So that's what they push.
Back in the 80s, front wheel drive cars were not common in the US market, and automakers wanted to talk people into buying them. So they very aggressively advertised the 'poor weather traction advantage' of front drive cars until people actually believed in it. When the reality was that they wanted to sell front drive cars because fwd is smaller and lighter than rwd, which allows a more efficient car with more room in the passenger compartment. In the 90s the automakers built the SUV craze off the fact that Americans like big cars, and pushed it hard hard hard, and people started to actually believe that they "needed" an SUV. I was in the car business, and it was surreal to have men who learned to drive in the winter as I did, suddenly claiming that they could not possibly get around in the winter without first a front drive car, and then later a 4WD SUV. And in the meantime, on snow days I got to work on time in my rear drive car, and my coworkers with front drive and 4WD were late.
So, no, it's not really "need". But it is the state of the market.
A number of years ago I had a Toyota Corolla. That car would cruise fine, on a more or less level road, at 70-80mph. But what that car would not do is accelerate up hills or pass trucks in the 40-50mhp range. So off the highways I was stuck behind the trucks, because the car did not have the ability to pass them in the room where passing was allowed.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,659
That reminds me of the Ford Fairmont that near the end of its lifecycle required approximately 3/4ths of a mile to pass a vehicle going 50 mph. If you count the distance you spent in lane "accelerating" so that you were in the oncoming lane for as short a period as possible. Actually, now that I think about it, the backing off running start maneuver was pretty amusing. You had to start it long enough in advance that you had no idea if the oncoming lane was going to be clear by the time you were ready for it. Passing took 3 or 4 tries sometimes. That car had issues at that point then. It was well into the "replace rather than fix when something breaks" mode.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Dont know how powerful your Corolla was, but you are speaking about speeds any normal car would manage easily. Maybe it was old. Also, it is funny you mentioned going uphill. I recommend you diesel cars, they have large amounts of torque and can go uphill a wall if needed even the ones with less horsepower.It's not about need really. It's about what people want! It may be doable in a smaller engine car. But not comfortably doable, or at least the buyers don't believe that it is doable.
But Americans also very commonly drive more car than they need, because that's what they want. And they often convince themselves that they need them, when they really don't.
Now the automakers both try to fuel this trend, through aggressive advertising and marketing, and respond to what the consumer wants, by watching what works. Even when what works is often what they fought to make work.
Marketing works in the auto world. And automakers would rather sell higher end cars than lower ones. So that's what they push.
Back in the 80s, front wheel drive cars were not common in the US market, and automakers wanted to talk people into buying them. So they very aggressively advertised the 'poor weather traction advantage' of front drive cars until people actually believed in it. When the reality was that they wanted to sell front drive cars because fwd is smaller and lighter than rwd, which allows a more efficient car with more room in the passenger compartment. In the 90s the automakers built the SUV craze off the fact that Americans like big cars, and pushed it hard hard hard, and people started to actually believe that they "needed" an SUV. I was in the car business, and it was surreal to have men who learned to drive in the winter as I did, suddenly claiming that they could not possibly get around in the winter without first a front drive car, and then later a 4WD SUV. And in the meantime, on snow days I got to work on time in my rear drive car, and my coworkers with front drive and 4WD were late.
So, no, it's not really "need". But it is the state of the market.
A number of years ago I had a Toyota Corolla. That car would cruise fine, on a more or less level road, at 70-80mph. But what that car would not do is accelerate up hills or pass trucks in the 40-50mhp range. So off the highways I was stuck behind the trucks, because the car did not have the ability to pass them in the room where passing was allowed.
About everything else you posted i agree about it being a matter of want instead of real needs.
We like to have many horses under the hood here too, but if it is going to imply much more money and less gas mileage or low quality or technology it is not too appealing for most people. I mean power is secondary. Take for instance the Dodge Challenger. It has almost 400HP with a 6 liter engine and is about 19,000€ only. While i personally like it and like the very concept of powerful and simple cars (even considered buying it if i wouldnt need a gas tanker following me everywhere) most people i know think of it as a car proper for the Flinstones. People prefer to add all the last advances and higher quality and then power. Result: an European car of equivalent power will cost 50,000€ at least.
There is almost not market for simple and powerful cars in Europe, not only because economical reasons but because mentality. Anyway i think differences between USA and Europe or even Japan will disappear eventually. Gas price will make all that big inefficient engines not so appealing for the average guy, while relatively small engines, even with the same displacement as before, have been becoming more and more powerful. I think muscle cars with huge thirsty engines will remain in the US of course but as a niche market.
Similar threads
- Poll
