A year ago, I bemoaned the fact that a really stupid horsepower race was under way.

Every time a new car was introduced, it had more horsepower than the out going model. Sometimes fuel economy also
increased, on the other hand, it's obvious that fuel economy COULD have been given priority, however, if you ever needed
proof that  the car manufacturers are out of touch with reality, the race for ever more power is still on.

Gas is more expensive than ever and because everything else costs two arms and/or legs, much more painful to purchase.
Many consumers are switching to fuel-sippers. Regardless, cars are more powerful than ever.

Even cars that aren't here yet are going to be more powerful than ever.

Examples? The new 911 Turbo is up 20 hp. The M5 is growing in displacement and probably leaping in power.
MB's upcoming Gullwing will be in the 750 horse ballpark. Audi's S4 will be dropping two cylinders, but gaining 10 hp and
gobs of torque. And that's just the Germans.

The 2009 Maxima is up to 290 horses. The 2010 Mustang, despite losing its big-block 6.2-liter Boss V8, should grow to
5.0-liters and make much more than 300 horses. Then there's that Camaro SS which very well might have over 500 horsepower,
the 550 hp CTS-V and the 638 pony ZR1. These are just off the top of my head.

Is "more POWA!" the future, or has the entire industry been caught without pants and excuses?

Common sense HAS to prevail in the horsepower race that is still underway in the Western world.
Showing an illustration of the FIAT at the top of this page is merely to illustrate that fun and horsepower are not necessarily
the same thing. Ask anyone who raced or rallied a Mini Cooper back in the 60s.

Equally, that old war horse of a 1988 Chev Celebrity that I still use for carrying stuff, gives me 28 mpg and is excellent for the
use to which I put it. This weekend, for instance, I managed to transport a ten foot tree in a three foot pot, home from the nursery,
by opening the tailgate and the backward facing seats. That old 2.8 liter GM V6 banger will go forever and does all that I want it to.

Sunday mornings, out comes the 944 and off I go for a different kind of motoring on my own. Nevertheless, the Porsche consistently
delivers 30 mpg, 200 Km/h and road holding and brakes that are still second to none. All this with 170 horsepower. If I want to out run
a G35 on a twisty back road, I wait for the first substantial bend in the road, then out brake and out corner the 300 horsepower
monster. If he (she) happens to have a gas guzzling automatic transmission, so much the better. Select second gear and say
goodbye!!

Equally I'm also driving a 99 Infiniti G20. 33 mpg is standard and although the brakes and road holding don't come close the
Porsche, it's still a fun car to drive fast from point to point.

Giving the likes of Clooney or Cowell 1000 Veyron horsepower is like Napoleon invading Russia, it's bound to result in disaster.
and is completely unnecessary. (Iraq, anyone?)

Most of us agree that even if the entire planet swapped from a vehicle putting out more than 200g/km of CO2 to one
which emits less than 110g/km, such as a Toyota Prius, not a lot would change on the global weather front.

Yet, if you listen to any politician - or worse still, the popular media - us drivers are dooming the planet to be drowned
and then fried!

Now, don't get me wrong. I think the industry should keep start working on improving fuel efficiency, but I also reckon people
need to try and keep things in perspective.
     
There probably should be a voluntary limit on cars' horsepower or power to weight ratio, before the do-gooders force
a stupidly low one on us all!

One TV channel recently opened its' six thirty 'show' by revealing that there was now "no doubt" that it is humans who
are causing climate change. However, in the item, leading environmental scientists - mostly operating on politically
generated funding (which tends to dry up if they give the wrong answers) - said that they were only 90 per cent certain
that it was down to motor vehicles.

So there's a one in 10 chance these potentially biased people are wrong. Clearly some doubt then.

But before I go on to quote every page of Michael Crichton's State of Fear - a great novel, backed by plenty of factual
references, with far more common sense than anything failed US presidential candidate and eco-warrior Al Gore has
ever dreamt up - I'll get to the point I am trying to make. You see, even though motorists like me are sure we are doing
nothing wrong to the planet, there are those who will poke their noses in and spoil our fun, whether we agree with
them or not.

That's why I think we should voluntarily bring in a maximum limit on horsepower figures for cars, before some
do-gooding minority forces some stupidly low limit on us. I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, but today's motors
have more than enough performance - 300 horsepower in a family sedan is obscene.

Developing models with even more, could do more harm than good with the accompanying bad publicity.

This idea came to me after driving some first class hot hatches, such as the Mazdaspeed3.  This car, among others, is
more thrilling to drive than some supercars from a couple of decades ago. It is controllable, enjoyable and can
rocket from 0-60mph in under seven seconds, which means it's easily fast enough for most people.

Not only would my plan give motorists some 'responsible' publicity, but it also saves the car companies from all the cost and
bother of forever pumping up the power figures with every successive model.

Each new Audi RS4, BMW M3 or Porsche 911 Turbo simply 'has' to have more bhp than its predecessor.

In reality, this can't go on forever.

For much of the time, you don't get to use much of these cars' full potential, as the mass of modern-day computerized
'aids' they are fitted with rush to interfere as soon as there is a glimmer of traction loss or slip angle.

So what's the point in having it in the first place?

Now, I haven't done a detailed survey of outputs, but any form of limit should work on a sort of sliding power-to-size-to-weight
ratio scale. And once all the manufacturers have got their models up to the respected benchmark figure, they can focus their
research and development solely on improving the efficiency and safety of future models.

Which means we can keep what we all want - performance - and yet get cleaner, greener, safer cars... which cost less to run.

Common sense or what?