[Closed] "Modern cars are too powerful for UK roads"

I think this is all backwards. My fastish car is perfectly safe and suitable for the roads. However I think the chassis is to good.

My car is actually too good, to have fun in any way other than in straight line acceleration you have to be going stupidly quick. It just holds the road so well that it doesn't feel like it will let go.

A while ago I was driving down a nice B road heading into a pretty tight s bend corner at 60. My made quickly told me that he came that way to my house 10 mins earlier and his car slid across the road at 40. Mine was totally composed and with no drama got around the corner with no breaking. His car was a normal VW Golf and mine is a Focus ST Estate.

Come on, the piss take should have been obvious. Must write out "use more smilies" 100 times...

Sorry. If it's any consolation, I get that a lot too.

I had a bit of a mid life crisis a year or so ago and scratched an Integrale Evo shaped itch. Very quickly realised it was a far better car than I was a driver(funny that). When I did drive it quickly it was always on my mind that what I was doing was dangerous and irresponsible, so I stopped. But I loved the car, the looks, pedigree, fact that it was Italian and left hand drive. Very much regret selling it. It was pretty much the opposite of the stealth car alluded to pages ago in that it was a bit obvious and standoutish.

PS the only reason for the bragging is to answer the question of who buys a fast car and doesn't..,..

[quote=bobbym ]PS the only reason for the bragging is to answer the question of who buys a fast car and doesn't..,..

But by the sound of things you did, and presumably wouldn't have bought it if you'd no intention of doing so.

We covered this pages ago. Fast cars can be satisfying to drive slow, simple as that, the extra power and improved handling that makes them fast can also make them very allround drivable.

Ok, so 180, 200bhp, I can understand. But 450?

molgrips
Ok, so 180, 200bhp, I can understand. But 450?

450bhp is probably too much for say, a Smart car, or a Polo. It might make them difficult to control and detract from driving pleasure for sure. But what about a Range Rover or S-Class? You want to be able to overtake the oiks should you so wish.

At any rate it's just a number, completely abstract. How it's delivered is important.

Well, the number is important.

You can get up to 180bhp easily enough without much of a fuel penalty. However you're going to be using double the fuel you should be trundling around in your AMG Merc whatever. I'm sure I'll be accused of youghurt knitting blablabla for saying that but it's a factor. There's only so much petrol, and pissing it up the wall does no-one any favours (that applies to driving 4 miles to work as much as it applies to fast cars so don't start on the yeah buts).

It may be possible to 'get the power down' in a nice whatever but it's not something you should really be doing, is it? It's increasing danger for everyone just for your own gratification. Not really fair.

And if you aren't getting the power down, then why own the car? As said, you can get a lovely luxury car that handles well and has 200bhp and still does 50mpg. This should be enough - if you want more, get something for the track.

Ok, so 180, 200bhp, I can understand. But 450?

What about the track day amateur who can't afford to run two cars?

Ok fine, but that's a pretty niche situation!

molgrips - Member

Ok, so 180, 200bhp, I can understand. But 450?

Where's the arbitrary line going to be today?

The fuel economy argument does make sense to me but it's quite disconnected from power- rather than going "X amount of power is too much, unless it's fuel efficient", why not just cut to the chase there?

But then you get into the whole swamp of, if driving a powerful, 20mpg car is reprehensible, how about me driving my less powerful, 60mpg car for a bunch of non-essential trips to consume the same amount of dinosaurs? And while you can be safer or less safe while driving, it's never safer than not driving

Basically it's hard to be absolutist about this, there's a wee bit of reductio ad absurdum in what I'm saying here but mostly it's the case that there's[i] always[/i] something you could be doing better, you can always go 10mph slower, drive less, have a slower/safer/more economic car.

It may be possible to 'get the power down' in a nice whatever but it's not something you should really be doing, is it? It's increasing danger for everyone just for your own gratification. Not really fair.

molgrips

Ok fine, but that's a pretty niche situation!

Big business now molgrips. Track days are becoming very popular, and many manufacturers are producing track variants of otherwise sedate cars. for example the new Renault Megane 275 Trophy.

There's only so much petrol, and pissing it up the wall does no-one any favours (that applies to driving 4 miles to work as much as it applies to fast cars so don't start on the yeah buts).

In comparison with 'Murica, we are not so much pissing up the wall as barely dribbling. Anything Europe does isn't a drop in the ocean compared to their consumption. I was in Alberta (obviously not 'Murica but still) a few years back and was drinking on a roof top bar. To my amazement, and much to the Canadicans bemusement virtually every car was a giant truck.

Assuming that everyone who drives a powerful car uses all the power, all the time is woefully misjudged.

I don't assume that.

The point is, why buy it if you aren't using it? You're telling me that people in fast cars floor it for a few seconds then back off at 60mph? Doesn't seem like it from what I can see.

Yes, you can be a shit driver in any car. Yes you can drive a fast car sensibly. But the former is more likely to be done at higher speed in a fast car, and the latter - why? Who buys a fast car and drives it slowly?

But then you get into the whole swamp of, if driving a powerful, 20mpg car is reprehensible, how about me driving my less powerful, 60mpg car for a bunch of non-essential trips to consume the same amount of dinosaurs?

I mentioned that. It's about reducing consumption. You do that by choosing a more efficient car AND not using it wastefully. Saying 'oh I only drive 5k miles a year so that means I can buy a 25mpg one with a clean consicence' is daft.

Anything Europe does isn't a drop in the ocean compared to their consumption.

a) not it's not and
b) this is a ridiculous thing to be saying. You sound like my kids.

molgrips
Who buys a fast car and drives it slowly?

Drive up the motorway at 70mph. See what passes you. Anything and everything. Clearly a lot of people buy slow cars to drive fast.

a) not it's not and
b) this is a ridiculous thing to be saying. You sound like my kids.

Congratulations on having smart kids. Average car fuel economy in the U.S is 29 mpg. Average in Europe is 43 mpg.

[img] [/img]

The average american uses twice as much oil as the average European.

molgrips - Member

Saying 'oh I only drive 5k miles a year so that means I can buy a 25mpg one with a clean consicence' is daft.

How about "Because i drive a less efficient car, I've pared my milage to the minimum"? Or "I've chosen this un-environmental thing, but I offset it with all these other environmental things." Life is a balance. I live in scotland, 40% of my electricity comes from renewables, compared to your 9% (IIRC) in England, so maybe I get to burn more fuel and you can burn more gas 😉

And like I say, you can always do more. Is your car the most efficient, could you drive it more efficiently, or less? You bought a more efficient car, how is the cradle-to-grave cost looking? The point at which you say "this is fine, that's not fine" is always going to be subjective and arbitrary.

I've made my call and I'm happy with it, it's pretty defensible too- but I don't really feel like I can judge other people who've made a different call. I burn 500W per hour playing computer games, maybe Joe 450bhp lives in a freezing dark cave and grows all his own food and thinks my electrical profligacy is disgusting

how about the arguement that the fuel consumption of a car is only part of the CO2/resources it consumes story. While I'm sure there are plenty of holes in the arguement there is a school of thought that says the impact of building a car is greater than the emmissions during its life (see the guardian for some maths http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car)

whiles this is something of justification for my own life choices it does give me some hope my 14 year old 200,000mile car with 400bhp+ isn't "clubbing polar bears to death"

"I've chosen this un-environmental thing, but I offset it with all these other environmental things."

That's exactly the same as what I said. This isn't a quota situation. It's about being as minimal as you can be. If you're saying that a fast car is essential to your lifestyle.. well.. I'm saying it's not 🙂

how about the arguement that the fuel consumption of a car is only part of the CO2/resources it consumes story

Sure. But when you chose that car, there was presumably a choice of old inefficient cars or old efficient ones - wasn't there? I'm not asking you to throw it away for a new i8, which is why I said 'choosing a more efficient car' and not 'buying' one.

Re your car, let's say what, 280g/km CO2? that's somewhere around 90 tonnes CO2 since it was new. That could easily have been halved. The savings could have heated an average house for 3.5 years or lit a room for 400 years!

You're telling me that people in fast cars floor it for a few seconds then back off at 60mph?

Thats pretty much what I do. OK I don't try to get to 60 in 6.5 seconds but I accelerate faster than most people do. I have no interest in driving everywhere at 150mph, I might drift over the speed limit at times but only when I think it is safe to. I don't drive any differently than I did in my old 1.6 diesel C-Max, I just get there faster and can hold the speed better in the corners. In fact on the motorway I tend to chill between 60-70.

And like I say, you can always do more. Is your car the most efficient, could you drive it more efficiently, or less? You bought a more efficient car, how is the cradle-to-grave cost looking? The point at which you say "this is fine, that's not fine" is always going to be subjective and arbitrary.

THIS!!
The figures are boggling when you actually look at what all the new "efficient" cars actually cost in CO2 terms.
The Hybrids are the worst of them all - especially the Prius.
Think what it takes to make the batteries, then transport them, etc.

molgrips - Member

That's exactly the same as what I said. This isn't a quota situation. It's about being as minimal as you can be

I bet you 10p you're not being as minimal as you can be. You're just drawing the line and saying "The un-minimal decisions I make are acceptable, the un-minimal decisions other people make aren't"

The Hybrids are the worst of them all - especially the Prius.

I call bullshit, and I've researched this more than you have I think.

The figures are boggling when you actually look at what all the new "efficient" cars actually cost in CO2 terms.

If you think a diesel polo costs more energy to make than a Merc S class - you're clueless.

I bet you 10p you're not being as minimal as you can be.

You'd be right.

When you're without sin you can cast a rock.

And you'd be very very wrong. My environmental footprint makes absolutely no difference to YOURS. Your footprint is your own responsibility, and dismissing what I say because of my footprint is pointless. This isn't a moral competition.

And you'd be very very wrong. My environmental footprint makes absolutely no difference to YOURS. Your footprint is your own responsibility, and dismissing what I say because of my footprint is pointless. This isn't a moral competition.

Why have you spent this whole thread doing exactly this then? Everyone who has made a different motoring decision to the one you make is aparently wrong.

I'm not trying to win moral points.

It's just about facts. You're wasting fuel in a fast car. I might be wasting it too, somewhere else, but that makes no difference. You're still wasting it!

Everyone who has made a different motoring decision to the one you make is aparently wrong.

Well yeah - if you make a 'different' decision to piss fuel up the wall then yes, that's wrong.

molgrips
Well yeah - if you make a 'different' decision to piss fuel up the wall then yes, that's wrong.

You appear to have bought a new (presumably) Passat a while ago. As opposed to an old diesel corsa run on recycled vegetable oil. Or even, an old bicycle to get about on. I'm sure you have your reasons, but did you you work out the difference it would have made to your co2 footprint if you had bought the corsa or the bike?

molgrips - Member

Your footprint is your own responsibility, and dismissing what I say because of my footprint is pointless.

That's not at all the point I'm making. What I am saying, is that you've chosen to condemn one lifestyle choice with a negative environmental impact, while following others yourself. You can't say "I am not as minimal as I can be" and "Other people should be as minimal as they can be".

The point is, why buy it if you aren't using it?

That's exactly why I didn't buy a 911 Turbo. I thought the 4S had plenty enough power for road use, sounds better, costs less and looks better without the go-faster wings and scoops.

So do I use it? Yes, but I live in the sticks with instant access to some great driving roads. Also don't have to use 100% power 100% of the time to have fun. I'm sure if you logged my throttle trace, I'd be using full power for only a fraction of the overall time, but it does get used and the torque/throttle response etc is useful pretty much all of the time. Not to mention how great the chassis is. It's not all about power - steering feel, brake feel, handling/ride all play a huge part in the driving experience. I can't begin to state how much better it is to drive than an ordinary Eurobox even at relatively low speed. That's the difference between driving for pleasure and just driving. I do both.

I can't begin to state how much better it is to drive than an ordinary Eurobox

But those are not the only two options...

But those are not the only two options...

Really? What else is there then?

BMW 518d?

150bhp and 114g/km CO2. Not really a Eurobox, is it? Nice enough to enjoy being in, quick enough and decent on fuel.

Amazing - we can all get cars with 450+ bhp but 'don't have to use the full beans' on normal roads but woe betide someone turning up to a trail centre with a 160mm travel bike - suddenly they're 'overbiked' and ridiculed....

I take your point molgrips - it's a nice car 518d is probably 'quick enough' in that it'll hit the NSL on any road, but I bet it's rather dull to drive. I had a go in a 535d and while fast, that was also not that interesting to drive - the 518d would probably send most people to sleep.

I can only ever think that most modern cars feel much slower than they are - an e28 with the same engine would be much more fun for the mpg.

Maximum fun per mpg is probably something like this [url= http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=47&i=26546 ]Caterham Ecoboost[/url] - but that's not really usable day to day, meaning you'd need a second car.

If you need a Caterham and a 518d to cover everything, I'd bet a 12 year old e39 M5 would have a lower impact over its lifetime than two new cars (based on assumptions and no research whatsoever - correct me if I'm wrong)

I bet it's rather dull to drive

I bet it's just fine. You're firmly within 'first world problem' territory here!

True, but a £180 bike from Halfords is probably nominally 'fine'. I take your point, but you can't always rationalise hobbies like that because people don't always have a rational approach to it.

Horses for courses, and all that.

Re your car, let's say what, 280g/km CO2? that's somewhere around 90 tonnes CO2 since it was new. That could easily have been halved. The savings could have heated an average house for 3.5 years or lit a room for 400 years!

yep, and as you mention I'm also destroying a finite resource faster than the efficient car would. Is total co2 output the most important factor in any desicion? Or only where the effect is seen as being an irrelevance( ie I gain nothing from the car being higher power so the extra co2 is generated for nothing)? Or have I understood it wrong?

BWM 518d = 143bhp and 1615kg. Either not quick enough or not decent enough on fuel for most people depending on which camp you are in.

I can't begin to state how much better it is to drive than an ordinary Eurobox even at relatively low speed.

I reckon a 911 would ruin my sex life. Madame chose our current vehicle; it's voluminous, has excellent visibility and is easier to drive than a shopping trolley. A Dacia Lodgy, the only decision I made was the engine option, petrol TCE.

True, but a £180 bike from Halfords is probably nominally 'fine'.

Hmm.. I'd not put it like that. That BMW is like an Orange 5 with XT - plenty good enough.

Is total co2 output the most important factor in any desicion? Or only where the effect is seen as being an irrelevance( ie I gain nothing from the car being higher power so the extra co2 is generated for nothing)?

Hmm. Tricky one that.

We all want things, we just need to think hard first, I suppose, and be honest. I'd love a fast car, but I couldn't square that with the wasted fuel, or the risks I'd end up taking. I do fly to America from time to time, but that's to see my wife's family. I want her to remain in touch with her family, and I want my kids to know their cousins because they are great people and it enriches our lives a lot. I could have not married my wife, but that's a step I wasn't prepared to take.

A purely selfish thing, but there you go. However I think it's a little more worthwhile than rammning around in a too-fast car.

You're absolutely right, I was being rather unfair...!

It'd be like comparing an Orange 5 with Deore / entry level wheels / heavy tyres.

It'll do all the same stuff as a top of the range one, but the same frame with XTR and plastered with shiny things will be more enjoyable - even if you're not a world champ racer riding it at 100% all the time.

None of us really need that stuff, but here we are! I've got some Hope skewers - they're maybe a few g lighter (no idea), but they look and feel bloody lovely, even though I don't really notice they're there when I'm out riding (compare that to commuting, for the car comparison). I would notice it if I weighed everything to the last g and totaled up how much my bike weighed, though (hooning on a trackday).

Edit: Your example is much better!

...the risks I'd end up taking...

...rammning around in a too-fast car.

Hope skewers are soo BMW. They look and feel great but don't function as well as Shimano.

What are you doing with Hope skewers anyway? It's like driving a BMW diesel (so turn of the century) when modern bikes use 15 and 12mm axles (small turbo petrol engines with variable valve timing etc. to make them efficient).

I built the bike while I was a student from second hand bits and had no money ;). They're more Range Rover Evoque - fancy name, work well enough but completely style over substance. They do make me happy, though. Originally I only had one skewer and one bolt-up axle - but the wheels have Hope hubs so it seemed to right thing to do. I freely admit it's insanely fanny-ish - no point trying to deny it...

The Campag ones I have on my road bike are much nicer, too.

Sounds like you'd be a right liability.

Shameless 'I'm better than you' there! Good one!

A purely selfish thing, but there you go. However I think it's a little more worthwhile than rammning around in a too-fast car.

Of course you do and there's the rub. Everyone can reason why they 'need' a fast car, transatlantic flight, new bike....

At some point I want to own a car that does less mpg than it has cylinders…

I'm never going to fly to America.

Does that make it ok?

You tell me...