The European Union may soon force automakers to include health/global warming warnings on their car advertisements, similar to the list of possible side effects required on US drug ads. MotorTrader (MT) reports that English MEP (Member European Parliament) Chris Davies has submitted a report on the proposal to EU chiefs, who will debate the idea in October. Davies' report also calls for a Euro-wide ban on any car ad that promotes a vehicle's high speed performance (as is currently in place in the UK) and ban the sale of cars that can drive faster than 101mph. According to MT, Davies "noted that the power of new cars increased by 28 per cent between 1994 and 2004, making them heavier and thus increasing the amount of CO2 output. This increase is completely unnecessary, the MEP said, as no country has raised its speed limit to allow cars to use this additional power."
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Perhaps I’ll be lynched for saying this, but they kind of have a point… lots of cars nowadays can go 150+ mph, but there’s nowhere that allows you to go this fast. Besides the Autobahn, kinda. All the beef doesn’t make much sense, really. Besides the ubiquitous “highway merging” argument that doesn’t really stand up in my opinion, everything over 150 hp is just gravy.
But the bulk of cars sold with these more powerful engines in fact get better gas mileage and emit fewer emmsions.
There is a point about weight of new cars consistantly increasing, but that weight increase is not all on the engine. Safety enhancements must count for a much larger increase than the more powerful engines.
In fact, if you bore out an engine to have a larger displacement, aren’t you actually reducing the weight of the engine?
These insane horsepower ratings occur at high rpm. These are made possible by better breathing engines. Tuning the engine for better fuel economy wouldn’t have a great effect. Aerodynamics and weight are the bigger culprits.
I recently put some performance tires on my Acura and the mileage descreased by 2 or 3 mpg. Why not mandate a maximum tire width for passenger cars. You put some low friction 175/15s on a Corvette, and the mileage would go way up.
(don’t touch my car though)
Yes, because I only drive fast because the car ads tell me to.
everything over 150 hp is just gravy.
who wants prime rib without a little gravy? ;)
It’s like the 1970’s all over again. I wonder if they’ll bring back the 85 mph speedometer?
At a commercial level, wow, talk about a self-defeating policy.
Everybody knows the reliability of European cars completely sucks. Even GM is doing better on that score. The remaining cachet of them here rests almost totally on their reputation as driver’s cars, well sorted and solid at speed. When the home market product is no longer designed around that priority, you know that ability will corrode right along with it. Bye bye export sales.
OK, anybody from Porsche reading this, please go ahead and fulfil your threat to leave the socialistic and moronic / no freedom nation of Germany, and come on over to Michigan. Specifically, how about Traverse City, Michigan?
You’re executives and engineers will love the 4 seasons, we have a decent airport (far better than you’d think considering the size of town we are), there’s that mid-western work ethic, there’s room to grow and a reasonably intelligent workforce available within the 5 county region. Wages here are not as high as southeastern Michigan, but that doesn’t mean you’ll be able to get away with minimum wage – hey, we know you’re a responsible employer, otherwise I wouldn’t be asking….
Taxes and government hassles are way less than Germany. I bet our state government would build you the roads and possibly even buy the land – they were willing to do this for the Swedish Electrolux company which owned an old ex-American refrigerator factory in Greenville about 120 miles south of us – yet Electrolux moved production to Mexico, anyway. A pox on them.
Oh yes, the state will probably allow you to be “tax free” (for state taxes) for several years, too, to help recoup the costs of moving.
You sell most of your cars in the states, why not move here?
Perhaps when you buy up VW-Audi, you’d be interested in putting a VW plant in Grand Rapids, which is only 150 miles south of here? That town is a great place to live and work, and VW-Audi would be more than welcome, I’m sure.
No point in building mid and large sized Audi’s and VW Passats in Europe if they are going to limit CO2 to 130 g/km, is there?
Didn’t Al Gore Jr. get caught driving his Prius 104 mph? How lame is a car going to have to be to not be able to go 101?
Many cars already have speed limiting devices in them. I know my ’05 Civic cuts the engine at 114mph from personal experience. My friend lost a race down the I-55 with a base model Neon because is Z-71 Chevrolet was governed to roughly 100mph and the Neon wasn’t (or was, but at a higher speed).
I am 100% against speed limiting devices, because IMHO, I paid for the horsepower, so I should be able to use it as I see fit. If that gets me poor mileage or even killed, then you can eulogize about my stupidity.
The speed limiting is just euro trash posturing by a clown from a country without much of a domestic lobby to shoot him down. It won’t fly in Germany, which pretty much renders it moot. The Germans may be hung up on CO2, but you can bet they’ll expect even their hybrid hydrogen Bimmers to go faster than 101.
glen126:
being a citizen of Germany and what you could call a member of the German nation, I find the expression
“leave the socialistic and moronic / no freedom nation of Germany”
not helpful, as diplomats might put it.
But perhaps you are just being ironic? Looking at most of your arguments, that’s what it sure sounds like.
If any of this type of legislation crosses the pond, I’m going to buy a sailboat, cast off, and never come back.
Well, probably not, but it’s an inspired thought.
I’m no expert on the subject, but it’s this kind of restrictive over-regulation that makes it seem as though the EU is hell-bent on driving its own economy into the ground.
For car power, there is a point. But there again, it’s more about personal perceptions. Yes, anything over 150hp is pretty much gravy indeed, unless one is going on tracks.
That’s why most Europeans already drive cars with 80-130hp. Even 3-series Bimmers and A4s come with 4-cyl engines. That also means sufficiently few people buy large engines to make this en environmental issue.
It’s a bit different in the US, where people have a big love for high-hp engines, even though most of them don’t use them. Beside the environmental issue, it always makes me sad to see a 550i merging at 35mph on the highway, or a 360hp Escalade stuck at a red light right turn because they can’t confuse the throttle with a foot support device.
quasimondo: It’s like the 1970’s all over again. I wonder if they’ll bring back the 85 mph speedometer?
I used to own a 1980 Porsche, which came equipped with one of those. Always wondered if the needle would circle the dial twice if I’d get it up to 150mph, but I never wanted to lose my license that badly.
“it’s this kind of restrictive over-regulation that makes it seem as though the EU is hell-bent on driving its own economy into the ground”
There are 750 MEPs who have little power and not a lot to do except try and get some attention. This guy’s opinions will have exactly zero impact on European legislation.
I might support laws requiring cars to contain devices limiting their speed, if the device could be bypassed in an emergency, for example for an emergency run to a hospital. And my response to RyanKO2 is that the issue is not just your safety, it’s the safety of all of us.
HawaiiJim: And my response to RyanKO2 is that the issue is not just your safety, it’s the safety of all of us.
In which case you’d be better served worrying about people who drive too slow. It’s a waste of time, money and law enforcement resources to target drivers who happen to exceed an arbitrary limit (on limited access highways).
I like the idea of forcing the automakers to provide info on the car’s global warming impact. In fact, I think it’s great.
I’m conflicted about limiting speed to 101mph. If everyone drove responsibly, I’d be against it. But every now and then you get some idiot who takes a few people out with him due to excessive speed combined with drink or a bad attitude.
I do agree with what someone said above that the authorities should pay attention to too-slow drivers. I would extend that to passive aggressive driving generally, which is just as bad, maybe worse than plain old aggressive driving, and which is certainly a cause of aggressive driving.
Drivers should pay attention not only to people ahead of them, but to people behind them, to make sure they are not blocking or otherwise hindering traffic.
It’s not just left lane hogs, but people who are turning left on a two lane, who don’t get out into the middle of the intersection, so that if they have to wait until the light changes, they are the only one who can make the turn, and people turning left who don’t try to pull to the lft a bit to allow people behind them to go around them while they wait for a break in traffic. All of this stuff is simple courtesy.
HawaiiJim,
I understand your point. I do not regularly exceed the speed limit, but if I do, I take careful consideration of who I could harm. Thus, if I want to drive for sport, I drive a well known long, flat, straight stretch of back road at a time where few other drivers are on the road. The only intersections with said road are well known, and I am driving at a reasonable speed when I reach them. To sum up: I am not a typical hoon.
But, to play the devil’s advocate, how much of an issue of safety is it at 130mph verses 101mph? If you want to save lives, govern the cars at a more reasonable speed, such as the highest posted speed limit.
Hi Martin
Sorry to offend, my own nation is not that different from yours in it’s moronocity (is that a word?), socialistic tendencies nor the fact that our freedoms are disappearing faster than an ice cream on a hot summer’s day. Let’s just say that we’re all in the same sinking boat and admit the truth about that, and be done with it. (Tell me please, how much of the autobahn now has speed limits on it compared to 10 years ago?)
I was using hyperbole to bad effect, sorry. I actually quite liked Germany the one time I visited, and my best friend was raised there, came here after marrying a school friend of mine.
Sincere apologies. I’ll watch my nastyness in future and find other ways of trying to be cute.
This after just a few days ago I myself called others out on doing just what I did today….
(ashes thrown on my head) – ouch those ashes were hot.
But I’d still like to see Porsche come to Michigan, and would still like to see these politicians who want to take away all of our fun and freedoms – no matter where they are – banned from public office! Perhaps shall we say, voted out?
that’s ok, glenn126. thanks for your gracious apology.
# kazoomaloo :
“Besides the ubiquitous “highway merging” argument that doesn’t really stand up in my opinion, everything over 150 hp is just gravy.”
HP has little to do with fuel mileage. Ever notice how the 4cyl version of a car gets 34 mpg and the 6cyl gets 31 or 32? Ever notice how your 30mpg car can get 100mpg behind a semi (the real secret of the hypermilers)?
Why does a 400hp corvette get 28mpg and my 134 hp pickup get 19mpg? aerodynamics–that’s where the work needs to be done. it’s not cylinder shut down, it’s not multiple spark ignition, it’s not hp, and it’s not displacement. it’s wind resistance on the highway, and it’s weight in the city.
As for highway merging–you obviously don’t drive where i do. my 2750lb car with 180hp is merely *adequate* for the task–no room for error sometimes. since you drive where you do, and i drive where i do, how can a one-size-fits-all horsepower or top speed cap from *politicians* be right?
and if you *must* cap me at the 150hp gravy limit, give me a rev-limited corvette. give me all 400ftlbs and i’ll just shift at 2000rpm :)
It’s obvious that this is a politically motivated thing. It’s just another example of politicians wanting to make decisions with little to no knowledge on the subject at hand for political gain or fortune. A typical agenda. What a sorry state of affairs.
There really is no reason for more than 150hp in the average car. I drove a 4cyl, auto Camry with 138hp for 6 years, and I could probably count on two hands the number of times I wasn’t the person accelerating the fastest from a red light or onto a highway onramp. It would be great if the huge technological advances made in the past 5-7 years could have been used to improve fuel economy instead of giving us 268hp Camrys and Accords. It’s a waste. Then again I drive a 400hp Vette with a 6L engine so I’m not one to talk
And the reason a Vette gets good mileage on the highway isn’t just aerodynamics, it’s also due to low curb weight (doesn’t matter much if you’re going exactly one speed but if you have to accelerate and decelerate a little it helps) and gearing. 6th is useless for anything except steady-state cruising
Cars got heavier because they got safer, thus they need more power. I also like power. Who do these idiots think they are telling me what is necessary? It is not necessary for me to have a pretty wife, but I much prefer it. It is not necessary for my motorcycle to be able to accelerate to 100mph from a standstill in around 6 seconds but I don’t hold that capability against it.
I would like to know what Chris Davies considers “necessary” as far as housing goes. I’ll bet he owns more house that he can use at any particular time.
“It’s like the 1970’s all over again. I wonder if they’ll bring back the 85 mph speedometer?”
I could do with a more sensible speedo in our CR-V. I don’t see the need for a 150mph speedo in this vehicle. I’d trade it for an 85 mph unit with clearer markings at multiples of 5, given that most speedlimts in the US end in a 5 … 15, 25, 35, 45…. Since 50, 60, and 70 are also divisible by 5, this works out real well.
# glenn126 :
September 21st, 2007 at 2:16 pm
But I’d still like to see Porsche come to Michigan, and would still like to see these politicians who want to take away all of our fun and freedoms – no matter where they are – banned from public office! Perhaps shall we say, voted out?
Glenn,
I would like to see Porsche come to Massachusetts! We have a lot more twisties than Michigan, both in our own state and nearby in New Hamster, Maine, Vermont, and Connecticut, the home of Skip Barber, and Porsche personnel need twisties so they don’t forget to keep their cars handling well. Also, MIT graduates a lot of great engineers, and Porsche engineers could be adjuncts at MIT, and everyone would profit. So, although I know you have a nice state (I bicycled the length of the upper peninsula many years ago, on a trip from Seattle to Boston), ours is definitely the place for Porsche. (And please, no comments about Kister Mennedy, our senator. Perhaps if he could drive a Porsche, just once, he’d get religion, so to speak.) And once again, not to toot my own horn, to see the world’s only menorah made of Porsche valves, go to motorlegends.com.
And Martin, don’t take it personally my wanting your car company to settle in my state. Take it as a complement.
This seems aimed directly at last year’s failed attempt at limiting speeds on the German Autobahns. I’ve got an idea as to what this guy can do with those lightbulbs…recycle them. Yes, recycle. That’s what I was going to say.
Gnaaa, what astupid idea. Honestly, if there are decent conditions, why not let people go as fast as they want? I was at a football (soccer) match last monday and tbh I don’t see the sense in limiting my speed to 101 mph on an all-but-empty Autobahn. Pity that Fiat Bravo only got up to 190 kph or I might have been home before 1 am…
General rules such as the ones proposed help nobody – and talking about unnecessary power in cars isn’t gonna help either. Anyone recall that Mercedes advert a few years back? I think it was for their 2.0 litre Kompressor engine – it featured a slightly compressed 20-ton-truck, to signify how that engine would help you reduce overtaking times. More power, coupled with responsible driving (and we’re all responsible adults here, right?) provides increased security. Artificial limits will not help here, I think. Besides, as has been pointed out, a lot of cars already limit their top speed…
As much as I love the sensation of excessive speed–or perhaps because of it–I’d be all for a 101 mph limiter (defeatable on certain sport-oriented cars, for track days and such).
I’d wager that, in the U.S., many of the people who’d complain about this proposal the loudest are the ones who are already living with such a limiter, and just don’t know it. Specifically, I’m thinking of the “I pays my money” large-truck and -SUV crowd, most of whom are governed to 90-110 mph in their Suburbans, Expeditions, Yukons, and HD Rams, and who tend to loudly defend their choices with crowing about American freedoms.
The warning labels, naturally, are silly political posturing–does he plan to put similar pollution and personal-danger warnings on trains, buses, and commercial jets?
I’d personally be happy to see a reduction in power among mass-market vehicles, too. 268 horses and 6.5-second 0-60 times in a Camry is just silly. It seems that now, if we *ever* have to apply full throttle to a vehicle, it’s “too slow.” Stupid, IMO.
Don’t most people who buy Camrys opt for the 4-cylinder, anyways? I see nothing wrong with giving people a choice.
Hm. The Camry wasn’t a very good example. It’s one of relatively few mainstream cars that is available in top-line trim (XLE) with the base engine, so that one can get all the toys without all the power, if one finds the latter unnecessary.
Most cars’ trim lines are packaged so that the desirable amenities (including handling packages) come bundled with the big engine.
Speaking of choice, most U.S.-spec versions of Asian and European vehicles have a significantly abbreviated range of powertrains. Across the pond, most compacts and even some midsize sedans offer highly efficient four-cylinders in the 1.6-2.5-liter range. With a manual, most will do 0-60 in a serviceable 10 seconds or so. Aunt Ethel likely wouldn’t complain about the automatic versions’ 12-second 0-60 times on her way to Wal-Mart.
Also speaking of choice, we’re horribly deprived of manual transmissions, considering how much noise we make about needing to eke every last ounce of performance out of our rides on our arduous hi-po commutes.
We don’t, of course; our gas is just cheap enough that we can still afford to have pissing matches with our neighbors about how much HP the family taxi is pushing.
If you take off the blinders, Chris Davies has a good point. The push for ever faster accelerating vehicles in recent times has gone mad and is indeed a fuel waster. Honda just upped the V-6 engine size for the 2008 US Accord top of the line model from 3 liters to 3.5. We own a 2003 V-6 Accord and it already has far more than sufficient power. Several months ago we took four people and a week’s worth of luggage on a 2,000 mile trip through the mountains. The Accord never had a lick of trouble maintaining speed through the mountains or accelerating with haste if needed. Sure Honda used other improvements to also get a bit more economy out of the new version, but physics says that they could have done even better on economy by using the tricks and staying at 3 liters or less.
I’m for personal freedom, but the fact cannot be escaped that the roads, air and other natural resources are shared goods, not personal goods. Every individual choice has an effect on people beyond the one person making that choice.
Enthusiast magazines and websites are the Greek chorus always screaming for more power and faster acceleration times. It’s irresponsible if we are honest. I would love to see a review which gave demerits for more power than necessary. How about: “The new XYZ WonderCarTruckCrossover is a nice vehicle, but the reduction in 0-60 mph times from the 8.5 seconds of the previous version to 7.0 seconds for the new one is simply wasteful and uncalled for. What were they thinking? “
the only good reason to ban cars going +101 mph is that some people dont like the type of person that drives it-too much an independent thinker-too dangerous,to nonconformist. their argument in this article is wrong and the comments for it are plain wrong. the toyota prius weighs in at 2921 pounds -my car(94,rx-7) that ive had going 168 mph weighs 2850 pounds ,a new corvette weighs 3118 pounds-a new vw rabbit weighs 3040 pounds gets about 25 mpg est. and the corvette gets 28mpg freeway:) the picture of that dude holding the light bulbs (why?)should point out that the old light bulb contains no mercury while the new one in his hand contain 5 grams hmmm. –point is fast cars are lighter than the average car and this guy should know this basic fact before he trys to take away a freedom.
How long until this chap’s desire to impose upon the rest of society his own thoughts about what is and isn’t necessary turns to the “necessity” of auto racing? It wouldn’t be a huge leap from his latest scheme to the concept that F1, NASCAR, Supercar, etc., only add to global warming, waste precious fuel supplies just for sport and encourage engineers to focus on increasing speed when they should otherwise be focusing on increasing fuel efficiency at the expense of speed.
I hope this never happens but I wouldn’t put anything past the over-reaching power grabbers of the EU.
“It wouldn’t be a huge leap from his latest scheme to the concept that F1, NASCAR, Supercar, etc., only add to global warming, waste precious fuel supplies just for sport and encourage engineers to focus on increasing speed when they should otherwise be focusing on increasing fuel efficiency at the expense of speed.”
All very good points!