Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "George Orwell" <nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:a95d3f365514243cde33bb5c4336a1f9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Horsepower requirements should be sufficient for safety.
>>
>> A rational answer to the question of what is sufficient is:
>>
>> 75 mph on steepest allowable superhighway grade at 7500 foot above sea
>> level elevation at "standard temperature and pressure" with the vehicle
>> loaded to maximum gross weight.
>>
>> No more and no less horsepower is indicated for perfectly adequate
>> performance. More is wasteful, less is unsafe.
>>
>
> Having more power available is never wasted. The cost of manufacturing
an
> engine capable of 200 or 250 hp is very much the same. A cam is a cam
no
> matter where you place the lobes. The fuel consumption on today's cars
at
> highway cruising speed is even pretty close on engines of that HP range.
In almost every case, similar cars with bigger engines use more fuel.
> I don't want "adequate", I want fast when I want fast.
Key word: "want."
If you want to use the word "need" in a sentence, one is "We need to
conserve fuel to decrease our output of CO2 and to preserve fuel, which
is a limited resource."
> My 234 hp car out
> performs my former 185 hp car and gets better mileage. I have not,
however,
> had the op****tunity to see if the rated top speed of 137 is attainable
> easily. I've not been past 110 yet.
And if the new car had an option for a similar engine as your 234 HP
engine using similar technology and only got 185 HP, you would also use
less fuel.
Jeff
|
