Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a limit... it's called fuel efficiency standards. By 2016, (just around the corner!) the Corporate Average Fuel Economy is set at 35.5 mpg. By 2025, it's supposed to be up to 54.5 mpg.
For a manufacturer to remain in compliance with it, their entire lineup has to meet that average fuel rating. They won't be able to keep adding horsepower because the fuel economy will suffer, and if they want to meet the CAFE standards, something will have to give.
Naw, they just have to meet the average across their entire product line. They get around it by selling lots of high-efficiency driving washing machines to the masses while offering fewer of their insane niche monsters to keep their brand looking flashy.
Even then, I'm surprised by the fuel economy even today's big muscle cars get; I drive a Challenger R/T and get 26 MPG highway if I go easy on the launches. The old 70's Challenger (with less HP) got somewhere around 7 MPG. So yea, technology has advanced a little bit in the last 40 years.
Anyway, there's no sign of Nanny State intervention like back in the late 60's-early 70's and fuel economy is doing pretty good for so much power so fast cars will keep getting more powerful until it stops being profitable for them to do so.
On the contrary, we do have Nanny State intervention in the form of safety requirements. As more safety components are added to cars, cars get heavier. As cars get heavier, more horsepower is needed to move them.
Pretty soon every mainstream sedan will weigh four tons and have 800 horsepower. Pedestrians will have to walk around in full plate armor just to be safe.
In the last 20yrs power has improved much more than fuel economy.
I have a 1990 Toyota van with 2.4L SOHC, Carbureted engine and it consumes about the same amount of fuel, if not less than most of today similar displacement sedans!
But the power of today's engines, even with much smaller ones is on a whole natha level!
The insurance industry will have as much to do with limitations as the government. I suspect we're living through the golden age of HP/TQ and that it won't last forever. By the 2025 standards, I think we'll all be driving 1.0L turbo charged micro cars
The insurance industry will have as much to do with limitations as the government. I suspect we're living through the golden age of HP/TQ and that it won't last forever. By the 2025 standards, I think we'll all be driving 1.0L turbo charged micro cars
i think the possibilities have always been there. Back in the day, with the right tuning, cam, etc a V8 could put out strong hp #s while getting good mpg's as well even in those larger cars. But those tricks were done by tuners, muscle car magazines, etc and not the manufacturers.
These days, a little aftermarket tuning and better intake/exhaust (all while maintaining set standards) can add even more power and efficiency to a stock motor. I agree, it takes the right engineers (and the flex to allow them to do their job fully) to continue the path these cars are on.
I'm old enough to remember a common v8 was maybe a 13-14 sec ride with poor mpg's, and now there's v6's and turbo 4's hitting the same performance #s while pushing or hitting 30 mpg's. That in itself is pretty amazing considering where cars came from just a few short decades ago.
Mine back in the 1980's cars were not really fast but were alot lighter just Imagine an modern Turbocharged and intercooled direct injected 400+ HP I-4 Drivetrain put into a 1986 CRX type of car in terms of power to weight it would be a Rocket.
that's exactly why those tuner kids love the little Hondas lol. I thought a v8 Pinto i drove back in the day had a good power to weight ratio, but it was nothing compared to these little crx's and civic's that are boosted nowadays.
I don't know if there will be a maximum amount of horsepower on tap, but it's steadily gained similar to the stock market...there have been dips here and there, the 70's, the 80's, but the overall trend since it's inception is up and there's no reason to feel that that trend is going to change.
Government regulations are for fuel economy figures, and not so much for performance numbers. Unfortunately the two are often connected in more ways than one, but it's not impossible to get around the correlation, but it costs $$. The new Chrysler 8 speed transmissions are one way of doing this, and more cogs will likely be seen in many transmissions as we move forward...specifically automatics and dual clutch manuals.
Personally, I also like lightweight vehicles, and ones that get good fuel economy and are fun to drive. I'd love to test out the new VW diesel making it's entry in Europe. 1.0L TDI (2 Cylinder) + Electric Motor Hybrid System = 261 MPG on the European Cycle...
There is a limit... it's called fuel efficiency standards. By 2016, (just around the corner!) the Corporate Average Fuel Economy is set at 35.5 mpg. By 2025, it's supposed to be up to 54.5 mpg.
For a manufacturer to remain in compliance with it, their entire lineup has to meet that average fuel rating. They won't be able to keep adding horsepower because the fuel economy will suffer, and if they want to meet the CAFE standards, something will have to give.
This is the so true. As long as the feds are dictating these standards, I don't see much more desire for makers to be putting out V8's and up. Look at so many cars that have downsized cylinders: Cadillac, Rav4, Malibu.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.