|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > September 2005 > 100 MPG??
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Robert Maxim 2005-09-03, 10:21 am |
| If this is inappropriate for these groups, I apologize. I didn't see any
newsgroups that really looked perfect for this inquiry.
Anyone have an update on this??
In Memphis, an independent tinkerer named John M. Hewitt is using a
hydraulic system on what used to be a Chevy S-10 pickup. The truck, which
he says accelerates adequately with an engine of less than 100 horsepower,
achieves more than 100 miles per gallon. He uses a diesel engine designed
for marine use, because it is meant to run long hours at constant speed.
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-09-03, 1:21 pm |
| Robert Maxim wrote:
....
> Anyone have an update on this??
>
> In Memphis, an independent tinkerer named John M. Hewitt is using a
> hydraulic system on what used to be a Chevy S-10 pickup. The truck, which
> he says accelerates adequately with an engine of less than 100 horsepower,
> achieves more than 100 miles per gallon. He uses a diesel engine designed
> for marine use, because it is meant to run long hours at constant speed.
I've never heard of this but then I lay no claim to all knowledge.
I do know a couple of decades back that some magazines had plans
for hybrid/electric trucks that got in the range of 80 MPG. They
were extremely underpowered though.
Doing a quick google search, I notice that several people have
modified Honda Insight's to get in the 90 MPG range when run
over test tracks. It's likely they would get less in ordinary
driving.
VW did make a prototype '1-Liter' car which got 264 MPG but
it was too expensive to put in production.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/200...andons_its.html
According to that article above, they do have a car that gets
78 MPG fairly affordably. So, while the 100 MPG goal may not
be available yet, it does seem that high 70's is.
The EPA list shows MPG tops out around 60 MPG for cars in the
United States.
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/overall-high.htm
Anthony
| |
| Bob Adkins 2005-09-03, 1:21 pm |
| On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 07:51:22 +0000, Robert Maxim <RMaxim@bellwest.org>
wrote:
>In Memphis, an independent tinkerer named John M. Hewitt is using a
>hydraulic system on what used to be a Chevy S-10 pickup. The truck, which
>he says accelerates adequately with an engine of less than 100 horsepower,
>achieves more than 100 miles per gallon. He uses a diesel engine designed
>for marine use, because it is meant to run long hours at constant speed.
Just doing the physics, if the engine is near to 100 HP... let's say 85,
there's no way it can get 100MPG. At some point, you run out of power
(BTU's) in the fuel. Most of these assertions are just rumors and
sensationalism.
Internal combustion engines are just about topped out in efficiency. To get
better mileage without performance suffering, you need to shed weight. Lots
of weight. Lightweight construction materials are very expensive, so you
won't see any 100 MPG 4 passenger vehicles any time soon.
--
Bob
| |
| Ecnerwal 2005-09-03, 2:21 pm |
| In article <bbijh15lf6v25v7cm2m0p5e0hm8nstdnqg@4ax.com>,
Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote:
> Internal combustion engines are just about topped out in efficiency. To get
> better mileage without performance suffering, you need to shed weight. Lots
> of weight. Lightweight construction materials are very expensive, so you
> won't see any 100 MPG 4 passenger vehicles any time soon.
On the other hand, 100 MPG motor scooters are easy and cheap, as they
are inherently small and light, and available now. Not too exciting -
exciting uses more fuel, even on two wheels. I recall an Indian (as in
the country of India) 250CC or so diesel motorcycle which got 125MPG as
much as 10 years back. Never imported here, AFAICT.
--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
| |
| Ford Prefect 2005-09-03, 2:21 pm |
|
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 07:51:22 +0000, Robert Maxim <RMaxim@bellwest.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Just doing the physics, if the engine is near to 100 HP... let's say 85,
> there's no way it can get 100MPG. At some point, you run out of power
> (BTU's) in the fuel. Most of these assertions are just rumors and
> sensationalism.
>
> Internal combustion engines are just about topped out in efficiency. To get
> better mileage without performance suffering, you need to shed weight. Lots
> of weight. Lightweight construction materials are very expensive, so you
> won't see any 100 MPG 4 passenger vehicles any time soon.
A buddy of mine just put in some sort of diesel farm engine in his ford
ranger and is getting over 55mpg without any other major modifications.
I'm not sure of the horsepower of his engine, but as farm use/utility
engine I doubt it is over 60hp.
| |
| Ford Prefect 2005-09-03, 2:21 pm |
|
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 07:51:22 +0000, Robert Maxim <RMaxim@bellwest.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Just doing the physics, if the engine is near to 100 HP... let's say 85,
> there's no way it can get 100MPG. At some point, you run out of power
> (BTU's) in the fuel. Most of these assertions are just rumors and
> sensationalism.
>
> Internal combustion engines are just about topped out in efficiency. To get
> better mileage without performance suffering, you need to shed weight. Lots
> of weight. Lightweight construction materials are very expensive, so you
> won't see any 100 MPG 4 passenger vehicles any time soon.
Just a thought on this, sometime last year I recall someone posting a
link to plans and a article of a fellow who built a 150mpg car powered
by a small honda motorcycle engine. Anyone else recall this or has a
link to it.?
| |
| Dale Farmer 2005-09-03, 3:21 pm |
|
Robert Maxim wrote:
> If this is inappropriate for these groups, I apologize. I didn't see any
> newsgroups that really looked perfect for this inquiry.
>
> Anyone have an update on this??
>
> In Memphis, an independent tinkerer named John M. Hewitt is using a
> hydraulic system on what used to be a Chevy S-10 pickup. The truck, which
> he says accelerates adequately with an engine of less than 100 horsepower,
> achieves more than 100 miles per gallon. He uses a diesel engine designed
> for marine use, because it is meant to run long hours at constant speed.
Don't know about trucks, but a friend of mine has a Prius, and he
is tinkering with it all the time to get better mileage. Latest mod is to
setup the batteries to charge from grid power, and use the batteries more
for basic drive power. For short commuter run operation, this could
push gas mileage up above 100, since the wall power is not included in
the equation.
One of the things he is looking at is to add solar cells to the roof to
trickle charge the battery when he is outdoors.
I have recently heard something on the radio about cobalt
batteries, that are said "To double the range of a Segway."
Anyone have a link to a good, no bullshit web site about them?
--Dale
| |
| Arnold Walker 2005-09-03, 3:21 pm |
|
"Bob Adkins" <bobad@charter.net> wrote in message
news:bbijh15lf6v25v7cm2m0p5e0hm8nstdnqg@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 07:51:22 +0000, Robert Maxim <RMaxim@bellwest.org>
> wrote:
>
horsepower,[color=darkred]
>
> Just doing the physics, if the engine is near to 100 HP... let's say 85,
> there's no way it can get 100MPG. At some point, you run out of power
> (BTU's) in the fuel. Most of these assertions are just rumors and
> sensationalism.
>
> Internal combustion engines are just about topped out in efficiency. To
get
> better mileage without performance suffering, you need to shed weight.
Lots
> of weight. Lightweight construction materials are very expensive, so you
> won't see any 100 MPG 4 passenger vehicles any time soon.
> --
> Bob
Hydraulic should be the same story as gas electric for the same reason.
35 hp engine with an over size accumlator(to store 30sec. surge
power/dynamic braking like batteries on electric hybrid) and no
transmission.
Other than a gearbox or chaindrive to speed up the drive speed.
And with the diesel engine.....old diesel VW rabbits got 45-55mpg in normal
configurations.
In hybrid,double that number is doable.The hydrauluic could easily pull
1000lbs per hp and do better.
Than the old Rabbit with an automatic on acceleration.Part of the reason
they were in railroad switch engines....
LIke the electric max. torque at zero helps
to get you off the line with a lot less horses than a drive that needs to
rev.to pulling speed.
The only reason you would need more than 35hp in a S-10 since 35hp is
highway cruise speed.
Whoever did it should have better luck than that dumb gas electric from
Toyota and Honda.
He at least thought to use a diesel for starts.No heavy metals,22% less
greenhouse gas,better able to run bio fuels,etc.....
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Arnold Walker 2005-09-03, 3:21 pm |
|
"Ecnerwal" <LawrenceSMITH@SOuthernVERmont.NyET> wrote in message
news:LawrenceSMITH-39D43D.12304003092005@news.verizon.net...
> In article <bbijh15lf6v25v7cm2m0p5e0hm8nstdnqg@4ax.com>,
> Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote:
get[color=darkred]
Lots[color=darkred]
>
> On the other hand, 100 MPG motor scooters are easy and cheap, as they
> are inherently small and light, and available now. Not too exciting -
> exciting uses more fuel, even on two wheels. I recall an Indian (as in
> the country of India) 250CC or so diesel motorcycle which got 125MPG as
> much as 10 years back. Never imported here.
That's their 350cc Enfield diesel...the 250cc got 175mgh.Used Robin and
Deutz diesels.(copies not orignal built in India.)
Some Germans were retroing them out to 850cc diesel on custom bikes....can't
remember the engine used.Othr than German diesel....
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Martin Riddle 2005-09-03, 7:21 pm |
| Not sure about 'cobalt' batteries. But Hobbiests use Cobalt magnet motors for higher performance in their electric models.
I believe the cobalt based magnets offer a stronger field than standard iron stuff.
Cheers
"Dale Farmer" <dale@cybercom.net> wrote in message news:4319DC06.BDAD19D6@cybercom.net...
>
>
> Robert Maxim wrote:
>
>
> Don't know about trucks, but a friend of mine has a Prius, and he
> is tinkering with it all the time to get better mileage. Latest mod is to
> setup the batteries to charge from grid power, and use the batteries more
> for basic drive power. For short commuter run operation, this could
> push gas mileage up above 100, since the wall power is not included in
> the equation.
> One of the things he is looking at is to add solar cells to the roof to
> trickle charge the battery when he is outdoors.
>
> I have recently heard something on the radio about cobalt
> batteries, that are said "To double the range of a Segway."
> Anyone have a link to a good, no bullshit web site about them?
>
> --Dale
>
>
| |
|
|
"Robert Maxim" <RMaxim@bellwest.org> wrote in message
news:11hj6t2fgg5qk59@news.supernews.com...
> If this is inappropriate for these groups, I apologize. I didn't see any
> newsgroups that really looked perfect for this inquiry.
>
> Anyone have an update on this??
>
> In Memphis, an independent tinkerer named John M. Hewitt is using a
> hydraulic system on what used to be a Chevy S-10 pickup. The truck, which
> he says accelerates adequately with an engine of less than 100 horsepower,
> achieves more than 100 miles per gallon. He uses a diesel engine designed
> for marine use, because it is meant to run long hours at constant speed.
Ford has an excellent 3 cylinder diesel it uses in their New Holland
tractors which if made into a hybrid diesel and put in a small car would top
80mpg.Question is, having the where-with-all, why the fuck ain't they doing
it?
I'll tell you why. They are not interested in saving energy at all. They are
fucking Hippocrates.
| |
| Gordon Richmond 2005-09-04, 11:21 am |
| Nog said: "They are
fucking Hippocrates."
Then that must make them necrophiliacs, I guess.
Gordon Richmond
| |
|
|
"Robert Maxim" <RMaxim@bellwest.org> wrote in message
news:11hj6t2fgg5qk59@news.supernews.com...
> If this is inappropriate for these groups, I apologize. I didn't see any
> newsgroups that really looked perfect for this inquiry.
>
> Anyone have an update on this??
>
> In Memphis, an independent tinkerer named John M. Hewitt is using a
> hydraulic system on what used to be a Chevy S-10 pickup. The truck, which
> he says accelerates adequately with an engine of less than 100 horsepower,
> achieves more than 100 miles per gallon. He uses a diesel engine designed
> for marine use, because it is meant to run long hours at constant speed.
America is a fucking joke. VW Lupo gets 78mpg, Citroen in France has three
models that get from 53 to 68mpg.
America is too fucking stupid to make anything coming close!
| |
| Vaughn 2005-09-04, 3:21 pm |
|
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:x76dnTv-C7SSr4beRVn-rw@adelphia.com...
> America is a fucking joke. VW Lupo gets 78mpg, Citroen in France has three
> models that get from 53 to 68mpg.
> America is too fucking stupid to make anything coming close!
If this is the most intelligent contribution we can expect from you, you
have just saved me some reading time.
Bye nog
Vaughn
>
>
| |
| websurf1@cox.net 2005-09-04, 4:21 pm |
| No, we aren't too stupid to make it.
We are just too foolish to BUY it, since our fuel is cheap because we
won't tax it to higher levels to encourage conservation. Consequently,
even now, we drive the suv's and huge motorhomes. And we will continue
to do so until our fuel hits $5 per gallon.
Like anyone else, we only conserve what is expensive.
Your bad language didn't help your post, either.
| |
|
| My 250 cc Honda Rebel (motorcycle) gets 75 MPG in city driving.
Mark
| |
|
|
<websurf1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1125859444.431750.263370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> No, we aren't too stupid to make it.
> We are just too foolish to BUY it, since our fuel is cheap because we
> won't tax it to higher levels to encourage conservation. Consequently,
> even now, we drive the suv's and huge motorhomes. And we will continue
> to do so until our fuel hits $5 per gallon.
> Like anyone else, we only conserve what is expensive.
>
> Your bad language didn't help your post, either.
>
What you are wrong about is that if they did import those cars and make them
here people WOULD buy them to save their own wallets.
The fact that we don't allow such vehicles is only the Oil company bottom
lines and stocks. The other reason is state and federal fuel tax revenues
would take a hit. Thirdly it would help the poor and our system likes to
fuck the poor.
| |
| Robert Morien 2005-09-05, 2:21 am |
| In article <KqKdnWg_nN4VOIbeRVn-gA@adelphia.com>,
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
> <websurf1@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:1125859444.431750.263370@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> What you are wrong about is that if they did import those cars and make them
> here people WOULD buy them to save their own wallets.
> The fact that we don't allow such vehicles is only the Oil company bottom
> lines and stocks. The other reason is state and federal fuel tax revenues
> would take a hit. Thirdly it would help the poor and our system likes to
> fuck the poor.
aw but...they don't meet federal safety and/or environmental standards.
| |
| Arnold Walker 2005-09-05, 4:21 am |
| Military M1030 611cc diesel motorcycle gets 102MPG ...and starting this
spring a civilian version will be offered.
"Mark" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125884832.163753.64220@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My 250 cc Honda Rebel (motorcycle) gets 75 MPG in city driving.
>
> Mark
>
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
|
|
"Robert Morien" <PhD_failure@nousefulinfo.com> wrote in message
news:PhD_failure-12D94C.21261104092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <KqKdnWg_nN4VOIbeRVn-gA@adelphia.com>,
> "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
> aw but...they don't meet federal safety and/or environmental standards.
Federal safety standards are moronic and should get in line with the
Europeans.
| |
|
| > What you are wrong about is that if they did import those cars and
> make them here people WOULD buy them to save their own wallets. The
> fact that we don't allow such vehicles is only the Oil company bottom
> lines and stocks. The other reason is state and federal fuel tax
> revenues would take a hit. Thirdly it would help the poor and our
> system likes to fuck the poor.
Shaking my head at your completely retarded statements. I'd be willing
to bet that you've never had an original thought! Have you ever heard
of a free market? If anyone thought they could make a dime on these
cars, they'd be for sale here. The governments are already talking
about a mileage tax instead of a fuel tax, so they'd make up the
revenue on fuel efficient cars, they're already way ahead of you on
that one. Your third statement is the one that I take the most offense
to. I pay a hell of a lot of tax to take care of people that are poor,
indigent, or incapable of taking care of themselves. Most of the other
people that I know do as well. In addition, we send more money out to
help people through disasters and strife, both here in the States and
overseas, than any other nation on the planet, now or any time in
history. So get a grip on your ears and pull your head out of your
butt, you sound misinformed at best, and insincere at worst.
Herb
| |
| Ford Prefect 2005-09-05, 12:21 pm |
|
Robert Morien wrote:
> In article <KqKdnWg_nN4VOIbeRVn-gA@adelphia.com>,
> "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> aw but...they don't meet federal safety and/or environmental standards.
Actually some like the VW Lupo won't run on the high sulphur diesel used
in the USA.
| |
|
|
|
|
| JoeSixPack 2005-09-05, 4:21 pm |
|
"Bob Adkins" <bobad@charter.net> wrote in message
news:bbijh15lf6v25v7cm2m0p5e0hm8nstdnqg@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 07:51:22 +0000, Robert Maxim <RMaxim@bellwest.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> Just doing the physics, if the engine is near to 100 HP... let's say 85,
> there's no way it can get 100MPG. At some point, you run out of power
> (BTU's) in the fuel. Most of these assertions are just rumors and
> sensationalism.
>
> Internal combustion engines are just about topped out in efficiency. To
> get
> better mileage without performance suffering, you need to shed weight.
> Lots
> of weight. Lightweight construction materials are very expensive, so you
> won't see any 100 MPG 4 passenger vehicles any time soon.
If you examine the work being done, you can't gain much efficiency without
reducing air resistence and drivetrain friction. Build it shaped like a
bullet train, put it on bicycle wheels and then your main limitation is
still the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine. If you could more
efficiently extract energy from a gallon of fuel, then MPG would rise again.
Until then, "100 MPG in a Chevy pickup" remains the stuff of lore and myth.
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-09-05, 4:21 pm |
|
"Arnold Walker" <arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:1125770436_4959@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "Ecnerwal" <LawrenceSMITH@SOuthernVERmont.NyET> wrote in message
> news:LawrenceSMITH-39D43D.12304003092005@news.verizon.net...
> get
> Lots
> That's their 350cc Enfield diesel...the 250cc got 175mgh.Used Robin and
> Deutz diesels.(copies not orignal built in India.)
> Some Germans were retroing them out to 850cc diesel on custom
> bikes....can't
> remember the engine used.Othr than German diesel....
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-09-05, 4:21 pm |
|
"Arnold Walker" <arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:1125770436_4959@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "Ecnerwal" <LawrenceSMITH@SOuthernVERmont.NyET> wrote in message
> news:LawrenceSMITH-39D43D.12304003092005@news.verizon.net...
> get
> Lots
> That's their 350cc Enfield diesel...the 250cc got 175mgh.Used Robin and
> Deutz diesels.(copies not orignal built in India.)
> Some Germans were retroing them out to 850cc diesel on custom
> bikes....can't
> remember the engine used.Othr than German diesel....
Deutz air-cooled diesel engines made the claim that they were more efficient
because they could run at a hotter temperature than liquid-cooled engines.
Mercedes-Benz engineers were proported to be working on a ceramic engine
that didn't require cooling or lubrication but such technology seems to have
gone MIA, unless I'm misinformed.
| |
| Robert Morien 2005-09-05, 5:21 pm |
| In article <NfGdnZ2dnZ0SqTT_nZ2dnTnVgd6dnZ2dRVn-yJ2dnZ0@adelphia.com>,
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
> "Robert Morien" <PhD_failure@nousefulinfo.com> wrote in message
> news:PhD_failure-12D94C.21261104092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
>
> Federal safety standards are moronic and should get in line with the
> Europeans.
If the Europeans want to sell in the USA they will meet the Federal
Standards we have set. But don't go blaming the feds for trying to
protect us from shitty eurocars. If they are incapable of meeting those
standards, let the Europeans suffer.
Evolution in Action.
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-09-05, 5:21 pm |
|
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:x76dnTv-C7SSr4beRVn-rw@adelphia.com...
>
> "Robert Maxim" <RMaxim@bellwest.org> wrote in message
> news:11hj6t2fgg5qk59@news.supernews.com...
>
> America is a fucking joke. VW Lupo gets 78mpg, Citroen in France has three
> models that get from 53 to 68mpg.
> America is too fucking stupid to make anything coming close!
If you're using Outlook Express, go to "Message" and "Block Sender." This
is a good newsgroup and deserves better.
| |
|
|
"Robert Morien" <PhD_failure@nousefulinfo.com> wrote in message
news:PhD_failure-3729E0.12215305092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <NfGdnZ2dnZ0SqTT_nZ2dnTnVgd6dnZ2dRVn-yJ2dnZ0@adelphia.com>,
> "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
> If the Europeans want to sell in the USA they will meet the Federal
> Standards we have set. But don't go blaming the feds for trying to
> protect us from shitty eurocars. If they are incapable of meeting those
> standards, let the Europeans suffer.
>
> Evolution in Action.
Those standards , as you should know, are to protect the automakers who are
protecting the oil companies. It has nothing to do with driver safety. They
love to give you the illusion that you are number one and they are
protecting you from your own stupidity but look again my blind as a bat
fellow.
| |
| Robert Morien 2005-09-05, 7:21 pm |
| In article <Yd1Te.164223$wr.99840@clgrps12>,
"JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net> wrote:
> "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:x76dnTv-C7SSr4beRVn-rw@adelphia.com...
>
> If you're using Outlook Express, go to "Message" and "Block Sender." This
> is a good newsgroup and deserves better.
nah, the point is to play with the troll until you can get him to play
on railroad tracks.
| |
|
|
"Mark" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125884832.163753.64220@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My 250 cc Honda Rebel (motorcycle) gets 75 MPG in city driving.
>
> Mark
My 1400 Intruder motorcycle doesn't have seat belts, it doesn't have air
bags, it won't pass a 5mph crash test and I don't wear a helmet when I drive
it. The question is why the hell does my car need all this safety standard
bullshit crap and my motorcycle doesn't?
So give me a high mileage car without all the fake safety standard crap.
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-05, 8:21 pm |
| Somebody figured that people driving a motorcycle should be eliminated from
the human gene pool?
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:qf-dnVi-6KpcXYHeRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
>
> "Mark" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1125884832.163753.64220@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> My 1400 Intruder motorcycle doesn't have seat belts, it doesn't have air
> bags, it won't pass a 5mph crash test and I don't wear a helmet when I
drive
> it. The question is why the hell does my car need all this safety
standard
> bullshit crap and my motorcycle doesn't?
> So give me a high mileage car without all the fake safety standard crap.
>
>
| |
| Robert Morien 2005-09-05, 8:21 pm |
| In article <qf-dnVi-6KpcXYHeRVn-2Q@adelphia.com>,
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
> "Mark" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1125884832.163753.64220@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> My 1400 Intruder motorcycle doesn't have seat belts, it doesn't have air
> bags, it won't pass a 5mph crash test and I don't wear a helmet when I drive
> it. The question is why the hell does my car need all this safety standard
> bullshit crap and my motorcycle doesn't?
> So give me a high mileage car without all the fake safety standard crap.
I'd say 3
| |
| Robert Morien 2005-09-05, 8:21 pm |
| In article <95KdnZ2dnZ1pvSvrnZ2dnZAigd6dnZ2dRVn-zZ2dnZ0@adelphia.com>,
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
> "Robert Morien" <PhD_failure@nousefulinfo.com> wrote in message
> news:PhD_failure-3729E0.12215305092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
>
> Those standards , as you should know,
Seat belts protect the oil companies? How many times have you been road
rashed?
> are to protect the automakers who are
> protecting the oil companies. It has nothing to do with driver safety. They
> love to give you the illusion that you are number one and they are
> protecting you from your own stupidity but look again my blind as a bat
> fellow.
There are so many ways to say europeans lack the skill to design cars
for the American Market. Your way is just too cute.
| |
| Bob Adkins 2005-09-06, 12:03 am |
| On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 09:00:48 -0400, "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
>Ford has an excellent 3 cylinder diesel it uses in their New Holland
>tractors which if made into a hybrid diesel and put in a small car would top
>80mpg.
I have 1 of those. They're made in Japan now. Ford sold out New Holland
quite a while back. But you're right about the engine. My 35 HP tractor can
run all day long on 10 gallons of gas. It would push a 1000 pound car along
just great. Turbo charge it, and it would be peppy in a 1300 pound car.
--
Bob
| |
| Bob Adkins 2005-09-06, 12:03 am |
| On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:03:09 -0400, "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
>What you are wrong about is that if they did import those cars and make them
>here people WOULD buy them to save their own wallets.
>The fact that we don't allow such vehicles is only the Oil company bottom
>lines and stocks. The other reason is state and federal fuel tax revenues
>would take a hit. Thirdly it would help the poor and our system likes to
>fuck the poor.
That's conspiracy theory babble, and misses the mark completely.
The real reason? Nobody wants to drive a butt-ugly, dog-slow car.
--
Bob
| |
| Ford Prefect 2005-09-06, 12:03 am |
|
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:03:09 -0400, "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> That's conspiracy theory babble, and misses the mark completely.
>
> The real reason? Nobody wants to drive a butt-ugly, dog-slow car.
That's what detroit said about the VW beetle, Datsun & Honda ;~)
| |
|
| I dont know about how efficient a car full of hydraulic pumps would be,
but I have a spreadsheet here where I can calc that a car driving down
the road at 60 mi/hr needs 40HP, based on air density, drag coeff, and
frontal area. I used my car and tweaked the drag coeff till the time to
slow down from 70 to 50 matched the actual. Given gas at 6.1 lbs/gal
and 15000 BTUs/lb, and 3412 BTU/KWhr, I show the car using 1.24 KWhr/mi
based on a 60 mi 1 hr trip at 60, and this is 21.57 mpg. Seems about
right, because even if there was 100HP in reserve, it still took 40HP
for an hr to go 60 mi. Anyway, 100mi/gal car would need to
..27KWhr/mi... one fifth as much. A lot less likely. Anyone want to see
the ss to check it?
| |
| Dale Farmer 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
|
Nog wrote:
> "Mark" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1125884832.163753.64220@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> My 1400 Intruder motorcycle doesn't have seat belts, it doesn't have air
> bags, it won't pass a 5mph crash test and I don't wear a helmet when I drive
> it. The question is why the hell does my car need all this safety standard
> bullshit crap and my motorcycle doesn't?
> So give me a high mileage car without all the fake safety standard crap.
Donorcycle rider.
--Dale
| |
|
| Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:03:09 -0400, "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> That's conspiracy theory babble, and misses the mark completely.
>
> The real reason? Nobody wants to drive a butt-ugly, dog-slow car.
I do. My 91 Camry is average looking and dog-slow and gets 30mpg. If
there was a car on the market that got over 3 times that, and I could
afford it, hell I'll take 0-60 in 1 minute.
| |
| danny burstein 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| In <UN8Te.14526$aG.2648@trndny01> EA <antrobus3927@verizon.net> writes:
>I do. My 91 Camry is average looking and dog-slow and gets 30mpg. If
>there was a car on the market that got over 3 times that, and I could
>afford it, hell I'll take 0-60 in 1 minute.
Until last month, you could pick up a used Honda Insight
for under $10k.... 60 plus mpg on highway, 35 in city
(that's with a/c and automatic. manuals do better)
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
| |
| Arnold Walker 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
|
"BobG" <bobgardner@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125973397.727223.17550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I dont know about how efficient a car full of hydraulic pumps would be,
> but I have a spreadsheet here where I can calc that a car driving down
> the road at 60 mi/hr needs 40HP, based on air density, drag coeff, and
> frontal area. I used my car and tweaked the drag coeff till the time to
> slow down from 70 to 50 matched the actual. Given gas at 6.1 lbs/gal
> and 15000 BTUs/lb, and 3412 BTU/KWhr, I show the car using 1.24 KWhr/mi
> based on a 60 mi 1 hr trip at 60, and this is 21.57 mpg. Seems about
> right, because even if there was 100HP in reserve, it still took 40HP
> for an hr to go 60 mi. Anyway, 100mi/gal car would need to
> .27KWhr/mi... one fifth as much. A lot less likely. Anyone want to see
> the ss to check it?
I would check my fiqure again using actual running diesels.
VW rabbit 45MPG on a 2500lbs. vehicle.
M1030 military diesel motorcycle with 30hp engine 120MPG on 400lbs. vehicle.
Maybe if you can trim out the difference between "paper number" and actual
machines.
You might notice that 5000 lbs Mercedes gets what you gave for a MPG figure
at 21.5MPG.
Asperated and 30MPG turbo.......higher if you are using a manual
transmission.
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Arnold Walker 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| Forgot to give you the hp on :
VW rabbit 50hp
asperated MB 80hp
turboMB 132hp
Both vehicles have been improved in 2005 over the 198? models.
MB have diesel 300 series that outperforms the gas version while getting
that 45MPG on a 4000lbs. vehicle.(They like all cars seem to reduce in size
each year.)
"BobG" <bobgardner@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125973397.727223.17550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I dont know about how efficient a car full of hydraulic pumps would be,
> but I have a spreadsheet here where I can calc that a car driving down
> the road at 60 mi/hr needs 40HP, based on air density, drag coeff, and
> frontal area. I used my car and tweaked the drag coeff till the time to
> slow down from 70 to 50 matched the actual. Given gas at 6.1 lbs/gal
> and 15000 BTUs/lb, and 3412 BTU/KWhr, I show the car using 1.24 KWhr/mi
> based on a 60 mi 1 hr trip at 60, and this is 21.57 mpg. Seems about
> right, because even if there was 100HP in reserve, it still took 40HP
> for an hr to go 60 mi. Anyway, 100mi/gal car would need to
> .27KWhr/mi... one fifth as much. A lot less likely. Anyone want to see
> the ss to check it?
>
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| vw tdi's like the jetta get 50mpg, and can run on veggie oil instead of
dino-diesel.
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
danny burstein wrote:
> In <UN8Te.14526$aG.2648@trndny01> EA <antrobus3927@verizon.net> writes:
>
>
>
>
> Until last month, you could pick up a used Honda Insight
> for under $10k.... 60 plus mpg on highway, 35 in city
> (that's with a/c and automatic. manuals do better)
>
| |
|
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:GkgTe.4509$Rd7.917@fe11.lga...
> vw tdi's like the jetta get 50mpg, and can run on veggie oil instead of
I like mine. I've gotten 50 to 53mpg before. In the winter, 48 to 49.
It's the highest mpg and the most efficient car in the US. That's why it's
banned from sale in 3 states. It's called progress? Not
The us is too stupid to copy it so they want to kill it.
The really, really, stupid public still want's their gas guzzeling padded
crib SUV's so they will be paying dearly for them at the pump.
Oh well, it's only $140 to fill them up, what the hell.
[color=darkred]
> dino-diesel.
>
>
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
>
> danny burstein wrote:
| |
|
|
"Herb" <wraithe22@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44YSe.13909$QN4.2866@trnddc02...
>
> Shaking my head at your completely retarded statements. I'd be willing
> to bet that you've never had an original thought! Have you ever heard
> of a free market? If anyone thought they could make a dime on these
> cars, they'd be for sale here. The governments are already talking
> about a mileage tax instead of a fuel tax, so they'd make up the
> revenue on fuel efficient cars, they're already way ahead of you on
> that one. Your third statement is the one that I take the most offense
> to. I pay a hell of a lot of tax to take care of people that are poor,
> indigent, or incapable of taking care of themselves. Most of the other
Tell it to the drug companies making the elderly eat dog food to pay for
their super inflated drug prices.
> people that I know do as well. In addition, we send more money out to
> help people through disasters and strife, both here in the States and
> overseas, than any other nation on the planet, now or any time in
> history. So get a grip on your ears and pull your head out of your
> butt, you sound misinformed at best, and insincere at worst.
>
> Herb
| |
|
| I would check my fiqure again using actual running diesels.
===============================================
These newsgroups lose info somehow. A guy says he has a truck that gets
100mpg, I make a post that says it is unlikely that he can get a truck
to go a mi on .27KWhr, because I have a fairly detailed ss that is
dimensionally correct that computes a gas car going 60 miles at 60
miles an hour and hr takes 1.24KWhr/mi and gets 21.5 mpg. And you come
back and tell me my figures using running diesels. We can argue or we
can invent. For a bunch of 'smart guys' there sure is a LOT of
squabbling here.
| |
| mike mcwilliams 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| > Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>
It's not conspiracy theory babble, every opulent society has a slave
class. In the case of america it's a system which destroys people who
don't invest in companies that put profits above ethics, resulting in a
suitable population who are paid less than it costs to have a minimal
standard of living, and who have to skip out on paying their medical
bills. Have you ever wondered why there are only a handful of auto
makers? It seems like a pretty big leap to get a new auto maker started
which puts ethics above profits when that will certainly eat into
investors bottom lines.
As the price of gas outstrips the ability of the middle class to afford
fast cars (gas guzzlers), good looking, slower, and cheaper cars will be
all over the place.
| |
| mike mcwilliams 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| BobG wrote:
> I would check my fiqure again using actual running diesels.
> ===============================================
> These newsgroups lose info somehow. A guy says he has a truck that gets
> 100mpg, I make a post that says it is unlikely that he can get a truck
> to go a mi on .27KWhr, because I have a fairly detailed ss that is
> dimensionally correct that computes a gas car going 60 miles at 60
> miles an hour and hr takes 1.24KWhr/mi and gets 21.5 mpg. And you come
> back and tell me my figures using running diesels. We can argue or we
> can invent. For a bunch of 'smart guys' there sure is a LOT of
> squabbling here.
>
Heres what I want to know...
For the average person, lets say they were to consume a gallon of
vegatable oils... I'm confident that they can go more than 100 miles on
a bicycle, albeit a little slower... But on the bright side, most
americans have at least that much on their waistlines already... The
first 100 miles is free.
| |
| Duncan McNiven 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:21:53 -0700, Robert Morien
<PhD_failure@nousefulinfo.com> wrote:
>If the Europeans want to sell in the USA they will meet the Federal
>Standards we have set. But don't go blaming the feds for trying to
>protect us from shitty eurocars. If they are incapable of meeting those
>standards, let the Europeans suffer.
In what way do European cars fall short of American standards?
--
Duncan
| |
| Duncan McNiven 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:52:00 GMT, "Herb"
<wraithe22@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>In addition, we send more money out to
>help people through disasters and strife, both here in the States and
>overseas, than any other nation on the planet, now or any time in
>history.
Do you have figures to support that claim? I had a quick look on
Google and only found counter-examples such as:
http://www.lankalibrary.com/news/charities.htm
Tsunami Charities: Enough Already
U.S. tsunami donations alone have topped $1 billion in relief
Donations in absolute terms, showing that Norwegians donated the most
per head of population ($13.20) followed by the Swedes ($12.04), the
Dutch ($9.16) the Australians ($5.23) and so on, down to the Americans
with a donation of $1.08 per head, and the French, whose per head
donation amounted to 80 US cents.
If this example is typical - I don't know if it is - Americans give
far less per head than many others.
--
Duncan
| |
| Bob Adkins 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 04:20:04 GMT, EA <antrobus3927@verizon.net> wrote:
>I do. My 91 Camry is average looking and dog-slow and gets 30mpg. If
>there was a car on the market that got over 3 times that, and I could
>afford it, hell I'll take 0-60 in 1 minute.
It also hauls 5 passengers, has a comfortable ride, and air conditioning,
everyone will normally survive a 15 MPH collision.
--
Bob
| |
| Bob Adkins 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 09:23:12 -0400, "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>I like mine. I've gotten 50 to 53mpg before. In the winter, 48 to 49.
>It's the highest mpg and the most efficient car in the US. That's why it's
>banned from sale in 3 states. It's called progress? Not
You're being disingenuous, Nog. Tell us why your car is banned in 3 states.
And don't tell us it's because it gets high mileage.
--
Bob
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| His car isn't banned, the sale of new diesel passenger cars is banned
until low sulfur diesel is available. It's the fuel that's the issue.
With biodiesel, there is no sulfur issue.
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 09:23:12 -0400, "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> You're being disingenuous, Nog. Tell us why your car is banned in 3 states.
> And don't tell us it's because it gets high mileage.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| He said America sends more money, you are saying American's. Apples to
oranges. You are both right, because your claims are different.
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Duncan McNiven wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:52:00 GMT, "Herb"
> <wraithe22@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Do you have figures to support that claim? I had a quick look on
> Google and only found counter-examples such as:
>
> http://www.lankalibrary.com/news/charities.htm
> Tsunami Charities: Enough Already
> U.S. tsunami donations alone have topped $1 billion in relief
>
> Donations in absolute terms, showing that Norwegians donated the most
> per head of population ($13.20) followed by the Swedes ($12.04), the
> Dutch ($9.16) the Australians ($5.23) and so on, down to the Americans
> with a donation of $1.08 per head, and the French, whose per head
> donation amounted to 80 US cents.
>
> If this example is typical - I don't know if it is - Americans give
> far less per head than many others.
>
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| mike mcXXXXXXXX wrote:
[color=darkred]
That's just not a believable reason. There are enough butt-ugly cars on the
street to prove that people _will_ drive them, and there are plenty of old
folks driving dog-slow on the freeways. Conservationists out to prove a
point would certainly buy butt-ugly, dog-slow cars if they got 100mpg and
could be sold here.
--
derek
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| they aren't selling them in these three states. And we can't buy them
unless they have like 7500 miles on the odometer.
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Patterson wrote:
> Steve Spence wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If that were true, how is VW getting away with selling new turbodiesels in
> the Jetta and Passat?
>
>
>
| |
| Ford Prefect 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
|
mike mcXXXXXXXX wrote:
> BobG wrote:
>
>
> Heres what I want to know...
>
> For the average person, lets say they were to consume a gallon of
> vegatable oils... I'm confident that they can go more than 100 miles on
> a bicycle, albeit a little slower... But on the bright side, most
> americans have at least that much on their waistlines already... The
> first 100 miles is free.
Yeah, the human body is amazing, you can easily ride for an hour (10-15
miles)an barely burn up a donut. Most people I know are carrying the
pudge equivalent of a full tank of gas ;~)
| |
|
|
"Patterson" <RPatterson@dauphne.net> wrote in message
news:11hriv4b85c7f64@news.supernews.com...
> Steve Spence wrote:
>
>
>
>
> If that were true, how is VW getting away with selling new turbodiesels in
> the Jetta and Passat?
>
Well they can't sell them in Maine, Massachusetts and California as new. A
used or demo with 7500 or more miles can be sold.
Go figure.
| |
|
|
| mike mcwilliams 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| Duncan McNiven wrote:
> Donations in absolute terms, showing that Norwegians donated the most
> per head of population ($13.20) followed by the Swedes ($12.04), the
> Dutch ($9.16) the Australians ($5.23) and so on, down to the Americans
> with a donation of $1.08 per head, and the French, whose per head
> donation amounted to 80 US cents.
>
> If this example is typical - I don't know if it is - Americans give
> far less per head than many others.
>
Thats probably because the US has a very large slave class which can't
afford to donate 13$
| |
|
|
| Dave Hinz 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:36:39 -0400, Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
> yeh, too busy donating it to marlboro or budweiser twice a week .....
Oh, don't forget about lottery tickets. You know, the tax on people who
are bad at math...
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| I was thinking those as I hit the send button. slave class indeed, LOL.
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:36:39 -0400, Steve Spence <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, don't forget about lottery tickets. You know, the tax on people who
> are bad at math...
| |
| daestrom 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
|
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:95KdnZ2dnZ1pvSvrnZ2dnZAigd6dnZ2dRVn-zZ2dnZ0@adelphia.com...
>
> "Robert Morien" <PhD_failure@nousefulinfo.com> wrote in message
> news:PhD_failure-3729E0.12215305092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
>
> Those standards , as you should know, are to protect the automakers who
> are protecting the oil companies. It has nothing to do with driver safety.
What, another conspriacy theorist? How do padded dashboards help the
automaker or oil company? mandatory 3-point seat belts? collapsible
steering columns? automatic fuel shutoffs? Most of the standards that
aren't met by Europeans have nothing to do with automaker profitability or
gas mileage.
> They love to give you the illusion that you are number one and they are
> protecting you from your own stupidity but look again my blind as a bat
> fellow.
List a few of the US mandated standards that are not safety related and
benefit automakers and oil companies. Come, educate us poor blind
Americans. Wager that for every one you list, there are at least three
requirements that *are* safety related.
daestrom
| |
| daestrom 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
|
"Ford Prefect" <paintmeblue@pagan.org> wrote in message
news:AG6Te.4689$vN.256947@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>
> Bob Adkins wrote:
>
>
> That's what detroit said about the VW beetle, Datsun & Honda ;~)
Except they aren't all that ugly (well, okay, you have to learn to like the
beetle), and they aren't all that slow. Japanese cars do quite well at
freeway speeds. Would the 'mini' do as well?
daestrom
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:20:58 GMT, daestrom <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
> What, another conspriacy theorist? How do padded dashboards help the
> automaker or oil company? mandatory 3-point seat belts? collapsible
> steering columns? automatic fuel shutoffs? Most of the standards that
> aren't met by Europeans have nothing to do with automaker profitability or
> gas mileage.
Oddly enough, those aren't things the Europeans haven't been doing for
decades, either. Saab, at least, did the above in 1965, 1964, 1960, and
1970 or so, respectively. Presumably, features like _those_, which
don't add a lot of weight, aren't a problem for this magic 100MPG car
that you can't buy. But, the problem is they aren't safe in a freaking
_crash_.
The features are only part of what makes the car safe. The thing has to
absorb the impact before it's transferred to your body, or it won't be
much good from a safety perspective. I don't believe that the
technology exists to build a crashworthy 100MPG car that is usable for
the general population's driving needs.
[color=darkred]
> List a few of the US mandated standards that are not safety related and
> benefit automakers and oil companies. Come, educate us poor blind
> Americans. Wager that for every one you list, there are at least three
> requirements that *are* safety related.
He won't. He can't.
| |
|
|
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_KnTe.85190$Hx4.49391@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:95KdnZ2dnZ1pvSvrnZ2dnZAigd6dnZ2dRVn-zZ2dnZ0@adelphia.com...
>
> What, another conspriacy theorist? How do padded dashboards help the
> automaker or oil company? mandatory 3-point seat belts? collapsible
> steering columns? automatic fuel shutoffs? Most of the standards that
> aren't met by Europeans have nothing to do with automaker profitability or
> gas mileage.
>
>
> List a few of the US mandated standards that are not safety related and
> benefit automakers and oil companies. Come, educate us poor blind
> Americans. Wager that for every one you list, there are at least three
> requirements that *are* safety related.
>
> daestrom
The Europeans seem to get along just fine without all that silly
schizophrenic safety bullcrap. Most problems come from the nut behind the
wheel anyway and American is full of them.
| |
|
|
"Bob Adkins" <bobad@charter.net> wrote in message
news:qesph1tp1f8d6ihetp074enmt1fq50qn8m@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 09:00:48 -0400, "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> I have 1 of those. They're made in Japan now. Ford sold out New Holland
> quite a while back. But you're right about the engine. My 35 HP tractor
> can
> run all day long on 10 gallons of gas. It would push a 1000 pound car
> along
> just great. Turbo charge it, and it would be peppy in a 1300 pound car.
> --
> Bob
I'll bet they sold out to New Holland because it was too efficient.
They are trying to consume as much fuel as possible to help their buddy oil
companies.
Geo Metro used to get 58mpg. Chevy bought it and cut it down to 34 mpg for a
few model years then phased it out killing the most efficient gasoline
engine there was. It just didn't burn enough gas for their taste.
| |
| Bret Ludwig 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| I knew a guy who had a car that got 100 MPG. it was a MG Midget he put
a three cylinder lawn tractor diesel engine in with a turbo. It had 75
psi 90 series tires and had been lowered two inches.
I drove it on the highway-once. That was enough for me!
There was also an airplane that got 100 mpg-it cruised at 1 gph at 95
kts. Had an aluminum Onan two cylinder flathead engine. Onan was so
desperate to stop this they quit making this engine series!
| |
|
| danny burstein wrote:
> In <UN8Te.14526$aG.2648@trndny01> EA <antrobus3927@verizon.net> writes:
>
>
>
>
> Until last month, you could pick up a used Honda Insight
> for under $10k.... 60 plus mpg on highway, 35 in city
> (that's with a/c and automatic. manuals do better)
>
Affordable is in the eye of the beholder. In my life I've owned three
cars since I've started driving, and haven't spent half as much as a
used Insight (of which I haven't seen any) costs. Plus the figures you
listed are only double of my Camry.
| |
| Ford Prefect 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
|
daestrom wrote:
> "Ford Prefect" <paintmeblue@pagan.org> wrote in message
> news:AG6Te.4689$vN.256947@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>
>
> Except they aren't all that ugly (well, okay, you have to learn to like the
> beetle), and they aren't all that slow. Japanese cars do quite well at
> freeway speeds. Would the 'mini' do as well?
>
> daestrom
>
>
The first models that got here were slooooow and under powered. We had
one of the first small Japanese pickups that down hill with a tailwind
it might hit 75 and a Datsun ( B210?) with an automatic that sounded
like a Hoover vacuum when you floored it. It was like quote from
Shakespeare, " Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing ;~)
But they got great gas mileage and were pretty reliable.
| |
| nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:54:01 -0400, "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>"Bob Adkins" <bobad@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:qesph1tp1f8d6ihetp074enmt1fq50qn8m@4ax.com...
>
>I'll bet they sold out to New Holland because it was too efficient.
>They are trying to consume as much fuel as possible to help their buddy oil
>companies.
>Geo Metro used to get 58mpg. Chevy bought it and cut it down to 34 mpg for a
>few model years then phased it out killing the most efficient gasoline
>engine there was. It just didn't burn enough gas for their taste.
>
Nog, you are SOOOOO full of crap!!!
Chevy didn't buy Geo - Geo WAS Chevy. Suzuki made the nasty little
critter - GM just sold it. The fact they sold as many as they did
proves Americans (well, Canadians anyway - we bought lots more of them
than the Americans did) WILL buy "ugly slow" cars - although they were
not particularly ugly - and many of them were not particularly slow
either.
As for the 3 cyl tractor engines, New Holland WAS Ford's agricultural
division for many years - and there are lots of 3 cyl deisel tractors
around of the type you reference - Kubota, Yanmar, and a thousand
Chinese knock-offs.If the New Holland tractors are made in Japan
today, they were when they had the Ford name on them as well. The US
of A is not the only country in the world that builds farm tractors -
and the vast majority of even John Deere tractors are NOT built in the
US of A.
And New Holland is now part of CNH Industries.Guess what CNH stands
for?? Case New Holland. They make and sell Case, International, New
Holland, Steyr, and Kobelco equipment.
Take a look at http://www.cnh.com/about/history.asp to see what CNH
is, and where they came from.
| |
| nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 00:48:46 GMT, EA <antrobus3927@verizon.net> wrote:
>danny burstein wrote:
>Affordable is in the eye of the beholder. In my life I've owned three
>cars since I've started driving, and haven't spent half as much as a
>used Insight (of which I haven't seen any) costs. Plus the figures you
>listed are only double of my Camry.
My first car was a Morris 7 - also called a Mini- with an 850cc 4 cyl
engine. It was cramped - I'm about 6'2", and gutless (top speed in
third-60mph. Top speed in 4th, 55.) It was good for just under 50 MPG
(imperial). If it had been built well enough to stay together, it
would have been a hit here - but I think it was made of rust right
from the factory. At six years of age, it had a severely perforated
floor pan, and the rear subframe was like swiss cheese. The electrics
were abominable and it rode like a buckboard, which just made all of
it's other weaknesses more noticeable. Most fun to drive car I ever
owned, in spite of itself.
I also owned a Fiat 128L that likewize disintegrated out from under
itself - and was the most unreliable piece of scrap I ever owned.
Putting a B52 Generator into it in place of the engine was a great
improvement.
Had a Peugot 204 too. Pretty reasonable mileage - but the fact it was
off the road as much as it was on while I owned it contributed more to
it's fuel conservation (this was the early seventies) than its good
fuel mileage. When the Peugot was off the road, I drove a 1949 VW bug.
948?cc, maximum speed, downhill with a tailwind, was just over 45MPH,
and it was good for about 30MPG (imperial)
I also drove a couple of Toyota Starlets. Now THERE was a car I could
live with. I think it was 1300cc, fuel injected, and good for 65 MPG -
cruise all day at 80mph, and not too shabby getting there - but it
cost as much as a corolla, and it WAS kinda ugly. Not as ugly as the
UP7 (also known as the 7UP). The starlet was a KP - so essentially the
two were older and younger brothers. The UP7 was a 2 cyl air cooled
beast that came with a 2 speed toyoglyde transmission and could barely
get out of it's own way.
Here in Canada, the TDI SMART for2 is really catching on. 700cc
deisel?? Hate to get into an accident with one - you'd likely survive,
but you'd be in the next county before you knew what hit you - kida
like punting a football. So ugly it's cute.
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| That's usually when the smoke from a deisel engine overrides any other
consideration.
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:h9lTe.5870$Rd7.3595@fe11.lga...[color=darkred]
> Same in NY.
>
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
>
> Nog wrote:
>
A[color=darkred]
| |
| Gordon Richmond 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| They should make those Smart Cars with a row of tapped holes down the
side, so you could screw on coffin handles when the need arises. :> )
Gordon Richmond
| |
|
|
<nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca> wrote in message
news:pjhsh19rkde8gvk65dhqis00j1niujhpi1@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:54:01 -0400, "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> Nog, you are SOOOOO full of crap!!!
> Chevy didn't buy Geo - Geo WAS Chevy. Suzuki made the nasty little
No sonney, It was a Suzuki and sold as Geo Metro. Then Chevy bought it and
changed the name to Chevy Metro. Just as the Geo tracker was changed to
chevy tracker. They kept the Tracker because it only gets 22mpg. Isn't that
a suprise!
> critter - GM just sold it. The fact they sold as many as they did
> proves Americans (well, Canadians anyway - we bought lots more of them
> than the Americans did) WILL buy "ugly slow" cars - although they were
> not particularly ugly - and many of them were not particularly slow
> either.
>
> As for the 3 cyl tractor engines, New Holland WAS Ford's agricultural
> division for many years - and there are lots of 3 cyl deisel tractors
> around of the type you reference - Kubota, Yanmar, and a thousand
> Chinese knock-offs.If the New Holland tractors are made in Japan
> today, they were when they had the Ford name on them as well. The US
> of A is not the only country in the world that builds farm tractors -
> and the vast majority of even John Deere tractors are NOT built in the
> US of A.
>
> And New Holland is now part of CNH Industries.Guess what CNH stands
> for?? Case New Holland. They make and sell Case, International, New
> Holland, Steyr, and Kobelco equipment.
>
> Take a look at http://www.cnh.com/about/history.asp to see what CNH
> is, and where they came from.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| New diesels don't smoke. Old ones don't usually either when running
biodiesel/veggie oil.
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
Solar Flare wrote:
> That's usually when the smoke from a deisel engine overrides any other
> consideration.
>
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
> news:h9lTe.5870$Rd7.3595@fe11.lga...
>
>
> A
>
>
>
>
| |
| Robert Morien 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| In article <K5mdnZ2dnZ3M0SjwnZ2dnQRPgN6dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@adelphia.com>,
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
> "Patterson" <RPatterson@dauphne.net> wrote in message
> news:11hriv4b85c7f64@news.supernews.com...
> Well they can't sell them in Maine, Massachusetts and California as new. A
> used or demo with 7500 or more miles can be sold.
> Go figure.
So you are now publicly admitting that those cars are in fact not banned
in three states and that the feds/oil cartel have nothing to do with
your imaginary claim?
Go figure
| |
| Robert Morien 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| In article <xuedndSArLZMgYPeRVn-ow@adelphia.com>,
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
> "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:_KnTe.85190$Hx4.49391@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> The Europeans seem to get along just fine without all that silly
> schizophrenic safety bullcrap. Most problems come from the nut behind the
> wheel anyway and American is full of them.
So you are once again admitting that the Europeans are unable/unwilling
to make cars for the American Market, while Japan and Korea are
perfectly willing/able to do such.
Imagine that.
| |
| Robert Morien 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| In article <ia2dnSW67IKfg4PeRVn-3w@adelphia.com>,
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
> "Bob Adkins" <bobad@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:qesph1tp1f8d6ihetp074enmt1fq50qn8m@4ax.com...
>
> I'll bet they sold out to New Holland because it was too efficient.
Provide a cite to prove that.
> They are trying to consume as much fuel as possible to help their buddy oil
> companies.
Sure they are. No motor car company would ever benefit from producing a
truly fuel efficient car while everybody else isn't. Nope, they sure
wouldn't
> Geo Metro used to get 58mpg. Chevy bought it and cut it down to 34 mpg for a
> few model years then phased it out killing the most efficient gasoline
> engine there was. It just didn't burn enough gas for their taste.
Provide some proof for that
| |
| Robert Morien 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| In article <coKdnRSrE6CkBYDeRVn-2g@adelphia.com>,
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
> news:GkgTe.4509$Rd7.917@fe11.lga...
> I like mine. I've gotten 50 to 53mpg before. In the winter, 48 to 49.
> It's the highest mpg and the most efficient car in the US. That's why it's
> banned from sale in 3 states. It's called progress? Not
> The us is too stupid to copy it so they want to kill it.
> The really, really, stupid public still want's their gas guzzeling padded
> crib SUV's so they will be paying dearly for them at the pump.
> Oh well, it's only $140 to fill them up, what the hell.
Name one SUV that has a 50 gallon fuel tank
[color=darkred]
>
| |
| Robert Morien 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| In article <rffrh1hgr8ggnm0c2nrgobbos3l5b5rub4@4ax.com>,
Duncan McNiven <spamtrap@teamvavavoom.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:21:53 -0700, Robert Morien
> <PhD_failure@nousefulinfo.com> wrote:
>
>
> In what way do European cars fall short of American standards?
Nog asserts that the reason certain European cars are not sold in
America is due to a conspiracy. I assert that any car that meets federal
safety/environmental standards can be sold in the USA.
| |
|
|
|
|
"Robert Morien" <PhD_failure@nousefulinfo.com> wrote in message
news:PhD_failure-A75AAA.21241706092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <ia2dnSW67IKfg4PeRVn-3w@adelphia.com>,
> "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
> Provide a cite to prove that.
>
>
>
> Sure they are. No motor car company would ever benefit from producing a
> truly fuel efficient car while everybody else isn't. Nope, they sure
> wouldn't
>
>
> Provide some proof for that
Find your own proof on Edmund.com
| |
| Ford Prefect 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
|
nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 00:48:46 GMT, EA <antrobus3927@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> My first car was a Morris 7 - also called a Mini- with an 850cc 4 cyl
> engine. It was cramped - I'm about 6'2", and gutless (top speed in
> third-60mph. Top speed in 4th, 55.) It was good for just under 50 MPG
> (imperial). If it had been built well enough to stay together, it
> would have been a hit here - but I think it was made of rust right
> from the factory. At six years of age, it had a severely perforated
> floor pan, and the rear subframe was like swiss cheese. The electrics
> were abominable and it rode like a buckboard, which just made all of
> it's other weaknesses more noticeable. Most fun to drive car I ever
> owned, in spite of itself.
>
> I also owned a Fiat 128L that likewize disintegrated out from under
> itself - and was the most unreliable piece of scrap I ever owned.
> Putting a B52 Generator into it in place of the engine was a great
> improvement.
>
> Had a Peugot 204 too. Pretty reasonable mileage - but the fact it was
> off the road as much as it was on while I owned it contributed more to
> it's fuel conservation (this was the early seventies) than its good
> fuel mileage. When the Peugot was off the road, I drove a 1949 VW bug.
> 948?cc, maximum speed, downhill with a tailwind, was just over 45MPH,
> and it was good for about 30MPG (imperial)
>
> I also drove a couple of Toyota Starlets. Now THERE was a car I could
> live with. I think it was 1300cc, fuel injected, and good for 65 MPG -
> cruise all day at 80mph, and not too shabby getting there - but it
> cost as much as a corolla, and it WAS kinda ugly. Not as ugly as the
> UP7 (also known as the 7UP). The starlet was a KP - so essentially the
> two were older and younger brothers. The UP7 was a 2 cyl air cooled
> beast that came with a 2 speed toyoglyde transmission and could barely
> get out of it's own way.
>
> Here in Canada, the TDI SMART for2 is really catching on. 700cc
> deisel?? Hate to get into an accident with one - you'd likely survive,
> but you'd be in the next county before you knew what hit you - kida
> like punting a football. So ugly it's cute.
From what I've read the egg shaped design of the smart car is part of
it's safety features, apparently in crash tests it's done extremely well.
| |
| Ford Prefect 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
|
Gordon Richmond wrote:
> They should make those Smart Cars with a row of tapped holes down the
> side, so you could screw on coffin handles when the need arises. :> )
>
> Gordon Richmond
Doesn't sound like it needs them
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/040908.htm
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:48:57 -0400, Nog <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> The Europeans seem to get along just fine without all that silly
> schizophrenic safety bullcrap. Most problems come from the nut behind the
> wheel anyway and American is full of them.
You are being unfair to european carmakers. I listed a bunch of safety
improvements Saab has made, willingly, long before anyone else was doing
them or they were required. Mercedes, Volvo, and others also have
excellent histories in this regard. For you to pretend that Europeans
aren't safety-concious in their car design is just plain wrong.
What _is_ a problem is that this mythical 100 MPG car, is not
crash-worthy. I will not risk my life or my family to save money at the
pump. If I wanted something with great mileage that was dangerous, I'd
be back on a motorcycle.
| |
| someone@somewhere.org 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| In alt.energy.homepower Nog <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
> "Robert Maxim" <RMaxim@bellwest.org> wrote in message
> news:11hj6t2fgg5qk59@news.supernews.com...
[color=darkred]
> America is a fucking joke. VW Lupo gets 78mpg, Citroen in France has three
> models that get from 53 to 68mpg.
Canadian cars get 19% more mpg than identical US cars too!
Yes, they do get much better fuel economy, but don't forget to take into
account the fact that the rest of the world uses a 4.546 liter gallon
instead of a 3.785 liter gallon.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| Nog wrote:
>
> No sonney, It was a Suzuki and sold as Geo Metro. Then Chevy bought it and
> changed the name to Chevy Metro. Just as the Geo tracker was changed to
> chevy tracker.
Wrong. I don't know for sure about the Metro/Swift, but the Tracker was
made by CAMI in Canada. CAMI is a _joint_ venture of Suzuki and GM. I'm
fairly certain they were making the Swift/Metro too.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-09-13, 2:23 pm |
| someone@somewhere.org wrote:
> Canadian cars get 19% more mpg than identical US cars too!
>
> Yes, they do get much better fuel economy, but don't forget to take into
> account the fact that the rest of the world uses a 4.546 liter gallon
> instead of a 3.785 liter gallon.
Only if someone goes to the trouble of calculating mpg in the first place.
My cars get between 6 & 9 liters/100km. We _don't_ use a 4.546l gallon.
We get a full 4.546 l into 4.546 l. :-)
--
derek
| |
|
| Nog wrote:
> Tell it to the drug companies making the elderly eat dog food to pay
> for their super inflated drug prices.
Once again Nog, your answer doesn't have any bearing on the original
statement. Do you think the drugs fall as manna from heaven? For one,
most drug companies have programs in place for people who don't have
insurance to get their drugs for free or reduced prices, not to mention
that I pay for a whole lot of people to get their drugs from the
government. As to your retarded statement about people eating dog
food, they could do a lot better than dog food if they wanted to eat
cheap. Unfortunately, people like you who have turned the government
schools into social experiments instead of a place to learn have
produced folks that can't figure out what is most economical.
Regards,
Herb
| |
| someone@somewhere.org 2005-09-13, 2:24 pm |
| In alt.energy.homepower Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 07:51:22 +0000, Robert Maxim <RMaxim@bellwest.org>
> wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Just doing the physics, if the engine is near to 100 HP... let's say 85,
> there's no way it can get 100MPG. At some point, you run out of power
> (BTU's) in the fuel. Most of these assertions are just rumors and
> sensationalism.
> Internal combustion engines are just about topped out in efficiency. To get
> better mileage without performance suffering, you need to shed weight. Lots
> of weight. Lightweight construction materials are very expensive, so you
> won't see any 100 MPG 4 passenger vehicles any time soon.
I guess I don't understand why not. Please educate me.
I have 100HP engine that I use to accelerate my vehicle up to aerodynamic
vehicle up to a cruising speed of 60mph in some (few) number of seconds.
During that time I use a lot of fuel per distance. However, once at speed,
I utilize 15% of the engine's capacity to maintain this speed for the next
4 hours till I stop for gas/food/bathroom.
Why would I be using lots of fuel to maintain 60mph on a relatively flat
interstate highway just because the engine is capable of pushing the vehicle
much faster? Unless I'm going up hills, or constantly stopping why does
weight make any difference to my fuel consumption?
| |
| mike mcwilliams 2005-09-13, 2:24 pm |
| Herb wrote:
> Nog wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Once again Nog, your answer doesn't have any bearing on the original
> statement. Do you think the drugs fall as manna from heaven? For one,
> most drug companies have programs in place for people who don't have
> insurance to get their drugs for free or reduced prices, not to mention
Bull
> that I pay for a whole lot of people to get their drugs from the
> government. As to your retarded statement about people eating dog
> food, they could do a lot better than dog food if they wanted to eat
> cheap. Unfortunately, people like you who have turned the government
> schools into social experiments instead of a place to learn have
> produced folks that can't figure out what is most economical.
and a nasty cheap shot. Your educators have failed you. Look at the
international benchmark test results, look to the countries with the
highest scores, adopt the same curriculum, and hire foreign teachers
with the proper qualifications to teach it. It's not a hard concept, I
just solved your educational woes, and my advice is free. Americans are
too damn proud to admit problems like functional illiteracy though...
| |
|
| I have 100HP engine that I use to accelerate my vehicle up to
aerodynamic
vehicle up to a cruising speed of 60mph in some (few) number of
seconds.
During that time I use a lot of fuel per distance. However, once at
speed,
I utilize 15% of the engine's capacity to maintain this speed for the
next
4 hours till I stop for gas/food/bathroom.
Why would I be using lots of fuel to maintain 60mph on a relatively
flat
interstate highway just because the engine is capable of pushing the
vehicle
much faster? Unless I'm going up hills, or constantly stopping why
does
weight make any difference to my fuel consumption?
==================================================
HP required to maintain a certain speed depends on rolling friction
(about .01mg for radial tires) and air density, drag coeffcient, and
frontal area. For my small car, I timed how long it took to slow down
from 70 to 50, then played with the drag coeff in a little prog that
computed how much HP for a certain speed. to go 40,50,60 mph took
20,30,40 HP, so I claim it takes about 40HP to cruise down the hiway at
60. Thats 40% of your 100HP, not 15%, and 40HP at 40% effciency you can
compute exactly how many BTUs per mi and KWhr per mi and $/mi its
taking.
| |
| someone@somewhere.org 2005-09-13, 2:24 pm |
| In alt.energy.homepower BobG <bobgardner@aol.com> wrote:
> I have 100HP engine that I use to accelerate my aerodynamic
> vehicle up to a cruising speed of 60mph in some (few) number of
> seconds.
> During that time I use a lot of fuel per distance. However, once at
> speed,
> I utilize 15% of the engine's capacity to maintain this speed for the
> next
> 4 hours till I stop for gas/food/bathroom.
> Why would I be using lots of fuel to maintain 60mph on a relatively
> flat
> interstate highway just because the engine is capable of pushing the
> vehicle
> much faster? Unless | | |