Senate Considers Limiting Horsepower

[ehaase]

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...G/70306036/1139

Senators ponder need to limit vehicle power

Harry Stoffer | Automotive News / March 6, 2007 - 2:59 pm

WASHINGTON -- Senators of both parties said today that the government may have to cool the American passion for high-powered cars and trucks -- in the name of saving fuel.

The lawmakers, members of a key Senate committee, also said they don't trust the Bush administration to be tough enough in raising fuel economy standards.

"I sense a lot of reluctance and foot-dragging," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, during a hearing on fuel economy.

Lawmakers should raise standards by passing a law rather than waiting for the administration to do so by regulation, said Snowe and some other members of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Snowe and others have introduced a bill to require new cars and trucks to average 35 mpg by 2019 -- about 40 percent higher than today's combined average.

President Bush has said he wants to cut gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years. He envisions greater use of alternative fuels and increases of fuel economy standards by as much as 4 percent a year for new vehicles.

But administration officials have acknowledged the fuel economy goal will be difficult to reach. And they want Congress to pass a law authorizing an overhaul of the fuel economy program for cars before standards are raised. The overhaul would mean setting different standards for different-sized cars, just as the administration has done for light trucks.

The administration is gradually raising the truck standard from 20.7 mpg in 2004 to about 24.0 by 2011 and setting different targets for trucks of different sizes by 2011. The car standard has been at 27.5 mpg since 1990.

Nicole Nason, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which handles fuel economy, made the same case today.

She said the goal is to get manufacturers to add fuel-saving technologies to vehicles and to not limit consumer choice.

But Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, ranking Republican on the committee, told her, "As long as you take that position you are never going to achieve" significant fuel savings. He is the sponsor of a bill to require cars to average 40 mpg by 2017.

Similarly, Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said too much technology goes into satisfying consumers who want bigger and more powerful vehicles.

"We have to set some enforceable standards," he said.

Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said NHTSA should go ahead and set higher car standards now and worry about overhauling the program later.

Despite the ominous tone of the hearing, Ken Cole of General Motors, one of more than a dozen of industry representatives in the audience, reacted calmly.

"We're right in the beginning of the process," said Cole, GM's vice president for government relations. He said lawmakers and their staffs are reeducating themselves about fuel economy and policy options.

But he did agree that the interest some lawmakers showed in limiting vehicle choice "might be troubling," to some people.

[FAPTurbo]

Oh great, Ted Stevens... the guy who educated us all about how the internet is a series of tubes that you cannot just dump something on.

I doubt this will get passed, but I'm curious as too how much support this idea will garner. With the Democratic party in campaign mode and the Republican's gearing up, I wonder if this will become a bit of an issue.

[Oracle of Delphi]

With all the things that are wrong in this country, the Senate picks this to go after!

Edited March 7, 2007 by Pontiac-Custom-S

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Focus on Iraq first, U.S. Senate, then we'll listen to your ideas and point out how stupid they are. Okay? Thanks.

[gm4life]

We have other real problems and hp limitation aren't one of them. We have alot of important things to deal with. HP does not always determine fuel economy, what dip-$h!s, I could see saying all cars must have 5spd. automatic trannies.

[AxelTheRed]

Great, they're killing the muscle car revival before it really kicks off.

[Flybrian]

So, instead of providing us with mass transportation, they're going to make our vehicles mass transportation.

If the government is going to regulate the fun out of owning an automobile, then the government must be planning on providing one for me free of charge because I sure as hell am not going to spend my money on a castrated wheeled personal transit shell.

[Northstar]

Who gives a $h! what they do. Everyone who wants more power can just modify their vehicles as they do now. There's no way they can regulate that. Perhaps smog tests and such could get you in trouble, but you'd just have to be careful about that.

Would this mean GM wouldn't be able to produce crate LS7s? I sort of doubt it.

Basically what I'm saying is that if there's a will there's a way.

[CSpec]

This is unutterably stupid.

[Intrepidation]

I hope everyone in favor of this idea gets run over buy a Bugatti Veyron, a Viper, a Z06, and a Mack truck in that order.

Those jerk-off should focus on more important things like healthcare, trade policies, our neverending federal deficit, or idiots on cell phones!

[CARBIZ]

There is a perfect storm of events (Iraq, rising insurance rates, for example) that are conspiring against the recent silly rise in horsepower wars. I mean, who the F#$k needs 240 hp in a minivan? I am generally not a huge fan of government intervention, but America's dependence on foreign oil is a serious detriment to both her security and her economy. America simply must get off its dependence of imported oil. The future of America depends on that, plain and simple.

How Washington attains that goal is the real question. Higher gas taxes? Taxes on displacement? Penalizing the auto companies themselves? Forcing companies to have certain percentage of sales as "alternate fuels?"

These are the tough questions. Limiting horsepower is just one of many tools that MAY attain the ultimate goal of stopping financing your enemies to coming back and killing you.

[Cory Wolfe]

This is unutterably stupid.

[Variance]

There is a perfect storm of events (Iraq, rising insurance rates, for example) that are conspiring against the recent silly rise in horsepower wars. I mean, who the F#$k needs 240 hp in a minivan? I am generally not a huge fan of government intervention, but America's dependence on foreign oil is a serious detriment to both her security and her economy. America simply must get off its dependence of imported oil. The future of America depends on that, plain and simple.

How Washington attains that goal is the real question. Higher gas taxes? Taxes on displacement? Penalizing the auto companies themselves? Forcing companies to have certain percentage of sales as "alternate fuels?"

These are the tough questions. Limiting horsepower is just one of many tools that MAY attain the ultimate goal of stopping financing your enemies to coming back and killing you.

If I've done my calculations correctly, 10.6% of imported oil comes from Venezuela; only about 4.3% of our imported oil comes from Iraq. So on the whole, the total amount of petroleum we get from unfriendly nations is not that high. They certainly aren't the majority.

And put quite simply, we need foreign oil and there's no way around it. Unless you know of a way to cut our oil use by about 60-some-odd percent.

You want to putter around in a 10hp golf cart, go right ahead. Leave the gas chuggers for me.

I'm not saying we should do nothing about our oil use but castrating our cars is an avenue I don't want to go down.

[FAPTurbo]

I wonder if they count Canadian oil as 'foreign oil'?

[Variance]

I wonder if they count Canadian oil as 'foreign oil'?

Any non-US source is considered foreign, so yes.

Canada is our biggest single country supplier. Mexico is the second.

[Oracle of Delphi]

We should take them over! Muuuuuhahahahahahahahaha!

[FAPTurbo]

We should take them over! Muuuuuhahahahahahahahaha!

Just TRY and take us over. We're so polite, good-natured and unexciting, we'll bore you to death!

Seriously though, the foreign oil deal when looked over a little more closely, shows that America, although dependent on foreign oil, is dealing with reasonable company, like Canada and Mexico.

Europe is in a scarier position. Soon, they'll have to likely rely on Russia's Gazprom, which is state controlled, and seems to have some scary ambitions.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Captainbooyah

[Carguy]

Just a BUNCH OF PINCO COMMIES!!----What next a regulation about how many cars one persion can OWN??----Or if older "pree cat converter regulated" cars will be PERMITTED to DRIVE on the STREETS??----((OH---Sorry Sir but we cannot permit you to buy a tag for that old car because it CAUSES GLOBEL WARMING!!))

[toyoguy]

why don't we just pay the real cost of oil at the pump, minus governement subsidizes.

then nobody could afford to drive anymore.

[CARBIZ]

I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but the last I heard (just the other day), Canada only recently surpassed Saudi Arabia as the U.S.'s biggest importer of oil. And what about China's interest in Canadian oil? Although I am ashamed to admit it, Canadian governments can get elected by bashing the U.S. and many Chinese companies are sniffing around our oil sands projects and mineral deposits. Mexico is just this side of being a banana republic. Venezuela is a banana republic. China is expanding its interests in Africa and other places - they will be America's biggest competition for oil in the next twenty years. They will have a big appetite for oil to build all the gadgets and cars we love to import!

I am just saying, going the way of Brazil, which has recently become completely self-sufficient in oil, is not a bad idea. For those who have bothered leaving this continent, you will know that the Rest of the World has seen the light and is rapidly moving toward fuel efficient cars and trucks. I don't understand why people are so opposed to doing the responsible thing. Nobody is talking about banning private vehicles, just making the best possible use of the resources we have. There can be lots of fun vehicles to drive, they just don't have to get 20 mpg.

[regfootball]

when the $h! comes down and the US population is FORCED to pay huge prices for gas and supplies run low, we'll be really motivated to fight for what is available and also you'll see serious efficiency measures kick in, and aternative sources of transport. Flybrian is correct, some want to legislate the car into a mass transit form. Truth is, they can justify it by saying, 'the public pays for your roads so if you want to drive, this is what you can have'. A 140hp camaro. LOL. this will kill a musclecar revival if it goes through.

But to me this is nothing more than pre 2008 election posturing.

you hear lots of rhetoric from people saying 'we need to drastically improve mpg' but the truth is, if you made them drive a $h!box car to get twice the mileage, they would try to avoid it too. Richardhead Dorgan was quoted in the article, but chances are the two days a year he is at home in north dakota and the rest of the time he is being carted around in washington, he's pprobably in some sort of gas guzzler....not a prius.

Edited March 8, 2007 by regfootball

[Camino LS6]

These jackasses always go for the wrong target. Here are a few better options.

-Optimize roads for traffic flow

- Create REAL Mass Transit

- Support the creation of viable infrastructure for alternative fuels

-Fund alternative fuel research and pilot programs

- Offer attractive tax incentives for increasing the efficiency of all heated buildings

- Offer attractive tax incentives for Increasing the efficiency of all electrically and fuel powered devices in homes, businesses and industry.

Should I go on?

[zhawk]

Remember 'con' is the opposite as 'pro' and you know what that makes congress.

We have far too many other domestic issues to worry about in addition to Iraq, Afghanistan, and everything else that is going on globally.

Besides, just capping the maximum HP ratings won't do a dang thing. The cars running at that level are a tiny portion of the market. What are they going to do, put a limit on each vehicle style?

They should be promoting advancements in the technologies that will increase fuel economy, wthout sacrificing safety, instead of discussing limiting innovation and performance. We are on the edge of seeing where things will go.

Besides, just dumping power doesn't automatically mean an increase in fuel economy. We can have both.

[ToniCipriani]

This thing is worse than the Europeans and Japanese taxing cars by engine displacement.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

There is, however, one option that could allow manufacturers to slide under the radar. Remember how divisions of GM would give engines horsepower ratings lower than they actually were in reality to by-pass GM corporate horsepower caps and make insurance costs lower ... ? :wink:

Edited April 7, 2007 by YellowJacket894

[thegriffon]

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...G/70306036/1139

Despite the ominous tone of the hearing, Ken Cole of General Motors, one of more than a dozen of industry representatives in the audience, reacted calmly.

"If they get real draconion and levy heavy taxes on anything with an engine larger than 1.0 L we think we can get back to a 50% market share before anyone else knows what hit them. We've got microcars up the wahoonie and more 1.0 L and smaller engines than anyone. Just wait till they see what we can do with a 1.0 L diesel and a real compact pickup. We'll be the only game in town."

[Camino LS6]

Interesting, but it doesn't change the fundamental stupidity of this idea.

[bowtie_dude]

Hey griffon, can't see the article, tells me I have to be a subscriber or with some kind of company.

[thegriffon]

ehaase posted it, I'm just spoofing. You may need to register, but not subscribe.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

simple, just limit engine revves to 3000rpm with massive torque.

that way its still just as powerful cept the transmission shifts sooner.

plus modders can totally remove it!

[SuperSport623]

I think 7,000hp is enough for anybody. Get above that I would require a permit.

make it 7,500 and im on board

[aaaantoine]

Limit Horsepower? That's insane. If anything, they should restrict the power-to-weight ratio. But even then, I think it's extremely important to have strong acceleration in a car. I can think of one onramp in particular where it would be anything but a safety hazard to be able to rapidly reach 70mph.

[buyacargetacheck]

I agree with the comment that this is about 2008 posturing.

But in a few short years the price of gasoline and crude will climb faster than it has over the last 7 years (remember when gas was closer to $2 than $3 back in 2000?). So instead of gas and oil prices at twice the level of official inflation (3%) like they are now (7%/yr) we'll be looking at 10% or 20% per year increases in gas prices. All because of oil field decline in the world's largest oil fields (Cantarell, Ghawar, etc).

Congress and the Prez should give the automakers a full design cycle (5 years?) to develop midsize standard family cars that get overall mileage better than 30 mpg. In the meantime federal gas taxes should be raised slowly and buyers today who buy anything that gets better than 30 mpg should get a tax break (not just Prius drivers).

The real solution (and few people want to hear it) is less driving. This will be forced upon us within 30 years. No amount of alternative high tech fuels will replace the easy cheap black stuff Mother Nature has been providing for over 100 years now. We'll delude ourselves a little longer before the public finally understands.

Edited April 9, 2007 by buyacargetacheck

[aaaantoine]

The real solution (and few people want to hear it) is less driving. This will be forced upon us within 30 years. No amount of alternative high tech fuels will replace the easy cheap black stuff Mother Nature has been providing for over 100 years now. We'll delude ourselves a little longer before the public finally understands.

If this is more than just sensationalist conjecture, then American society is going to get its ass kicked severely before the end of my expected lifetime.

Edit: I need to throw in some Becauses.

- There will be less shipping of goods, much shorter commutes, more mass transit, and ultimately, fewer cars. Basically, less freedom to get what we want, drive where we want to, live where we want to...

Edited April 9, 2007 by aaaantoine

[thegriffon]

These jackasses always go for the wrong target. Here are a few better options.

-Optimize roads for traffic flow

- Create REAL Mass Transit [matching federal funds for all transport projects, not just highways would be a start]

- Support the creation of viable infrastructure for alternative fuels

-Fund alternative fuel research and pilot programs

- Offer attractive tax incentives for increasing the efficiency of all heated buildings [a 4% per year fuel-economy increase for all furnaces]

- Offer attractive tax incentives for Increasing the efficiency of all electrically and fuel powered devices in homes, businesses and industry.

Should I go on?

This from the people who refuse to fund Amtrak? That will not fund any "new" mass transit routes, only improvements to existing routes? Well, now's the time to do something, like form a grassroots organization to elect people who will make these commitments. You have 18 months or so to change the future.

[gm4life]

Folks it is real simple here in this country we have real problems and anyone who would consider limiting horsepower is a bastard (or bitch). Everyone has the freedom to own a 100hp Echo or a 400hp GTO, 505hp Z06 or anything inbetween or above. Limiting HP does not have a DIRECT effect on fuel economy, actually sometimes higher HP motors get better fuel economy... Hmmm like the 4.8L Vortec or the 5.3L Vortec gets better fuel economy and has more HP, how do you explain that. If anything they should require all cars to have at least 5 foward speeds in transmissions, that would surly help fuel economy... :AH-HA_wink:

Edited April 10, 2007 by gm4life

[carman21]

Give Tax write-offs to US-based automakers to offer two mode hybrids in All BOF SUVs by 2010 MY. All midsize and fullsize cars by 2011 my. Finally, all the rest by 2012.

Then schedule in plug-ins starting in 2015 through 2018.

Bingo, 50-150 MPG and we get to keep the muscle.

Too bad nobody gives a damn who has the power to do it.

Meanwhile switch all our electric power to clean coal and nuclear.

Oh yeah, wrote-off flex fuel tech. So, we can use E85 reducing our oil imports massively.

Woah, we reduced our CO2 output dramatically.

I still say the SUN accounts for 99% of all climate change.

If the Sun sneezes the Earth gets sick.

Al Gore needs to retire already, what a clueless loser, .

Give me the Nobel Prize Now! Bitch!

Edited December 15, 2007 by carman21

[ocnblu]

If incandescent lightbulbs were phased out tomorrow, the energy savings would make all the weenies forget about our beloved auto industry.

[pow]

If incandescent lightbulbs were phased out tomorrow, the energy savings would make all the weenies forget about our beloved auto industry.

Not quite. If scientists found a way to implement the bacteria in kangaroos that give them methane-less farts (while still eating the same grasses) in cows, then maybe they'll forget. The world's livestock is a greater source of anthropogenic GHGs than all the cars and light trucks in the world combined.

[Z-06]

Not quite. If scientists found a way to implement the bacteria in kangaroos that give them methane-less farts (while still eating the same grasses) in cows, then maybe they'll forget. The world's livestock is a greater source of anthropogenic GHGs than all the cars and light trucks in the world combined.

Add to it the crops of the world and big dams.

[ocnblu]

Can Bean-o save the planet?

[buyacargetacheck]

Proactively increasing fleet fuel economy before fuel prices skyrocket a la 1973 is smart. It may just help stave off inflation and, ironically, help save GM and Ford. Doesn't anyone here remember 1973 or 1979 when oil spiked? Don't believe it can't happen again. Believe it or not 400hp is not a right. In fact, neither is car ownership. It's a real eye-opener to hear these punks on-line with their modified 400hp SRT-4s mocking early 80s 145hp Camaros. Those who don't understand the past are doomed to repeat it.

[bowtie_dude]

Proactively increasing fleet fuel economy before fuel prices skyrocket a la 1973 is smart. It may just help stave off inflation and, ironically, help save GM and Ford. Doesn't anyone here remember 1973 or 1979 when oil spiked? Don't believe it can't happen again. Believe it or not 400hp is not a right. In fact, neither is car ownership. It's a real eye-opener to hear these punks on-line with their modified 400hp SRT-4s mocking early 80s 145hp Camaros. Those who don't understand the past are doomed to repeat it.

Choice is a right, however, and so is the ability for a business to produce and sell whatever kind of product they choose.

[Robert Hall]

Not quite. If scientists found a way to implement the bacteria in kangaroos that give them methane-less farts (while still eating the same grasses) in cows, then maybe they'll forget. The world's livestock is a greater source of anthropogenic GHGs than all the cars and light trucks in the world combined.

They need to setup emission standards for cows and equip all new ones with catalytic converters.

[bowtie_dude]

They need to setup emission standards for cows and equip all new ones with catalytic converters.

And force emissions testing and licensing of said bovines.

I just want to see a line of $h!ting, farting cows down at the city clerk's office.

[NOS2006]

For one, we're not Japan.

Two, they can't put the Bush administration at fault for what they want to happen in five years with CAFE and all that. Bush is only in for like 10 more months or so.

Three, this is bull$h!.

Four, I'm moving to Canadia if this happens.

[CARBIZ]

For one, we're not Japan.

Two, they can't put the Bush administration at fault for what they want to happen in five years with CAFE and all that. Bush is only in for like 10 more months or so.

Three, this is bull$h!.

Four, I'm moving to Canadia if this happens.

Good luck with that! Smart sold 2,400 cars here last year and more than 3k the year before - mostly in Toronto and Vancouver. If California doesn't think up some loonie idea, we Canucks will!