Underpowered cars are a danger

[obi_waynne]

Do you think that underpowered cars are a danger on our faster roads? They can't keep up, and seem to get bogged down on even mild hills. They are unable to merge properly and need to wait for a large gap and they just hold up other cars?

Is this statement unfair? How would you define an underpowered car? Should they be banned from our motorways?

 

[Massive]

well its not fair to ban an underpowered car eg a 1.0 ltr micra of a bottom end smart car, some people wont be able to afford the insurance so a more mid range power eg focus 1.6, i have some friends at work ages 30+ who have only just started driving and get nailed for insurance on a 1.2 clio plus some people are more bothered about economy esp in this financial climate so i say just zoom past them

 

[turbonutter69]

Do you think that underpowered cars are a danger on our faster roads? They can't keep up, and seem to get bogged down on even mild hills. They are unable to merge properly and need to wait for a large gap and they just hold up other cars?

Is this statement unfair? How would you define an underpowered car? Should they be banned from our motorways?

Oi!!!!!!!!!

 

[T9 man]

Oi!!!!!!!!!

Was that a pop at you TN?

 

[Big Fat Fatty]

It is unfair to ban anyone from any roads unless they are actually a danger to themselves or others, as long as they are aware of what's going on around them then there is no problem,

how would you define an underpowered car? most are designed in such a way that the engine is capable enough to pull it around at least at the speed limit

 

[turbonutter69]

Was that a pop at you TN?

I'm not sure. But our Waynne is on thin ice and needs to choose his next sentence carefully.

 

[bigbadjoe]

Some time, though, its not the cars fault. Its ''what the people demand'' 's fault. We can't have it both ways. But people want a 1L car that will do 800000000000MPG and still reach 60 in under 10 seconds. Reallistically this aint going to happen. I never intend owning a car with an engine smaller than a 1.5 (spitfire) or 1.7 if it is not the said car, so, sod it. Why not. Ban small cars from the motorway. The drivers pay less to insure, yet they MAY corse the accidents. Seen as we pay more to insure our big cars, we should be allowed on.

On a serious note. A lot of the time, its the drivers that don't put there foot down, and as for going up hills, some people may not be aware they can change down a gear. I think it has more to do with the driver than the car.

 

[T9 man]

On a serious note. A lot of the time, its the drivers that don't put there foot down, and as for going up hills, some people may not be aware they can change down a gear. I think it has more to do with the driver than the car.

Agreed

 

[kain35m]

How much Hp do these 1.0 liter motors generate? I have heard people say that "Europe makes more power with smaller motors"

Mostly referring to how we tend to make larger engines in our cars.

My question is, is it really that? or have Europeans simply gotten used to driving 40bhp underpowered hunks of garbage?

The Toyota Camry is the best selling car in America, and the smallest engine they put in it is a 2.4 liter, which, for lack of power(198bhp), they have always had a v6 option(268bhp) which is very successful and is still considered slow due to the cars weight and gearing.

If someone had a 40bhp car, they would probably be the source rage for every other motorist on the road, and a danger to everyone.

Personally, I won't drive anything with less than 240bhp. More if the car is heavy.

 

[obi_waynne]

Just provoking discussion TN! I don't think that they should be banned and I don't actually agree with the statement. Perhaps though they should be restricted in the same way HGV's are to the left 2 lanes? Run for cover!

 

[T9 man]

Quick, where's my bullet proof vest? :bigsmile:

 

[HDi fun]

The phrase underpowered is as much a subjective one as it is a factual one. I don't think that underpowered cars are dangerous, they just need to be driven according to their abilities. Different drivers have different perceptions of power and driveability as well.

Higher powered cars are easier to drive, that is without a doubt. Unless, that is, we're considering something designed for fast track usage, something heavily tuned which puts out 650bhp, yet hardly idles below 2000rpm, and won't pull at all until over 5000rpm then it gets very tiring on the road with the constant gearchanging (and the racket it makes!!)

I don't think that high powered cars are a problem if the driver is sensible with the application of the available torque and acceleration.

I also disagree with the 'bit of extra power gets you out of trouble' types of statements. It's the driver that got themselves into trouble in the first place.

With a shedload of extra torque and acceleration on tap it's very probable that this will get a novice (or experienced but bad anyway driver) into more trouble, twice as soon, at twice the speed (which means 4x the kinetic energy to shed or dissipate !!)

So, in short, neither is safer. Assuming proper maintenance and everything working (steering, brakes etc) it's drivers which make situations dangerous, not cars.

Here endeth the lesson

 

[turbonutter69]

Just provoking discussion TN! I don't think that they should be banned and I don't actually agree with the statement. Perhaps though they should be restricted in the same way HGV's are to the left 2 lanes? Run for cover!

Hope you can run fast.
Why should my measly 100hp Focus be restricted to 2 lanes?

The phrase underpowered is as much a subjective one as it is a factual one. I don't think that underpowered cars are dangerous, they just need to be driven according to their abilities. Different drivers have different perceptions of power and driveability as well.

Higher powered cars are easier to drive, that is without a doubt. Unless, that is, we're considering something designed for fast track usage, something heavily tuned which puts out 650bhp, yet hardly idles below 2000rpm, and won't pull at all until over 5000rpm then it gets very tiring on the road with the constant gearchanging (and the racket it makes!!)

I don't think that high powered cars are a problem if the driver is sensible with the application of the available torque and acceleration.

I also disagree with the 'bit of extra power gets you out of trouble' types of statements. It's the driver that got themselves into trouble in the first place.

With a shedload of extra torque and acceleration on tap it's very probable that this will get a novice (or experienced but bad anyway driver) into more trouble, twice as soon, at twice the speed (which means 4x the kinetic energy to shed or dissipate !!)

So, in short, neither is safer. Assuming proper maintenance and everything working (steering, brakes etc) it's drivers which make situations dangerous, not cars.

Here endeth the lesson

My god Hdi you gotta stop!!!!!!!
I agree again.:blink:

 

[kain35m]

Higher powered cars are easier to drive, that is without a doubt. Unless, that is, we're considering something designed for fast track usage, something heavily tuned which puts out 650bhp, yet hardly idles below 2000rpm, and won't pull at all until over 5000rpm then it gets very tiring on the road with the constant gearchanging (and the racket it makes!!)

I don't think that high powered cars are a problem if the driver is sensible with the application of the available torque and acceleration.

I also disagree with the 'bit of extra power gets you out of trouble' types of statements. It's the driver that got themselves into trouble in the first place.

With a shedload of extra torque and acceleration on tap it's very probable that this will get a novice (or experienced but bad anyway driver) into more trouble, twice as soon, at twice the speed (which means 4x the kinetic energy to shed or dissipate !!)

So, in short, neither is safer. Assuming proper maintenance and everything working (steering, brakes etc) it's drivers which make situations dangerous, not cars.

Here endeth the lesson

How about "a bit of extra power gets certain people out of trouble"? Example: My Mustangs tires are horrid. The stock sized (or even slightly oversized) tires are too skinny for the powerful brakes. So I try to stay away from the drivers in front if me.

Once, a car slammed on his brakes in front of me to avoid a ton of broken glass. I had a split second to decide whether to brake, slide, and almost definitely hit him; or to accelerate and slip into the next lane, where there was a car next to me, but a space in front of him.

I opted for the gas. I squealed into the next lane and avoided the whole thing. I may have saved a friends life with this too. He was on a motorcycle behind me and said if I would have stayed in that lane, he probably would have come smashing through my back window.

All things unchanged, Had I had a 100hp engine, I never could have performed that maneuver and probably woudn't be talking to you guys right now.

I completely and utterly agree that the driver makes the car (or the trouble, or the mpg), not the other way around. The way I drive requires power. That's me though.

 

[HDi fun]

Quotung kain35m : "Once, a car slammed on his brakes in front of me to avoid a ton of broken glass. I had a split second to decide whether to brake, slide, and almost definitely hit him; or to accelerate and slip into the next lane, where there was a car next to me, but a space in front of him.
"

You could, of course, simply leave larger gaps between you and the car in front (your friend on the 'bike could do the same as well), thus giving you (both) other choices and more time in which to make a choice.

Looking through - or to the left or right of the vehicle in front is much much easier if you leave decent gaps. You never know, you might've seen the pile of broken glass long before the driver of the car in front did so.

This is especially applicable, given you have said openly that the tires on your Mustang provide only inadequate grip.

 

[kain35m]

Right. but good distances can't compensate for every idiot on the road. I believe I did say that I keep space in front of me due to my tires. I didn't say I didn't see the glass. I was slowing down and assessing the situation before he slammed on his brakes. just that even with the distance I had, I couldn't be sure. Plus, bike brakes make bikes skid. he had plenty of room behind me as well, but sliding distance is much different than normal braking distance.

This argument potentially goes down a bad road, so here's the point: There is absolutely no way you can prevent every single situation. I'd rather have a well rounded car that has enough power (240 is adequate)as well as light weight, good brakes, and good tires. Well rounded is the way to go. Not 500hp. not 100hp. 150-350. Anything unbalanced is dangerous.

 

[turbonutter69]

Right. but good distances can't compensate for every idiot on the road. I believe I did say that I keep space in front of me due to my tires. I didn't say I didn't see the glass. I was slowing down and assessing the situation before he slammed on his brakes. just that even with the distance I had, I couldn't be sure. Plus, bike brakes make bikes skid. he had plenty of room behind me as well, but sliding distance is much different than normal braking distance.

This argument potentially goes down a bad road, so here's the point: There is absolutely no way you can prevent every single situation. I'd rather have a well rounded car that has enough power (240 is adequate)as well as light weight, good brakes, and good tires. Well rounded is the way to go. Not 500hp. not 100hp. 150-350. Anything unbalanced is dangerous.

Please explain what this means?

 

[thexav]

I think anything that takes over 20 seconds to hit 60 is underpowered. It makes me laugh when I see old 1.0 cars cranked up to their top speed on the motorway (85mph) and I just hope they realise the brakes were not designed for these speeds. I worry about some of them you know.

100 bhp is not to low in a light European car, in an american cars body it would be down right pitiful.

 

[Yugguy]

Underpowered cars are only a danger when the driver is an idiot. if you havent got the power dont go for a suicidal overtake.

 

[turbonutter69]

I think anything that takes over 20 seconds to hit 60 is underpowered. It makes me laugh when I see old 1.0 cars cranked up to their top speed on the motorway (85mph) and I just hope they realise the brakes were not designed for these speeds. I worry about some of them you know.

100 bhp is not to low in a light European car, in an american cars body it would be down right pitiful.

At around a ton an a half I don't consider my Focus to be a lightweight.

 

[HDi fun]

At around a ton an a half I don't consider my Focus to be a lightweight.

I think the reference was perhaps to sub mini cars such as Ka and Seat Arosa. In that situation 100bhp is going push it along quite nicely.

Still totally thrown by Kain35m and his rather confused statements. Fact is that he obviously was too close if he couldn't come to a halt in the distance he could see to be clear. There are no ifs and buts about this one.

 

[herb]

Just going by my car that is 1.5 ton. that 100bhp and 120lb/ft of torque is enough to get me up to the speed limit safely! I know this for fact cause I have been playing with my liquid gauge

But I do like the fact I have double that power if needed to make a swift move safer

 

[Yugguy]

When joining a motorway or dc you need enough power to be able to get up sufficient speed to merge with the main traffic. If your car cant do this then it's dangerous.

 

[herb]

When joining a motorway or dc you need enough power to be able to get up sufficient speed to merge with the main traffic. If your car cant do this then it's dangerous.

I agree but dissagree at the same time:-S cause if the drivers on the motorway/dc are competent they will see the slow car and menouver over way before that car can hold them up.

 

[turbonutter69]

I agree but dissagree at the same time:-S cause if the drivers on the motorway/dc are competent they will see the slow car and menouver over way before that car can hold them up.

Agreed.

 

[HDi fun]

It's the driver, not the car. There care very few cars which cannot get to 70mph on a M-way slip lane. Hence my point about driveability - I can get a 1.0 Micra to 70mph on the short uphill slip on M40 Northbound Junction 6.

It just takes a bit more effort that it would in a car with a more favourable power:weight ratio.

 

[kain35m]

Unbalanced car-500hp super-modded Seat Ibiza sitting on original brakes, suspension, and tires. He may be able to merge into traffic, but if someone brakes in front of him, he's in trouble.

100hp 2500lb car. Can't move out of the way of an oncoming accident when braking is not the best option. You will not always have enough distance in front of you. No matter how hard you try.

Not enough power, not enough brakes, too heavy, or bad/underperforming suspension. any one of these things makes a car unbalanced. You need a good balance of all these things to have a truly good all around car.

Then you have to be a good driver as well, and know how to use these systems. The driver has to be balanced in driving skill and decision making. You have to know when to hit the brake, when to hit the gas, and when to steer out of the way.

Everyone comes from the standpoint of the fast car coming up behind the slower car, but what happens if you're the slower car? some fool in a 400hp porsche is coming up behind you at 120mph and the only space for you to avoid being rear-ended is in front of you in the next lane. What do you do? stop and hope he/she goes around? I'll wind up my 240hp and take that spot. Can an 85hp car do this? Even if it only weighs 1 ton, I doubt it.

You can't always have a good distance. At some point, by design, or by mistake, you will be too close behind someone, and they may choose that exact moment to hit the brakes. You and your car have to be able to perform evasive maneuvers if the situation presents itself. Some of these maneuvers require the accelerator and/or the steering wheel and not only the brake.

You want another example? I had a guy slide out of control next to me on the highway. Next thing I knew his headlights wer coming at my driver door at 60mph. I hit the gas and he went right by behind me into a ditch. Had I hit the brakes(or not had enough power to move away), he probably would have hit me, and cars behind me may have hit as well.

Last time. Having space in front is not the only thing that saves you from having an accident. Additionally, no matter how hard you concentrate, no matter how hard you try, you will be too close one day. It may only happen once in your entire life, but knowing what to do in that situation may save your life if the whole thing goes wrong. Ok? Have I said it enough times? This is getting old. It doesn't feel like a good-natured debate anymore. I just feel like I'm forced to repeat my point over and over. It's old.

 

[HDi fun]

Sorry but I'm still not convinced. By citing all these examples all I'm seeing is that you have many near misses. No one has actually said that having extra space ahead is the exclusive route to automotive safety nirvana.

I do agree with you on one point, and that is low powered cars usually have less capacity for braking and steering than a well set up midrange car. But if the driver (and I'm not referring to you) chooses to use up all the safety margin by driving ever faster then there's no benefit at all.

The question asked was whether underpowered cars are dangerous. I don't think they are if the driver of said car drives it within it's frame of capability. I have also said that such cars can be tiring to drive.

That's all - it's not a witch hunt.

 

[Jakeymd]

Everyone comes from the standpoint of the fast car coming up behind the slower car, but what happens if you're the slower car? some fool in a 400hp porsche is coming up behind you at 120mph and the only space for you to avoid being rear-ended is in front of you in the next lane. What do you do? stop and hope he/she goes around? I'll wind up my 240hp and take that spot. Can an 85hp car do this? Even if it only weighs 1 ton, I doubt it.

Surely the dangerous car here is the 400hp Porsche, not the 85hp car.

 

[HDi fun]

Everyone comes from the standpoint of the fast car coming up behind the slower car, but what happens if you're the slower car? some fool in a 400hp porsche is coming up behind you at 120mph and the only space for you to avoid being rear-ended is in front of you in the next lane. What do you do? stop and hope he/she goes around? I'll wind up my 240hp and take that spot. Can an 85hp car do this? Even if it only weighs 1 ton, I doubt it.

Surely the dangerous car here is the 400hp Porsche, not the 85hp car.

Not the car, but the idiot driving it at 120mph when clearly the traffic ahead is only doing about 55-60mph. I wondered about this example as well.

 

[Jakeymd]

And i have never driven a car that has a greater rate of acceleration than deceleration at normal driving speeds. Might just be because i have driven 'dangerous underpowered' cars. And if like you say your tyres (tires) are the limiting factor then you would have the same amount of grip decelerating as you do accelerating unless the rear and front wheel widths are dramatically different. Simple physics.

 

[kain35m]

"simple physics" is right. sticky rear tires, horrid front tires, better brakes in the front than the back, no weight on the back tires. rear wheel drive. That setup is great for takeoff and bad for braking.

In my example, the Porsche has a very common problem with "the nut behind the wheel". Even though he is a danger to everyone, you can't control him, but you can control if he hits you specifically.

 

[HDi fun]

Porsches aren't often driven or owned by idiots. The purchase price is high enough that you'd need to be quite keen to be able to afford one.

 

[deathstar999]

well under powered cars have the right just as long as they can keep up with the flow of traffic don't mean to have a pop but i think that a standard 1.0 to a 2.0 is fine but most accidents are caused bye impatient people not the car .

 

[T9 man]

Porsches aren't often driven or owned by idiots. The purchase price is high enough that you'd need to be quite keen to be able to afford one.

Actually, now that you mention it! In all the years that I have been driving, I have never ever seen a Porsche giving it the big throttle on the motorway or dual carriageway! :blink:

 

[HDi fun]

Actually, now that you mention it! In all the years that I have been driving, I have never ever seen a Porsche giving it the big throttle on the motorway or dual carriageway! :blink:

Nor have I. Maybe because they've blown £150,000 on the car they're now skint and have to take it gently to conserve fuel

 

[turbonutter69]

Actually, now that you mention it! In all the years that I have been driving, I have never ever seen a Porsche giving it the big throttle on the motorway or dual carriageway! :blink:

A Porsche driver holds the UK speeding record being clocked at 172mph.
I do see Porsche drivers giving it the beans.

 

[T9 man]

A Porsche driver holds the UK speeding record being clocked at 172mph.
I do see Porsche drivers giving it the beans.

:shock: I must have been working from home that day!

 

[pgarner]

Unbalanced car-500hp super-modded Seat Ibiza sitting on original brakes, suspension, and tires. He may be able to merge into traffic, but if someone brakes in front of him, he's in trouble.

2 same cars - use your example of seats ibizas - one standard with 100bhp and one with 400bhp modded as your example. both brake from 70mph motorway speed limit both should stop in the same time. the car comes equipped with adequate brakes for normal driving within our country.( ie can stop from 70mph within the distance giving by the highway code) i would guess that the same would be the same with you

"simple physics" is right. sticky rear tires, horrid front tires, better brakes in the front than the back, no weight on the back tires. rear wheel drive. That setup is great for takeoff and bad for braking.
.

sorry if you know this is a bad setup for braking and giving your other examples then would fitting better tyres on the front not be an idea ?

:shock: I must have been working from home that day!

yup must have



as for underpowered cars being a danger, im going to say no. if you only have a basic car with 50bhp and 0-60 in over 15 seconds then you should have the sense not to try and overtake the both wagons that are in front of you its going to take you longer to pass. the car doesnt say "ohh i can make it lets go" its down to the driver

 

[kain35m]

It is partly the driver. Drivers with slow cars sometimes try to perform the same maneuvers as faster cars, with disastrous results. The same driver, doing the same maneuver like passing a semi-truck (lorry hehe ), in a slightly faster car, is suddenly not an idiot or a danger. The car is at least part of the issue.