Car Built in 1959 Got Almost 400 MPG in Shell Oil Tests! - Page 2

Trebuchet · #31 (**permalink**) 07-May-2008, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuckerfan

1985 Honda CRX got 55 MPG. It also had to meet safety and emission regulations which didn't exist when your Honda was built.

I've had one of those since new and I don't think it ever got that kind of mileage. It also has to be refueled far too often because of the tiny tank. I managed to run it out a few weeks ago and it still took less than 11 gal after getting 1/2 gallon from the lawnmower supply. Guess I'll have to check and see what it kind of mileage it can still manage at 130K miles. I still like the car!

Edit: Just looked at the review again and saw that it's the "HF" model. Mine's the regular version, with more power.

Tuckerfan · #32 (**permalink**) 08-May-2008, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry Jacks

If the VW 1L is as low to the ground as it appears, it could be a good "sunshine car" (so long as there aren't too many big potholes) but would probably be terrible in even a couple inches of snow. That makes them not very useful for big parts of the country. I have to buy one vehicle to meet my needs. I can't afford a winter car and a sunshine car.

I wonder, if you doubled the car in size, what kind of effect that would have on fuel economy? If it came in at a "mere" 75 MPG, that'd still be impressive.

Also, the CAFE standards are fleet averages, so VW could pump out some 1 MPG gas guzzlers along with the 200 MPG misers and still be in compliance with the new requirements that the fleet has to average 35 MPG. There might be a percentage requirement in there (such X% of vehicles sold must do 35 MPG or better to meet the fleet average requirements), but that could be easily taken care of, I think, if they simply hiked the price of their gas guzzler models and used the extra money to subsidize the costs of the miser models. Heck, they could do like some local car dealerships are doing and have a "buy one get one free" deal, where if you buy the new VW Uber Canyonero they throw in a 1L! (They'd probably be nice enough to load the 1L into the Uber Canyonero's cargo area for you.

)

Tuckerfan · #33 (**permalink**) 08-May-2008, 10:31 AM

Oh, yeah, Ford announced today that it was going to start putting 6 speed automatic transmissions in all it's models. They say this this will improve mileage by as much as 6%, if you couple that with the Mercedes cutoff switch I posted on the first page, one could improve mileage by about 15%.

korjik · #34 (**permalink**) 08-May-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustAFriend

There have been cars built that get over 2,000mpg..... BUT THEY ARE IMPRACTICAL.

You cannot use them for day-to-day driving and they would not meet the safety, licensing or emissions laws. They would also not hold up for more than a few hours or days on the road before falling apart.

Engineering 2,000lbs of metal into a vehicle that gives you living-room comfort, reasonable crash protection, emission controls and can last over 100,000miles is FAR TOUGHER than most people realize....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

HERE'S THE SOLUTION TO THE GAS CRISIS (and you won't like it):

1. Ban all speeds above 50mph.
(I don't mean give tickets - I mean make it physically impossible to make a car go over the speed limit. This can easily be done through the car's computers - see #6 below... if you want to get somewhere faster, take the train or plane. Police, military and emergency vehicles would be exempted of course.)

2. Forbid car makers from producing cars that can go 0-60mph in less than 30 seconds.

3. Ban NASCAR. Ban INDY. Ban all televised and live auto racing.

4. Extend the traffic laws to Hollywood.... no more 'Fast and the Furious'-type movies.

5. Slap a $200million fine for any car company to advertise cars using any more than a still photo.
Shots of cars weaving through traffic NASCAR-style or sliding through turns included.

6. Network all vehicles' computers to enforce traffic control.
(this one's coming soon anyway kiddies... no need for police chases when they can just turn a perp's vehicle OFF.)

7. Enforce the traffic laws HEAVILY. No more 'comedy traffic schools', no traffic lawyers, no weaseling out of it.

8. Sliding scales for traffic fines based on income - if a richer violates a traffic law its no pocket-change fine but a heavy PERCENTAGE of his income/wealth with no upper limit. Your $200,000/year lawyer will start to think when he's finally looking at a $50,000 ticket.

Then after that we can pass laws to force everyone to eat the most efficent meal, then we can make laws to plan the most efficent jobs, then we can pass laws on who can talk to who, then we can pass laws on who can procreate, then we can pass laws on what you can think, then we can pass laws on who you can vote for, then we can pass laws .....

All your plan would do is make an another entire crop of laws that are ignored.

JustAFriend · #35 (**permalink**) 09-May-2008, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

Then after that we can pass laws to force everyone to eat the most efficent meal, then we can make laws to plan the most efficent jobs, then we can pass laws on who can talk to who, then we can pass laws on who can procreate, then we can pass laws on what you can think, then we can pass laws on who you can vote for, then we can pass laws .....

All your plan would do is make an another entire crop of laws that are ignored.

I'm sorry, but how would the laws be ignored?

If carmakers are forced to build cars to run at the peak of their efficiency and DISABLED mechanically and electronically from going faster, how can they be ignored.

I'm talking about changing the entire social perception of the car from racing machine with unreasonable performance to that of basic transportation without the 'sexy image' of speed and inefficiency that has helped to get us in this mess.

...and I said you wouldn't like it.....

danscope · #36 (**permalink**) 09-May-2008, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry Jacks

If the VW 1L is as low to the ground as it appears, it could be a good "sunshine car" (so long as there aren't too many big potholes) but would probably be terrible in even a couple inches of snow. That makes them not very useful for big parts of the country. I have to buy one vehicle to meet my needs. I can't afford a winter car and a sunshine car.

Hi, You make a good point about three season cars. Nothing wrong in that. we do it today. The sportscar goes up on blocks for the winter, and we take out the ol' 4x4 for the salt weather.
Although I am a fan of light weight vehicles, I don't see myself driving a
super light weight in snow and ice.
But too many people want to throw the baby out with the bath water.......
....." yeah, but what about the winter??? " .
We need to think outside the box, and do what we can....when we can .
75 miles per gallon sounds fine to me.

Best regards, Dan

Tuckerfan · #37 (**permalink**) 09-May-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustAFriend

I'm sorry, but how would the laws be ignored?

If carmakers are forced to build cars to run at the peak of their efficiency and DISABLED mechanically and electronically from going faster, how can they be ignored.

I'm talking about changing the entire social perception of the car from racing machine with unreasonable performance to that of basic transportation without the 'sexy image' of speed and inefficiency that has helped to get us in this mess.

...and I said you wouldn't like it.....

If they can't keep people from ripping CDs and sharing them on the internet, what makes you think that they can build a car that can't be hacked to go faster? And how would you get people to drive such cars if you could build them? No one would buy them, and if you tried to force them on people, things would get very ugly, very, very quickly.

korjik · #38 (**permalink**) 09-May-2008, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustAFriend

I'm sorry, but how would the laws be ignored?

If carmakers are forced to build cars to run at the peak of their efficiency and DISABLED mechanically and electronically from going faster, how can they be ignored.

I'm talking about changing the entire social perception of the car from racing machine with unreasonable performance to that of basic transportation without the 'sexy image' of speed and inefficiency that has helped to get us in this mess.

...and I said you wouldn't like it.....

First, you vote all the idiots who passed the laws out of office. Second, you do a little learning, and then enable your car to do what you want it to. It isnt magic pixies that make cars go, it dosent take alot of knowledge to mod one.

I also think that your assumption that everyone is driving a souped-up sports car or a 4 ton behemoth SUV is pretty suspect in the first place. When you add on top of that the natural effect of economics and high gas prices, things can change alot very quick. Look at the difference between cars in 1975 and 1985. There is no reason to give the goverment another set of powers to abuse.

danscope · #39 (**permalink**) 09-May-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuckerfan

If they can't keep people from ripping CDs and sharing them on the internet, what makes you think that they can build a car that can't be hacked to go faster? And how would you get people to drive such cars if you could build them? No one would buy them, and if you tried to force them on people, things would get very ugly, very, very quickly.

That is what some detroit big wigs said in 1974. Then americans went and bought a bazillion toyotas and subarus. Scratch that argument.
At $5 a gallon, people "think" differently.

Dan

Tuckerfan · #40 (**permalink**) 09-May-2008, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danscope

That is what some detroit big wigs said in 1974. Then americans went and bought a bazillion toyotas and subarus. Scratch that argument.
At $5 a gallon, people "think" differently.

Dan

No, scratch yours. In 1974 people had a choice, and while some of them switched to smaller cars, not all of them did (otherwise Detroit would have disappeared three decades ago), korjik's plan eliminates choice, and if I'm running a car off of something pther than gasoline (say biodiesel, CNG, or hydrogen, for example), why should I be forced to drive a car that can only go 55 MPH (as above that speed, aerodynamics cut affect fuel economy)?

Besides, what's the "optimal" performance for one person, may not be the "optimal" performance for another. If you have a job which requires you to haul equipment all over the place, you're going to need a vehicle with more powerful performance than someone who just has to tote themselves back and forth to the cube farm. Service personnel, farmers, landscapers, etc. all need vehicles capable of hauling lots of gear in order for them to be able to do their jobs. You can't stick them all in Geo Metros and expect them to be able to stay in business. You also don't want to put them in cars that have the acceleration of a slug when they're fully loaded down, as it'll cause accidents when they try to pull on the interstate and can't get up to speed very quickly.

Kaptain K · #41 (**permalink**) 10-May-2008, 12:48 AM

A car limited to 55mph and 0 to 60 in 30 seconds would be a hazard to the driver, passengers and everybody sharing the road with it! There is simply no way such a car could safely merge with freeway traffic!

Neverfly · #42 (**permalink**) 10-May-2008, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaptain K

A car limited to 55mph and 0 to 60 in 30 seconds would be a hazard to the driver, passengers and everybody sharing the road with it! There is simply no way such a car could safely merge with freeway traffic!

Exactly. There are a lot of traffic situations where slamming on the brakes is the worst thing to do- you need to gun it.

This is part of the reason I hate Automatics too. Standard tranny all the way...

[ETA: Tranny is transmission. Not a strangely dressed passanger (which are almost common in Austin...)]

Kaptain K · #43 (**permalink**) 10-May-2008, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Exactly. There are a lot of traffic situations where slamming on the brakes is the worst thing to do- you need to gun it.

This is part of the reason I hate Automatics too. Standard tranny all the way...

[ETA: Tranny is transmission. Not a strangely dressed passanger* (which are almost common in Austin...)]

Ditto on the manual trans! One of the criteria when I go looking for a car!

*Like this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Cochran

Neverfly · #44 (**permalink**) 10-May-2008, 04:43 AM

There's a WIKI on Him?!
GOOD GRIEF!

Kaptain K · #45 (**permalink**) 10-May-2008, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

There's a WIKI on Him?!
GOOD GRIEF!

And several youtubes!

Neverfly · #46 (**permalink**) 10-May-2008, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaptain K

And several youtubes!

I will avoid the Youtube thanks- I have seen enough of him live. I'm trying to forget.

novaderrik · #47 (**permalink**) 10-May-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

Then after that we can pass laws to force everyone to eat the most efficent meal, then we can make laws to plan the most efficent jobs, then we can pass laws on who can talk to who, then we can pass laws on who can procreate, then we can pass laws on what you can think, then we can pass laws on who you can vote for, then we can pass laws .....

All your plan would do is make an another entire crop of laws that are ignored.

i think we should have a law that says that we can't question laws that are thought up by people that know that what they think is best for their particular situation is best for everyone else. they are obviously intellectually superior to everyone else- and probably better looking and tell better jokes- so why would the masses want to question them?