On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 ZeNel1eac1@aol.com wrote:
> Well I agree with you jon but there is one thing you're missing. These
> things do 0-60 in less than 4 seconds. To me ,....... that's insanely fast,
> to these guys who have the money to burn they want it faster. handling is
> magnificent out of the box. These people who just have to throw money into it
> to make it faster it's cause they just want to go faster. you bought a
> 20k/27k truck. you tacked on so much to add this and so much to add that and
> now how much have you paid for it? Interpretation, brother. You say tomatoe
> I say tomatoe. I don't think companies should produce cars faster than what
> they are doing now. I think they should concentrate on efficiency. Now give
> me a car that can do 0-60 in less than 4 secs, and get 40 MPG's!!!. Speed
> kills brother, and i'll wait those extra seconds at the ramp to get on the
> highway.
>
Speed doesn't kill; its the sudden stop at the end. ;-)
Also, there is a difference between a fast car and a quick one. My
truck is quick, but its got the aerodynamics of a brick. Just about any
car worth its salt should be able to take me on top end. (I don't know
for sure as I have no interest in going fast.) I don't think going from
0-60 in 4 seconds is any more dangerous than going 0-60 in 10 seconds.
You've built up the same momentum when you're done... If anything, I
feel safer in the quicker car, especially when it comes time to merge
into traffic...
As far as what auto manufacturers should do; I think they should produce
what people are willing to buy (without government controls). If everyone
wants 40mpg econo-boxes then that's what they should make... Trouble is
that not everyone wants the same thing; that's why automobiles are so
diverse. I think it would be nice if every auto manufacturer had a few
cars available that push the envelope; something that shows exactly what
they are capable of. If you can build a car to go 0-60 in less than 4;
do it. less than 3? go for it. less than 2? sounds good to me! :-)
By the same token, if they can build a car that makes 40mpg, 50mpg, 60mpg,
then they should go for it! Just don't force me to buy something I don't
want. If the govt. had its way, we'd all be driving pathetic
econo-boxes. I say, stop trying to push the auto manufacturers around;
let them chart their own course. Eventually, they will be able to make
fast, efficient cars. They are well on their way now.
Keep in mind that a biker can go out and for around $5-8K, put a
Viper to shame. Plus, they won't have any trouble getting 40mpg.
I'm not saying that that level of performance should be cheap; going
faster takes money. I think the point of the poster that I was replying
to was that such a vehicle should merely be available. Perhaps something
in league with the McLaren F1, but with a Dodge, Chevy, or Ford badge. :-)
Also, consider that people want cars for different uses. Just because
a person's car is capable of going 200mph doesn't mean that person is
going to hit those speeds on the morning commute. Perhaps they road race,
or are involved in some other automotive event like Bonneville or standing
mile runs. Myself, I drag race. There are autocrossers, and a bunch of
other types of automotive events, too numerous to mention. Most people
can't afford to have a special car built up for these events, so they
have to use their everyday car. If the manufacturers don't build 'em,
how else are we going to get cars with the characteristics we want?
-Jon-
.--- jon@dakota-truck.net -- or -- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu ------------.
| Jon Steiger * AOPA, DoD, EAA, MP Race Team, NMA, SPA, USUA * RP-SEL |
| '92 Ram 150 4x4 V8, '96 Dakota V8, '96 Intruder 1400, '96 FireFly 447 |
`---------------------------- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:46:50 EDT