Posted on 12/22/2007 3:22:32 PM PST by bruinbirdman
If a similar engine were to be optimized for performance, rather than fuel economy and then installed in a “freightliner SUV” I think it reasonable to assume the fuel economy would be similar to that of a semi.
I agree bush has earned a horsewipping.
I'm waiting for them to prevent all traffic fatalities by legislating a 10mph speed limit and requiring all cars and trucks to be made of Nerf. I've got to admit, though, it would be pretty impressive to see the technology that would go into a 10mph Nerf car.
Human sacrifice to the Goracle and his minions of Gorons..
This is not necessarily true.
As evidence I give you Indy Cars as an example. These cars can hit the wall at 200 miles per hour and the driver can walk away.
The car protects the driver by absorbing energy by deforming and shedding parts.
The draw back to this is that the car can not survive even one accident. The car is more or less disposable.
This is the direction I see the car companies going in. Cars will become engineered to disintegrate on impact sacrificing themselves for the occupants.
The truth in the article is that the cars will become much more expensive as will auto insurance. Because every car will be totaled in any accident car insurance cost will sky rocket, a single at fault claim on your insurance policy will be cause for cancellation of your policy. If you have a teen on your policy you will need a second mortgage to purchase a policy.
The good news is that old cars will easily survive a crash with these new cars.
Point me to where you find cars today are heavier than they were in the 1960s and 1970s. You can punch your car door today and dent it. Those 1960s and 70s cars had thicker steel (before rusting out of course).
I can’t believe this is totally true because it’s been argued in prior threads that one of the ways you get better fuel economy is less weight. With smaller 4 and 6 cylinder engines that are common today, even with computer fuel injection, the car has to be lighter.
Great. Now, we not only have to watch the Car of Tomorrow in NASCAR...we have to drive the things, too.
The new BMW 1-Series is weighing in at around 3300 lbs. A ‘76 BMW 2002 weighed just over 2000 lbs.
All the safety regulations have dramatically increased the weight of cars at the same time as fuel economy standards have reduced their size/efficiency.
Yes, but an Indy Car chassis starts at something like $100,000 and it doesn’t even have a cup holder.
Oh, please.
Zanardi didn’t walk away from his crash, and when F1 (and other race cars) hit the wall, they keep sliding. Take away their HANS and seats and belts and give them oncoming traffic and drunks and illegals and then let’s see how they do. People in Chevrolets walk away from crashes like Earnhardt’s every day of the week.
Yes but Chevys weigh more than 1200 pounds which is about what a car will have to weigh to get the mileage mandated by law.
Mass production does wonders to reduce cost. As for the cup holders well some sacrifices must be made my friend ;)
The last vehicle I bought and am still using was a used short wheel base three quarter ton 95 Dodge Hi-Top conversion van. This van has a much lower profile than a 1993 van of same description. The van has a notable lean to the right because of the ramp. Older vans we owned did not. To even make this work all seats but the front Captains chairs and rear bench were removed. The engine a V-6 is showing major early age wear due to the load. Its likely gonna go soon.
Our congress is out of touch with the everyday realities persons face. This law will hurt those who can least afford it. We will be forced next purchase {coming soon} to likely buy a one ton or bigger retired dually wheeled transit van. The lowrider vans with the cut out floor boards for wheel chairs will not make it up our driveway and again lack the needed power.
I would love to see someone who can afford it use one bad law to invalidate the other. In other words I love to see the ADA used to challenge the smaller vehicle laws as they are not suitable vehicles for drivers or riders confined to wheelchairs.
Since some environmentalists consider human life to be a threat to the earth, they think that the more humans they can kill off the better.
Most interesting arguments.
That isn't quite right. They are designed to perform to a level of torque production (performance). That is the primary optimization criterion. Secondarily, fuel usage is minimized, while not violating the constraint of torque production.
Well, idling, start and stop and low-load usage.
I’m pretty sure pickups are heavier now than than the 40 year old versions. But they’ve gotten bigger too.
But of course! But that will only work if we mandate the downsizing of animals that are commonly found on roadways. Like the Western Pennsylvania White Tailed Deer. We’ll have to mandate the downsizing of that animal to make any collisions between deer and small vehicle “Fair.”
And then there are those nasty bridge abutments, etc. Those will all have to be padded.
And, and, and,...
Government mandates have costs, in terms of lives and dollars. The sooner the liberals figure that out, the better.
SIGN ME UP!
Yup. Pre-zactly.
They’ve already got a resolution on that subject in Pennsylvania. They want to install GPS’s in every car to track miles driven within the state. George Orwell, Paging George Orwell.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.