News & Analysis
Car guys have blind spots
Morris Marshall
10/14/2009 6:35 PM EDT
Those blind spots make us poor judges of what most people want or need, and of the cars that the automotive industry should be building in the future.
The car magazines lead us astray. Their road tests feature exotic cars: Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Lotuses. Those cars are desirable, but they are fantasies. Their production is only a tiny fraction of total worldwide automobile production. They are far beyond the means of all but a few readers. Their performance is beyond any reasonable requirement for driving on the road.
The implied standard of comparison in the car magazines is a racing car. Cars are often rated based on their performance on a race track. The assumption is that a car that performs well on a race track will be a desirable street car.
But performance on a race track has very little to do with desirable performance on the street. First, driving a high-performance car at anything near its potential on ordinary roads is unsafe, dangerous and potentially deadly. Second, a street car, even an exotic street car, is not a race car, no matter how well it performs.
Racing cars are stiffer, less compliant and lighter than street cars. They run on racing tires, and their suspensions are adjustable for maximum performance. Driving a racing car on the street would be a very unsatisfactory experience.
Many car guys believe that they are good drivers, maybe even as good as a racing driver. In truth, they are not even close to the capabilities of a competitive driver. If they ever had the opportunity to ride in a racing car on a road racing track with a top-level professional driver, as I have, they would learn that their driving skills are not even remotely comparable, even if they drove as fast as they would like to think they can.
Car guys need to overcome their blind spots and recognize some new realities. Oil supplies are dwindling and controlled by countries not particularly friendly to the U.S. Gasoline prices are eventually going to increase, probably to something beyond $10 per gallon. Most drivers don't share the enthusiasts' performance values or driving habits.
A new kind of automobile is going to be needed.
High performance cars are great fun and ego-gratifying, but the car of the future will not be a 600-horsepower monster that goes from 0 to 60 under five seconds. The future is more likely a plug-in, a hybrid, a diesel or a car with a smaller displacement gasoline engine. In whatever form, it should have fuel efficiency equivalent to gasoline engine mileage exceeding 50 mpg.
I'm not a tree-hugger. I'm not against high-performance cars or having fun while driving. But I believe it's time for enthusiasts to turn their attention away from ultimate performance and towards fuel efficient solutions.
You don't need horsepower to have fun. The 1945 MG TC had less than 55 horsepower. People thought it was a blast to drive, and it launched a sports car revolution. A 150-horsepower hybrid could start another auto revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Work to Ride, RIde to Work
10/20/2009 10:25 AM EDT
That's what the market is all about. When gas gets too expensive, the 600+ HP muscle cars won't sell enough anymore. I believe it is important to have these high end vehicles as they drive a lot of technology that benefits the rest of the fleet. When it's cost effective to implement fuel efficient solutions, it will happen.
Sign in to Reply
AlexKovnat
10/20/2009 10:45 AM EDT
Morrie:
Your article raises some important points. The majority of us who drive, don't need 150+ miles per hour speed capability, nor do we need to accelerate from 0 to 60 in only 4 seconds. The question is, what level of performance are YOU comfortable with?
In late 1978 I bought my first transverse-engine, front wheel drive car. Its performance would be considered mediocre by car guys: 0 to 60 miles per hour took something like 15 seconds. Many car enthusiasts would be more comfortable with 0 to 60 in, let's say, 9 or 10 seconds. Some folks might settle for a car that takes 12 seconds to reach 60 miles per hour. How many seconds from 0 to 60 are you willing to accept?
You mention that the 1945 MG's engine was rated at 55 HP. We must remember however, that at that time we didn't have people like Ralph Nader screaming for ever more stringent safety requirements for other people's cars. Today, not only are people like Nader screaming for ever more stringent safety requirements, like doubled roof crush strength, but also (especially in nutty states like California) for 40+ MPG fuel economy requirements.
So its important for all of us to ask ourselves, if we don't need to accelerate from 0 to 60 in only 4.5 seconds, what performance level are we comfortable with? I have been concerned for 30 years, and am more concerned than ever, that if car-haters continue to demand ever more stringent safety standards AND extreme fuel economy requirements, my 1979 Plymouth Horizon (which I drove from late 1978 to early 1987), with its 0-60 time of 15 seconds, will be a hot rod by comparison with what we may have to settle for.
Today, we are accustomed to travel on highways at a sustained speed of 60 if not 70 miles per hour. When I hit the road to visit the family I left behind in Chicago when I moved to southeastern Michigan, I'm willing to settle for 100 kilometers per hour (~62 miles per hour). But again, if auto-hating intellectuals keep on hammering the auto industry with ever-higher safety and fuel economy demands, we might end up having to settle for sustained speeds no more than 45 miles per hour. So if we don't need cars that can sustain 120 miles per hour, what sustained speed are we willing to settle for?
We may not need supercars like those made by Ferrari, but we do need to ask ourselves what the purpose of the automobile industry is. Is it to meet the practical wants and needs of everyday people like you and me for our own cars? Or the emotional and ego needs of intellectuals for more and more safety features and extreme fuel economy requirements for other people's cars?
Sign in to Reply
Ocelot
10/20/2009 3:53 PM EDT
Well, I actually own a 1952 MG TD, and a 1968 MG Midget. While they are both "fun to drive", they are also NOT road cars, at least not today's roads... The gearing is way too low for freeway speeds. They are noisy & uncomfortable for long trips.
I also own a 1998 BMW Z3, which I actually take to the race track, where I *do* use the capabilities that it has. There are places for high-performance cars other than the street, and there will be people who actually make use of it.
Sign in to Reply