Skip to main content

Slow cars rule: Why more horsepower doesn’t equal more fun

Last year I had something of an epiphany behind the wheel. I was barreling toward turn eight on Big Willow racetrack in southern California, carrying triple-digit speeds, with the throttle matted to the floor. As I started to turn in for the long sweeper, every reflexive inclination my body could muster screamed at me to scrub off speed.

I kept the throttle buried, attempting to mask my lack of talent with the blind courage that has always served me that way. To my surprise and great relief, I stayed on the track. The car was more than happy to oblige my seemingly absurd request.

This was the most thrilling driving I’d ever experienced – by a wide margin. And the car that delivered those thrills was not race prepped Corvette or a Porsche 911 Cup car. Instead, the chariot in question was a second-generation Mazda MX-5, dishing out all of 110 horsepower or so.

That’s when it occurred to me: Despite our fixation on it in all things automotive, horsepower is woefully overrated.

Too much for the track

A few months after that Spec Miata race, some track time with a 2014 SRT Viper T/A only reaffirmed my new mantra. With 640 horsepower on tap, there’s no question that piloting the Viper around a race course was an intense experience. But I still had more fun in the MX-5. It might seem ridiculous – perhaps even pretentious – but hear me out.

The T/A wears the widest tire contact patch on a production car sold today, with 295mm Pirellis up front and massive, 355mm meats in the rear. But even with all that rubber to work with, it takes little more than an overly eager dip into the throttle without the front wheels pointed straight ahead to get the car bent out of shape. This kind of behavior is certainly not exclusive to the Viper either – high-horsepower cars, especially those that are rear wheel drive, tend to rely on driver patience coupled with short bursts of acceleration and massive brakes to scrub that speed back off before entering a corner. Around Buttonwillow Raceway, this translates to a series of carefully calculated throttle inputs and two, maybe three, brief flashes of wide open acceleration per lap.

2014 SRT Viper T/A
2014 SRT Viper T/A Image used with permission by copyright holder

A second-generation Miata, even in spec racer form, does not offer massive power, nor particularly mind-blowing braking capability. But those seeming disadvantages result in a car that requires the driver to wring every single ounce of performance potential out of the car in order to maintain a fast pace. Instead of gingerly guiding the car around the track, you’re grabbing it by the scruff and demanding everything it has to give.

Today there are literally dozens of different models sold to the public for use on the street that make over 500 horsepower.

While taking a fast lap around Buttonwillow in a Spec Miata, you’ll likely be at full throttle 80 percent of the time or more. Sure, those sticky race slicks help in that regard, but the takeaway here is that there’s a point at which too much horsepower can (for mere mortals like myself, anyway) actually detract from the driving experience.

Out on public streets the problem is compounded further. Here in the U.S. there’s no road where you can legally hit well over 150 mph like you can on the main straight of Road America. More importantly, our roads simply aren’t designed and maintained to allow for vehicles to travel at rates approaching those speeds with any modicum of safety.

Considering the fact that the vast majority of performance car owners never take their vehicles to race tracks throughout a lifetime of ownership, what we’re ultimately left with is massive performance potential – potential that almost never gets realized because of poor drivers or poor roads. But at the helm of a relatively low-output car that is dynamically engaging, like a Subaru BRZ, which makes 200 horsepower and 151 lb-ft of torque, simply getting up to speed on the freeway can be an involving experience.

Subaru BRZ
2015 Subaru BRZ Image used with permission by copyright holder

Every once in a while, underdogs like these serve as giant killers, not necessarily because they hit above their weight class, but because they encourage you to better understand the economy of performance and utilize what the car has to offer more effectively. Those fundamentals translate as you move up the ladder into faster cars too, allowing you to develop your skills at a more realistically attainable threshold. Trust me, it’s a lot easier than strapping yourself into a 600-horsepower juggernaut and hoping that you’ll learn a thing or two about driving dynamics before you put the car into a ditch whilst seeking the limits of grip.

So why do we have an insatiable hunger for more horses, regardless of whether or not we actually have the means to do anything with it?

The arms race

During the early 1970s, the automotive world entered a dark time for performance, particularly for domestics. Government emissions and safety regulations, skyrocketing fuel prices, and insurance company mandates conspired to choke the life out of the once venerable V8 performance engine. By the middle of the decade, vehicles like the Chevrolet Corvette, which could be had with a 427-cubic-inch V8 churning out as much as 435 horsepower in 1968 – had been reduced to a top-spec offering of a 350ci V8 doling out a mere 205 horsepower just seven years later.

Instead of gingerly guiding the car around the track, you’re grabbing it by the scruff and demanding everything it has to give.

It was trend seen across the industry, and without a technological workaround, automotive companies sought other means of grabbing enthusiasts’ attention, be it with screaming-chicken hood stickers, luxury options, or other superfluous doodads. While everyone involved was more than eager for the era to pass, it wouldn’t be until nearly three decades later that the auto industry’s overall technological aptitude would allow for companies to resume producing mass market vehicles with hair-raising performance stats.

Today there are literally dozens of different models sold to the public for use on the street that make over 500 horsepower, and no less than seven different 2015 production models to choose from that make in excess of 700 hp. Not only is it a far cry from 1975, it’s a far cry from the best that the original “golden era” of performance had to offer as well.

But more has changed than just sheer output. We’ve become a society obsessed with metrics, and automakers are well aware of this. One of the core metrics for street performance has traditionally been the sprint to 60 miles per hour from a dead stop, and being able to advertise a time that’s even just a tenth of second faster than a competitor has become major bragging rights between rival car companies.

2016 Mazda MX-5
2016 Mazda MX-5 Image used with permission by copyright holder

Accordingly, the pursuit of the performance crown has dictated some design choices for street cars. An example: shifting, no matter how fast you are with a clutch or how quickly your DCT gearbox swaps cogs, costs time. To combat this, many automakers have moved away from shorter gear ratios to prevent the need to shift before getting to 60 mph. While this is an effective way to shave some ticks of the clock off, it results in a car in which you are exceeding the speed limit of just about any public road (aside from highways) before you’ve even had a chance to shift out of first gear. The wow factor might initially seem impressive, but out on the road the lack of driver involvement can make this something of an anticlimactic event once the novelty has worn off.

Absurdity still has its place

This isn’t to say that cars like Dodge’s SRT Hellcat models and Tesla’s “Ludicrous Speed” P85D are without merit. Knowing you have Thor’s hammer under your foot anxiously waiting to open up the taps can be a pretty great feeling, and the brief moments where you can actually use it are likely to put a smile on your face. Ultimately though, horsepower is only one component of a much larger performance equation – one which includes weight, chassis tuning, the vehicle’s ability to inspire confidence behind the wheel, and a host of other factors than don’t necessarily include its acceleration and top-speed capabilities.

Most of the vehicles that tout those massive performance numbers come along with a substantial price tag, and you’ll have to pay if you want to play. But if a $20,000 model can be as much fun behind the wheel as an $80,000 car, what are you really paying for at the end of the day?

Bradley Iger
Former Contributor
Relocating to Los Angeles after competing his undergraduate degree in Rhetorical Studies at the University of California…
The week in EV tech: From sky-high dreams to ground-level drama
tesla robotaxi feud alef in transition flight

Welcome to Digital Trends’ weekly recap of the revolutionary technology powering, connecting, and now driving next-gen electric vehicles. 
Buckle up, folks — this week we’re taking off with a look at the futuristic dream of flying electric cars possibly gliding above U.S. roads sooner than you think. But before we get carried away, let’s bring it back down to the bumpy road of present-day realities.
Even if you’re mostly interested about the tech powering the electric vehicle (EV) revolution, it’s become increasingly hard to avoid the politics around it: You guessed it, we’re talking about this week’s public feud between Tesla CEO Elon Musk and U.S. President Donald Trump.
What does this have to do with EV tech? Well, quite a lot actually. For starters, the technology behind Tesla’s Autopilot and Full-Self Driving (FSD) modes may return in the crosshairs of regulators: Despite the names, these are still driver-assist features that require active driver supervision, and until Trump’s election, they had been under heavy scrutiny by safety regulators for several years.
Last year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration  (NHTSA) launched an investigation into 2.4 million Tesla vehicles equipped with FSD. Big questions remain about the driver-assist system's performance under adverse, yet naturally-occurring conditions such as fog, sun glare, rain, and snow.
When Musk, who spent about $275 million to help elect Trump, was appointed to head a newly-created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), it raised more than a few eyebrows about his power and influence over the regulators who are supposed to oversee traffic safety, and therefore Tesla.
It didn’t help that the Trump administration followed Musk’s recommendations and relaxed crash-reporting requirements put in place since 2021, while also relaxing rules to accelerate the deployment of fully-automated robotaxis.
The Trump/Musk clash takes place just as Tesla is due to launch its robotaxi pilot progam in Texas later this month. While Trump is now threatening to pull billions of dollars in government subsidies and contracts from Musk’s companies, it’s unclear whether he might pressure the Department of Transportation to again tighten the regulatory screws on Tesla. What is clear is that Trump has never been a fan of electric vehicles and is already trying to end federal subsidies on EV purchases and leases. And while he had made a big deal about buying a bright red Tesla Model S back in March, Trump now says he wants to sell it.
Back to the tech
Meanwhile, Tesla is still required to respond to information and data requests from NHTSA regarding the safety of its robotaxis by July 1. And ultimately, it should come down to the performance of the technology.
For Autopilot and FSD, Tesla has opted for less expensive navigational tech relying on multiple onboard cameras that feed AI machine-learning models. But especially for so-called adverse driving conditions, it’s the more expensive technology relying on a blend of pre-mapped roads, sensors, cameras, radar, and lidar (a laser-light radar) which has received the nod of regulators.
Waymo, the sole robotaxi service currently operating in the U.S., and Zoox, Amazon’s upcoming robotaxi service, both use that blend of navigational tech.
For its robotaxis, Tesla is said to have upped its game in terms of autonomous driving with its Hardware 4 (HW4) technology, which does include radar sensors and promises enhanced environmental perception.
Will that be enough for Tesla to convince regulators, catch up with Waymo, or compete effectively with Zoox?
We’ll have to wait and see.
Flying cars
In a recent edition, we noted that while consumer confidence about robotaxi technology is on the rise, most people also want more data before they hop into a self-driving vehicle.
What about flying taxis? According to a recent survey by Honeywell, nearly all U.S. airline fliers, or 98%, said they would consider using a so-called electric vertical take-off and landing vehicle, or eVTOL, as part of their travel journey.
But while the buzz around flying electric vehicles has mostly focused on air taxis— like Archer Aviation’s Midnight, expected to fly athletes around the 2028 LA Olympics, or Joby’s slick air taxi, backed by Toyota — one California startup is shooting for something a little more... driveable.
Meet Alef Aeronautics, a Bay Area company that wants to put the “car” back in “flying car.” This week, Alef announced it has received over 3,400 pre-orders for its electric flying vehicle, the Model A — and get this: it’s not a futuristic prototype gathering dust in a lab. Alef says production could begin by the end of 2025, or early next year.
On the ground, the Model A operates like a low-speed electric car, complete with hub motors in the wheels and—wait for it—a real steering wheel. You can legally drive it at up to 25 mph on public roads, parking it in a normal garage like any other EV. It’s refreshingly manual in an increasingly hands-free world.
But when it's time for lift off, the steering wheel takes a backseat. For vertical takeoff and flight, the Model A transforms into a drone-like aircraft. Its cabin rotates sideways to create lift, and eight electric rotors—controlled by a flight system and joysticks—take over. No pedals, no yoke, just a bit of joystick magic (or autopilot, if you prefer).
The Model A has already received the nod from regulators for test flights.
While the $300,000 price tag won’t fit everyone’s budget, the company is clearly betting on a future where you don’t have to choose between a car and a flying machine—you can have both.

Read more
8 key things you need to know from Apple’s WWDC 2025 event
From a fresh look and updated names, to new features, more intelligence and live translation
iOS 26, iPadOS 26 and macOS 26 shown on devices.

The WWDC 2025 keynote ran for just over an hour and a half. For those of you who don't fancy sitting through the whole presentation, we've pulled out the key things you need to know from the latest Apple event.

1. Welcome to the 26 club

Read more
Tesla’s robotaxi service is almost here, but it’s not the car you want to see
Silver Tesla Model Y Juniper side

Tesla chief Elon Musk has said that the automaker is aiming to launch its robotaxi service on June 22, in Austin, Texas.

“Tentatively, June 22,” Musk said in a post on X on Tuesday, adding: “We are being super paranoid about safety, so the date could shift.”

Read more