BimmerFest BMW Forum banner

1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Does the current horsepower war remind anyone of the late 60's/early 70's? Everybody was making HUGE horsepower and then the bottom dropped out. Gas and insurance prices soared, causing people to have to drive Mustang 2's and of the like, YUK. I sure hope that doesn't happen again. :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Jeff_DML said:
I hope a weight-loss war starts :thumbup:
Are you referring to our cars or ourselves?? :lmao:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Yeah this HP war is stupid, cars with 280hp, 400HP, 500Hp, and that war has been escalating fast in the last few years, so 5 years from now will the M3 be pushing 1000HP while the Corvette is pussing 2000HP

What about the 0-60 wars and braggin' rights. I remember readind in MT or R&T about the Corvette Lingenfelter was now jetting to 60 in 1.9 seconds, and a lot of the manufacturers now are making cars sprint to 60 faster, and faster.

What happens ten years from now
0-60 in -2 seconds, ouch that would hurt, where does it end???:dunno:
 

·
2001 M3:Stick, what else?
Joined
·
3,300 Posts
Plaz said:
Funny rant.

I find it odd that few people ever voice the most obvious solution to so may vehicular problems (such as this hp issue, SUV issue...) because it forces everyone to put there money where there mouth is:

Artificially tax the hell out of gasoline. Works for europe, worked in the 70's.

Oh, but it requires each individual to make changes. DOH! It's easier just to rant about it and come up with cockamamie solutions.
 

·
TMS
Joined
·
9,288 Posts
The sales volumes of most of these cars is miniscule, so I don't think it has much of an effect on society at large. Me, I think they ought to stop exempting non-commercial trucks from the gas guzzler tax.
 

·
•••••••
Joined
·
16,117 Posts
JPinTO said:


Funny rant.

I find it odd that few people ever voice the most obvious solution to so may vehicular problems (such as this hp issue, SUV issue...) because it forces everyone to put there money where there mouth is:

Artificially tax the hell out of gasoline. Works for europe, worked in the 70's.

Oh, but it requires each individual to make changes. DOH! It's easier just to rant about it and come up with cockamamie solutions.
I see the value of the idea in a theoretical sense, but it would have to only be only for individuals, not for commercial vehicles, as the economy would be absolutely pulverized otherwise.

But the practical aspects of actually enforcing it would be a nightmare, there would be gas bootlegging and other forms of unfair cheating, and it would actually make the government loath to give up all those tax dollars, possible actually retarding the slow move away from internal combustion engines.

Both Al Gore and TD have advocated this at various times, though. :D
 
G

·
JPinTO said:


Funny rant.

I find it odd that few people ever voice the most obvious solution to so may vehicular problems (such as this hp issue, SUV issue...) because it forces everyone to put there money where there mouth is:

Artificially tax the hell out of gasoline. Works for europe, worked in the 70's.

Oh, but it requires each individual to make changes. DOH! It's easier just to rant about it and come up with cockamamie solutions.
I have consistenly said this. We really need a $3-4/gal federal gas tax to force people to honestly assess what they need and/or are willing to splurge on.

For me personally, I'd have to take a new job with a shorter commute (or that I could take the subway to) and my M3 would become a strictly weekend car. But, honestly, that would be much better for the environment.
 
G

·
Plaz said:

Both Al Gore and TD have advocated this at various times, though. :D
Please Plaz, do not lump me in with that two-faced f*ckhead regardless of the issue. Hell, I'd rather be lumped in with Nader or even, gasp, a Kennedy. But not Algore.
 
G

·
Plaz said:

I see the value of the idea in a theoretical sense, but it would have to only be only for individuals, not for commercial vehicles, as the economy would be absolutely pulverized otherwise.
Simple solution. Do not apply the tax to diesel. If people get diesel cars to be able to buy cheaper fuel, more power to them.
 

·
Ex-Dictator
Joined
·
26,111 Posts
I don't think that the upcoming models will be light weight. The addition of new active and passive security components (both electronics coupled with mechanics or more rigid body structure) will add more weight, which the manufacturers will fight with the use of alu body parts, such as hood, trunk or front frame (like the E60 and the next 6 Series)

Light weight will be available on the top range models like the M3 CSL or when produced on the M6/M5. Since these models will be produced at the M-GmbH, the profit margin will be much higher than the standard models.

Referring to many postings here, I'm thinking that the inline 6 is reaching it's limits. So they need to come up with new ideas.
 

·
I like cookies.
Joined
·
18,102 Posts
TD said:


I have consistenly said this. We really need a $3-4/gal federal gas tax to force people to honestly assess what they need and/or are willing to splurge on.
No thanks, I'd rather let the market dictate the price of gas. It is always great to introduce new tax-based market distortions :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
TD said:


I have consistenly said this. We really need a $3-4/gal federal gas tax to force people to honestly assess what they need and/or are willing to splurge on.

For me personally, I'd have to take a new job with a shorter commute (or that I could take the subway to) and my M3 would become a strictly weekend car. But, honestly, that would be much better for the environment.
On a purely idealistic level this is an interesting idea. In the real world, this would financially crush people. Not only would you have to deal with higher gas costs, but it would also KILL the used car market as people would be trying to get rid of their gas guzzling cars for cheaper ones. I suggest that a better solution is to mandate that new cars get better and better fuel economy. Also we need to seriously invest in new forms of alternative fuel vehicles. I think fuel cell vehicles hold alot of promise. The major problem with all of this, is the fact that oil industry has a huge lobby and aren't going to go down without a fight.
 

·
•••••••
Joined
·
16,117 Posts
TD said:


I have consistenly said this. We really need a $3-4/gal federal gas tax to force people to honestly assess what they need and/or are willing to splurge on.

For me personally, I'd have to take a new job with a shorter commute (or that I could take the subway to) and my M3 would become a strictly weekend car. But, honestly, that would be much better for the environment.
And better for National Security, too... but I still think the idea holds better value in theory than it would in practice for America.

European commercial enterprises (and individuals, for that matter) don't have to cross the vast expanse of geography that US ones do. It would be an incredible drain on the economy.

I'm finally starting to think that we actually do have some real momentum within industry to move away from the internal combustion-driven economy... but if everyone goes broke from gas taxes, the R&D money will dry up and actually retard the process.
 
G

·
nate328Ci said:


No thanks, I'd rather let the market dictate the price of gas. It is always great to introduce new tax-based market distortions :rolleyes:
Then don't make our boys go fight wars to insure cheap fuels. Allow the prices to naturally go throught the roof when some oil producing nation's leader gets a hankering to jack with us.

One or the other.

I'd rather control demand through taxes than control supply with blood.
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top