PDA

View Full Version : And Detroit Caves (54MPG by 2025)



jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/29/2011, 11:35 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/29/president-to-announce-deal-to-boost-fuel-economy/?test=latestnews

Just can't wait for that 4 cylinder Corvette/Mustang

oumartin
7/29/2011, 11:42 AM
I believe mustand already made a four cylinder mustang a couple decades ago. Or a six that ran like a four

OULenexaman
7/29/2011, 11:43 AM
Jimmy Carter all over again...

texaspokieokie
7/29/2011, 11:50 AM
I believe mustand already made a four cylinder mustang a couple decades ago. Or a six that ran like a four

they had some 4s.

they had some 302 v-8s than ran like 4s.

i'll believe this kinda mileage when i see it.

grannies on mopeds.

dwarthog
7/29/2011, 11:52 AM
Jimmy Carter all over again...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

jumperstop
7/29/2011, 11:53 AM
So it's a bad thing to force car companies to make fuel efficient cars? Am I missing something? The technology is there, but they aren't going to put the money into research without the government making them.

jumperstop
7/29/2011, 11:54 AM
Hell I better have a flying nuclear powered car by 2025....

diverdog
7/29/2011, 11:57 AM
Jimmy Carter all over again...

You guys are unf**cking believable. You bitch because the government is too big and you bitch when they make some well thought out policy. The cost of keeping our oil supplies open in the ME is enormous and the quickest way to reduce dependence is through conservation. This is an issue of national security and quite honestly I could give a flying f**k if people need a kite to tow their car down the street. It is not worth all the lives of our best young people so some little dick hick can drive around in his hummer because he thinks it his god given right to do so.

sappstuf
7/29/2011, 12:02 PM
Good article on this..


“We’ll agree to anything that’s 15 years out,” a highly placed auto industry insider told me today about the fairy tale 54.5 mpg-by-2025 mandate for America’s auto fleet that Barack Obama and Big Auto execs will finally — officially — announce Friday in Washington.

The rule has no grounding in reality. An engineering rule of thumb is that gas engine efficiency improves by 1.5 percent a year (a gain that, in the cheap gas U.S. market, has traditionally gone to power upgrades rather than mpg improvements). The EPA’s rule will mandate that light trucks gain 3.5 percent a year and cars, 5 percent. Really.

It might as well mandate that the sun rise in the west three days a week.

No matter, say Detroit automakers who resisted the edict (well, as much as government-owned entities could resist government mandates, at any rate) until this week; they can live with it. Why? Because it screws Detroit’s competition (hey, government ownership has its advantages).

The whys of that turnabout provides insight into how much the industry has learned to play the D.C. game since the imposition of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE) 35 years ago.

Obama is on a mission to increase efficiency standards for ALL products to fight global warming — not just autos. The crucial difference between Big Bulb’s acceptance of light-bulb standards (the 20 lumens limit effectively eliminates the incandescent bulb) and Big Auto’s resistance to the 55-mpg standard (effectively eliminating the gas engine) has been one of cost. Big Bulb can make more money on the incandescent’s CFL alternative. Big Auto can’t make money on the gas engine’s electric alternative.

So they poured millions into lobbying to “fix” the standards to their liking — and disadvantage the competition. And that’s changed everything.

The original, 1975 CAFE standard — demanding a 40 percent increase in fuel efficiency — discriminated against Detroit which relied on bigger vehicles for its profits. As a result, CAFE tilted the field to foreign competitors and the Big Three struggled — until discovering the SUV loophole in the Nineties.

This time, a wiser Detroit lobbying team has reacted to Washington’s 100 percent increase in fuel economy by carving out special rules for its truck-heavy lineup, devising easily manipulated “footprints” by which each vehicle is judged, and negotiating massive federal subsidies to help automakers build the electrics that will gain the industry credits against the pie-in-the-sky standard (and that Obama has guaranteed the federal government will buy up for its own fleet).

As a result, it’s foreign automakers who are screaming this time. Toyota, Mercedes, and VW have all balked at the blatant foreign discrimination.

“It’s clearly inequitable and favors manufacturers of full size trucks,” one European executive told TheTruthAboutCars.com. “It could have an adverse effect on real world [gasoline] consumption by driving consumers to trucks.”

But they’ll come around. The loopholes in this bill are enormous. And automakers have 15 years to write more. “And if Romney gets elected, he’ll gut the rules anyway,” says my source.

“Remember the ZEV standard,” the source continues, referring to the inane California rule cooked up in 1990 that mandated that 10 percent of automakers’ cars sold in the state had to be “zero-emission- vehicles” by 2003 — or they could not sell any vehicles at all. This goal — like the 54.5 mpg number — was unworkable and “greens quickly realized that people would only hold on to their older cars when automakers were banned from selling new cars for not meeting the ZEV rule,” says the insider.

The new rule is just as daft. “This is a pipe dream,” the source continues. “There’s no science involved here. “

Of course, EPA’s green pawns in the media and the environmental movement get a thrill up their leg at the prospect of 54.5 mpg cars. “(The deal) likely will change how drivers shop for, interact with, and think about cars,” bleats the Detroit Free Press’s Aaron Kessler. “It’s really about looking at where we’re headed as a country,” cheered a spokesperson for the lefty Union of Concerned Scientists.

Nonsense. “Gas prices are the only thing that change consumer behavior,” my source says, pointing to hybrid sales’ high water mark of 3 percent of the market in 2008 when prices hit $4-a-gallon.

In the final amalysis, CAFE standards have become a play toy for utopians — and a weapon for automakers to hamstring their competition.

“In order to win the backing of the domestic automakers, the White House agreed to a review midway through the period, to ensure the new requirements are achievable, as well as granting credits that will make it easier for the companies to meet the revised standards. If the credit loopholes are too big and if overall fuel economy is not improved to the promised levels, an outcome that is definitely possible with the credit loophole, California could defect again, leaving the entire process back where it started,” reports TheTruthAboutCars.

Got that? No one else does either.

texaspokieokie
7/29/2011, 12:08 PM
if your talking about gasoline, there's only so much energy available in any given volume of gasoline. you can't get more.

will see lotsa mopeds.

diverdog
7/29/2011, 12:13 PM
if your talking about gasoline, there's only so much energy available in any given volume of gasoline. you can't get more.

will see lotsa mopeds.

Modern engines can be a lot more efficient.

jumperstop
7/29/2011, 12:43 PM
if your talking about gasoline, there's only so much energy available in any given volume of gasoline. you can't get more.

will see lotsa mopeds.

That's why cars in europe consistently get 40-50 mpg....right. They have the technology, it's just making it the standard.

GKeeper316
7/29/2011, 12:48 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/29/president-to-announce-deal-to-boost-fuel-economy/?test=latestnews

Just can't wait for that 4 cylinder Corvette/Mustang

have you seen the ss camaro's engine? or the charger's? they both shut off cylinders to conserve fuel when cruising. 54 mpg is possible without sacrificing on demand horsepower or torque.

we no longer need gigantic, inefficient, cast iron block V8s anymore.

don't get me wrong... my dream car is still a 69 cutlass convertible with the rocket 350, and 60s-70s american muscle cars should be considered national treasures and should be restored to thier original glory and maintained to be enjoyed forever!

mgsooner
7/29/2011, 12:51 PM
http://www.erynn.ca/assets/smart-car.jpg

delhalew
7/29/2011, 01:05 PM
Government botches everything they touch, especially commerce.

OULenexaman
7/29/2011, 01:07 PM
You guys are unf**cking believable. You bitch because the government is too big and you bitch when they make some well thought out policy. The cost of keeping our oil supplies open in the ME is enormous and the quickest way to reduce dependence is through conservation. This is an issue of national security and quite honestly I could give a flying f**k if people need a kite to tow their car down the street. It is not worth all the lives of our best young people so some little dick hick can drive around in his hummer because he thinks it his god given right to do so. somebody missed one the other night. ;)

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/29/2011, 01:47 PM
You guys are unf**cking believable. You bitch because the government is too big and you bitch when they make some well thought out policy. The cost of keeping our oil supplies open in the ME is enormous and the quickest way to reduce dependence is through conservation. This is an issue of national security and quite honestly I could give a flying f**k if people need a kite to tow their car down the street. It is not worth all the lives of our best young people so some little dick hick can drive around in his hummer because he thinks it his god given right to do so.

Yet saddenly Hummers are EXCLUDED from these requirements (as are trucks and other SUVs).

Let me put this another way. If you will notice there are only 3 car companies that are signing on for this -> GM, Ford, Chrysler. Right now, 2.4% of ALL new cars sold in the US are Hybrids of which the Prius is the top seller (As an aside, the F150 ALONE outsells them). Basically, the government is forcing the big 3 to sell an unpopular car without making any of their overseas competitors do the same.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/29/2011, 01:49 PM
So it's a bad thing to force car companies to make fuel efficient cars? Am I missing something? The technology is there, but they aren't going to put the money into research without the government making them.

US car companies make tons of fuel efficient cars...for Europe. No one buys them over here.

jumperstop
7/29/2011, 01:52 PM
US car companies make tons of fuel efficient cars...for Europe. No one buys them over here.

And that's why the governement is forcing them. People want cool efficient cars. Not the gay looking ones they have in Europe. The reason they don't sell over here is because they don't have to.

GrapevineSooner
7/29/2011, 01:52 PM
So it's a bad thing to force car companies to make fuel efficient cars? Am I missing something? The technology is there, but they aren't going to put the money into research without the government making them.

Therein lies the problem.

Government shouldn't be the driving force behind "innovation." That force has always been and always should be the market.

What happens when government forces a carmaker to make a car that nobody wants to buy?

jumperstop
7/29/2011, 01:54 PM
Yet saddenly Hummers are EXCLUDED from these requirements (as are trucks and other SUVs).

Let me put this another way. If you will notice there are only 3 car companies that are signing on for this -> GM, Ford, Chrysler. Right now, 2.4% of ALL new cars sold in the US are Hybrids of which the Prius is the top seller (As an aside, the F150 ALONE outsells them). Basically, the government is forcing the big 3 to sell an unpopular car without making any of their overseas competitors do the same.

This could be a concern, but I would hope that people would want to buy an American made 54 mpg car before a foreign made 30 mpg car. It would only force the overseas companies to follow suit.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/29/2011, 01:55 PM
Modern engines can be a lot more efficient.

Modern engines moved into the realm of diminishing returns 5 years ago with the variable cylinder technology. The problem with fuel efficiency of cars is not the engine, its the weight of the car. We had cars that got 60 MPG in 1988 (the Ford Fiesta) but the thing was a death trap. [Humorously, the Fiesta is still one of Ford's best sellers, but they sell it in Europe with a diesel engine and without all of the required safety items that the US requires.]

For example, I drive a 2010 car with a 5.4 supercharged engine. I get 19 MPG. Someone tossed that same engine into a 1967 Mustang Convertible and got 35 MPG. The difference? Curb Weight of that 67 was 2000 lbs lighter than my new car.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/29/2011, 01:58 PM
That's why cars in europe consistently get 40-50 mpg....right. They have the technology, it's just making it the standard.

Most cars in Europe are Diesel. I don't know if you know this, but diesel cars are hard as crap to sell in the US because of various reasons -> 1. The government taxing the ever loving crap out of it (it used to be 1/2 the price of gas, now its more), 2. the stigma from all the diesel lemons in the 80s, 3. the smell, 4. the availability of diesel sellers.

Sooner_Tuf
7/29/2011, 01:59 PM
Modern engines can be a lot more efficient.

Most of the energy released by burning gasoline is released as heat through the radiator. Engines have gotten a little more efficient since the 1950's but not a ton.

If you figure it out you'll be the first. Good Luck.

jumperstop
7/29/2011, 01:59 PM
Modern engines moved into the realm of diminishing returns 5 years ago with the variable cylinder technology. The problem with fuel efficiency of cars is not the engine, its the weight of the car. We had cars that got 60 MPG in 1988 (the Ford Fiesta) but the thing was a death trap. [Humorously, the Fiesta is still one of Ford's best sellers, but they sell it in Europe with a diesel engine and without all of the required safety items that the US requires.]

For example, I drive a 2010 car with a 5.4 supercharged engine. I get 19 MPG. Someone tossed that same engine into a 1967 Mustang Convertible and got 35 MPG. The difference? Curb Weight of that 67 was 2000 lbs lighter than my new car.

The real answer to the problem is hydrogen engines...which I thought five years ago we'd start seeing by now. Obama needs to demand the car companies start producing these and have government sponsored hydrogen fueling stations.

jumperstop
7/29/2011, 02:01 PM
Most cars in Europe are Diesel. I don't know if you know this, but diesel cars are hard as crap to sell in the US because of various reasons -> 1. The government taxing the ever loving crap out of it (it used to be 1/2 the price of gas, now its more), 2. the stigma from all the diesel lemons in the 80s, 3. the smell, 4. the availability of diesel sellers.

It can be done though. And I'm sure it can be done with unleaded as well. Just need to invest more in research. Honestly we need to drop fossil fuels for hydrogen, but that's another point.

sappstuf
7/29/2011, 02:02 PM
Don't forget that part of the deal for allowing Fiat to buy part of Chrylser was that Obama wanted a European fuel efficient car brought over..

I introduce you to the Obama 500!!! Err... Fiat 500!

http://www.carpages.co.uk/fiat/fiat-images/fiat-500-16-04-08.jpg

2012 model is on it's way.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/29/2011, 02:02 PM
This could be a concern, but I would hope that people would want to buy an American made 54 mpg car before a foreign made 30 mpg car. It would only force the overseas companies to follow suit.

Your hope would be ill-founded. People in the US already think that Foreign cars are better than US cars. You let anything else upset the parlay and you are talking about severe issues for the big 3.

BTW, the CBO estimated that these regulations would decrease new car sales by between 15 and 22%. Since the CBO is always wrong low, it would probably amount to 35-40%. At that point Ford would probably only sell trucks in the US.

Sooner_Tuf
7/29/2011, 02:04 PM
That's why cars in europe consistently get 40-50 mpg....right. They have the technology, it's just making it the standard.

Some cars in Europe get great mileage. Not all of them. The cars you are referring to are shoe boxes with diesel engines. None of them are available in the US. Not because the technology is so advanced but because they don't meet our safety and emission standards.

sappstuf
7/29/2011, 02:04 PM
Most of the energy released by burning gasoline is released as heat through the radiator. Engines have gotten a little more efficient since the 1950's but not a ton.

If you figure it out you'll be the first. Good Luck.

I think they have gotten much more efficient, but it has been in the form of higher horsepower versus miles per gallon, because that is what Americans wanted.

OULenexaman
7/29/2011, 02:08 PM
Most cars in Europe are Diesel. I don't know if you know this, but diesel cars are hard as crap to sell in the US because of various reasons -> 1. The government taxing the ever loving crap out of it (it used to be 1/2 the price of gas, now its more), 2. the stigma from all the diesel lemons in the 80s, 3. the smell, 4. the availability of diesel sellers. 5. the noise.

Sooner_Tuf
7/29/2011, 02:09 PM
Your hope would be ill-founded. People in the US already think that Foreign cars are better than US cars. You let anything else upset the parlay and you are talking about severe issues for the big 3.

BTW, the CBO estimated that these regulations would decrease new car sales by between 15 and 22%. Since the CBO is always wrong low, it would probably amount to 35-40%. At that point Ford would probably only sell trucks in the US.

Because lots of us bought sh!tty American cars and paid for ridiculous repairs over and over again. We watched other people drive their foreign cars forever and comparatively trouble free.

I'm sure GM builds some decent quality stuff today. I'll never know because I won't buy anything from them again. We've pumped so much money into them they ought to be giving us cars and pickups.

silverwheels
7/29/2011, 02:09 PM
I'm going for a Persu V3 in a few years, anyway.

picasso
7/29/2011, 02:09 PM
Pathetic.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/29/2011, 02:10 PM
Most of the energy released by burning gasoline is released as heat through the radiator. Engines have gotten a little more efficient since the 1950's but not a ton.

If you figure it out you'll be the first. Good Luck.

Ah, the laws of thermodynamics.

Diver,

The combustion engine works on the principle of expanding gas. When the Anes and Enes are combusted, the goal is to get them to form little molecules that disperse as quickly and as completely as possible. Injectors and Spark Control (with variable spark arcs) has gotten this to be about maximized.

jumperstop
7/29/2011, 02:10 PM
Because lots of us bought sh!tty American cars and paid for ridiculous repairs over and over again. We watched other people drive their foreign cars forever and comparatively trouble free.

I'm sure GM builds some decent quality stuff today. I'll never know because I won't buy anything from them again. We've pumped so much money into them they ought to be giving us cars and pickups.

GM's are the worst made cars...10 years and they will have gone belly up. Ford is the only decent American car maker left.

SoonerBread
7/29/2011, 02:10 PM
The new regulation is like trying to fight obesity by requiring clothing manufacturers to make and sell only size small clothes.

When a government tells a free enterprise what it can't do, and holds it hostage with either pure funding or tax breaks, say hello to socialism.

sappstuf
7/29/2011, 02:11 PM
Your hope would be ill-founded. People in the US already think that Foreign cars are better than US cars. You let anything else upset the parlay and you are talking about severe issues for the big 3.

BTW, the CBO estimated that these regulations would decrease new car sales by between 15 and 22%. Since the CBO is always wrong low, it would probably amount to 35-40%. At that point Ford would probably only sell trucks in the US.

The reason it would decrease sales is because of the cost to the consumer. Which means the consumer would then be driving older and less fuel efficient cars much longer, thus negating the new CAFE standards..

picasso
7/29/2011, 02:12 PM
GM's are the worst made cars...10 years and they will have gone belly up. Ford is the only decent American car maker left.

Says you and your opinion.

My dad's company has bought GMC trucks for 30 years and those things have been rock solid.

SoonerBread
7/29/2011, 02:13 PM
By the way...

On a recent trip from Broken Arrow to Del City and back, I averaged 29 mpg on the home half of the trip. In a 2010 Mustang GT. Manual transmission, no cylinder shut down.

jumperstop
7/29/2011, 02:14 PM
Says you and your opinion.

My dad's company has bought GMC trucks for 30 years and those things have been rock solid.

My opinion and the opinion of car buyers. Check out American car sales. GM is in the dump and Ford is the only one doing decent.

Sooner_Tuf
7/29/2011, 02:17 PM
I think they have gotten much more efficient, but it has been in the form of higher horsepower versus miles per gallon, because that is what Americans wanted.

Really we haven't. We make more horsepower out of smaller engines. In that regard they are more efficient. But a lot of that was simply building engines that rev higher and improvements in ignition.

But we aren't doing much better converting BTU's into motion. We still pour out almost the same ratios of heat through the radiator and the exhaust.

You will never overcome the losses generated by the brakes unless you never stop the vehicle.

Until you find a better way to use the energy contained in gasoline it won't get a lot better. The piston engine won't be getting much if any more efficient. Some of it is materials, some of it lubricants, most of it is physics.

The engine will have to take some entirely different form. Whatever that may be isn't even a spark in anyone's mind at this point.

picasso
7/29/2011, 02:18 PM
My opinion and the opinion of car buyers. Check out American car sales. GM is in the dump and Ford is the only one doing decent.

I'm not sure that's reflective of the product.

jumperstop
7/29/2011, 02:21 PM
I'm not sure that's reflective of the product.

How much something sells isn't reflective of the product? There probably are exceptions, but I would have to strongly disagree with that.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/29/2011, 02:29 PM
It can be done though. And I'm sure it can be done with unleaded as well. Just need to invest more in research. Honestly we need to drop fossil fuels for hydrogen, but that's another point.

Hydrogen is a dead end due to litigation. They'd show clips of the Hindenberg when some poor schmucks car asploded.

I think electric engines are the future, but high capacity batteries are a dead end. Harking back to the master of the electric engine, the end game will most likely be some kind of Tesla over the air transmission from cell like towers.

Which takes us full circle to our energy problem. The reason that fossil fuels dominate the energy landscape is that they are available on demand. Almost all of the "green" alternatives are only available during certain periods and do little to solve our dependence on oil.

Constant On Demand sources are grouped into 2 categories

1. Gravity Driven - Tidal/Waves/Hydro/Geo-Thermal
2. Sun Driven - Bio/Fossil/Off Planet Solar

Some of these require tech we don't have - Off Planet Solar would require a space elevator, Bio would require us to create organisms that run turbines, etc.

pphilfran
7/29/2011, 02:30 PM
CAFE standards don't drive consumer spending and high mileage vehicles...fuel prices drive sales...

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/29/2011, 02:30 PM
By the way...

On a recent trip from Broken Arrow to Del City and back, I averaged 29 mpg on the home half of the trip. In a 2010 Mustang GT. Manual transmission, no cylinder shut down.

My GT500 asks why you weren't using boost?

silverwheels
7/29/2011, 02:31 PM
So basically we just need to go back to riding horses.

pphilfran
7/29/2011, 02:31 PM
No need to add anything...JKM is doing a fine job...

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/29/2011, 02:34 PM
How much something sells isn't reflective of the product? There probably are exceptions, but I would have to strongly disagree with that.

In this the sales difference is mainly in the F150 brand. I think the only place that Chevy outsells Ford is in Texas.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/29/2011, 02:35 PM
So basically we just need to go back to riding horses.

or ride off on the women...

OULenexaman
7/29/2011, 02:35 PM
No need to add anything...JKM is doing a fine job.....he usually does...on another note some aliens should be along any day now with some new tech..

jumperstop
7/29/2011, 02:39 PM
Hydrogen is a dead end due to litigation. They'd show clips of the Hindenberg when some poor schmucks car asploded.

I think electric engines are the future, but high capacity batteries are a dead end. Harking back to the master of the electric engine, the end game will most likely be some kind of Tesla over the air transmission from cell like towers.

Which takes us full circle to our energy problem. The reason that fossil fuels dominate the energy landscape is that they are available on demand. Almost all of the "green" alternatives are only available during certain periods and do little to solve our dependence on oil.

Constant On Demand sources are grouped into 2 categories

1. Gravity Driven - Tidal/Waves/Hydro/Geo-Thermal
2. Sun Driven - Bio/Fossil/Off Planet Solar

Some of these require tech we don't have - Off Planet Solar would require a space elevator, Bio would require us to create organisms that run turbines, etc.

Teslas idea of wireless electronics is impossible. People have been trying to perfect that for 100 years or so.

NormanPride
7/29/2011, 02:44 PM
Once again, JKM is right. I think we need to make him dictator even against his will. Like Cincinnatus.

NormanPride
7/29/2011, 02:45 PM
Teslas idea of wireless electronics is impossible. People have been trying to perfect that for 100 years or so.
You need to watch more tech demonstrations. We use magnetic coupling to accomplish this in every day electronics now.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/29/2011, 02:45 PM
Teslas idea of wireless electronics is impossible. People have been trying to perfect that for 100 years or so.

Tesla coils would like to have a word with you.

sappstuf
7/29/2011, 02:45 PM
Teslas idea of wireless electronics is impossible. People have been trying to perfect that for 100 years or so.

Maybe we could cover every road in the US with a bumper cars screen... ;)

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/29/2011, 02:48 PM
I do think the idea of breeding chlorophyl organisms that expand/contract would be another interesting power source. The power output per unit would be small, but grouped together like a san it would have some decent power output. Of course, we could always hook Dean up to a matrix-like vat and have him rage the US through its power problems.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/29/2011, 02:49 PM
Maybe we could cover every road in the US with a bumper cars screen... ;)

Rubbin' is Racin'

jumperstop
7/29/2011, 02:50 PM
Tesla coils would like to have a word with you.

Telsa coils are a gimic. They don't provide any real energy to anything. You would have trouble powering a tv across the room, much less a car, house, or a city. Tesla's dream was to have a giant tower powering everything around it. Not to have something that could make a cool light show to music. Not a practical solution to future energy.

delhalew
7/29/2011, 02:50 PM
Therein lies the problem.

Government shouldn't be the driving force behind "innovation." That force has always been and always should be the market.

What happens when government forces a carmaker to make a car that nobody wants to buy?

Volt.

jumperstop
7/29/2011, 02:51 PM
You need to watch more tech demonstrations. We use magnetic coupling to accomplish this in every day electronics now.

I've seen mulitple Tesla shows and his idea to have wireless electricity is bascially impossible....

pphilfran
7/29/2011, 02:52 PM
Volt.

The Volt was years into development...the bailout had nothing to do with the Volt...

sappstuf
7/29/2011, 02:54 PM
The Volt was years into development...the bailout had nothing to do with the Volt...

Which is proof of why GM should have been allowed to die... :)

delhalew
7/29/2011, 02:57 PM
This could be a concern, but I would hope that people would want to buy an American made 54 mpg car before a foreign made 30 mpg car. It would only force the overseas companies to follow suit.

Yet most people who make your argument drive a BMW,Audi, or a Volkswagen because they are too ****ing cool for an American car.

delhalew
7/29/2011, 03:01 PM
The Volt was years into development...the bailout had nothing to do with the Volt...

I didn't mention the bailout. The pressure has been mounting to produce a battery powered ****box for years.

pphilfran
7/29/2011, 03:03 PM
I didn't mention the bailout. The pressure has been mounting to produce a battery powered ****box for years.

Nobody "forced" GM to build the Volt....why didn't Ford cave to the "pressure"...why didn't Chrysler cave to the "pressure"?

delhalew
7/29/2011, 03:08 PM
Because lots of us bought sh!tty American cars and paid for ridiculous repairs over and over again. We watched other people drive their foreign cars forever and comparatively trouble free.

I'm sure GM builds some decent quality stuff today. I'll never know because I won't buy anything from them again. We've pumped so much money into them they ought to be giving us cars and pickups.

Sadly, I agree. I'm a Chevy lover who will be buying Ford from this point on.

GKeeper316
7/29/2011, 03:09 PM
Therein lies the problem.

Government shouldn't be the driving force behind "innovation." That force has always been and always should be the market.

What happens when government forces a carmaker to make a car that nobody wants to buy?

it wasn't private industry that invented the single greatest technological advancement in human history... it was the department of defense. government funded research has always outpaced private industry.

delhalew
7/29/2011, 03:12 PM
Nobody "forced" GM to build the Volt....why didn't Ford cave to the "pressure"...why didn't Chrysler cave to the "pressure"?

Ford is already doing well in the compact market with the Focus.

NormanPride
7/29/2011, 03:13 PM
I've seen mulitple Tesla shows and his idea to have wireless electricity is bascially impossible....
Not Tesla. Magnetic resonance.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5834/83.abstract

jumperstop
7/29/2011, 03:18 PM
Not Tesla. Magnetic resonance.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5834/83.abstract

Well that's not what I said. Anyways, according to the abstract they can only send it 2 meters.


Using self-resonant coils in a strongly coupled regime, we experimentally demonstrated efficient nonradiative power transfer over distances up to 8 times the radius of the coils. We were able to transfer 60 watts with ∼40% efficiency over distances in excess of 2 meters. We present a quantitative model describing the power transfer, which matches the experimental results to within 5%. We discuss the practical applicability of this system and suggest directions for further study.


Powering a light bulb 2 meters away is different than the idea of powering cars driving down the road, or Tesla's idea to have homes powered wirelessly. I didn't say that was impossible to send power through the air, but to do it in a manner which Telsa dreamed is almost certainly impossible.

pphilfran
7/29/2011, 03:20 PM
Ford is already doing well in the compact market with the Focus.

The Chevy Cruze has outsold the Focus YTD...

GKeeper316
7/29/2011, 03:23 PM
Well that's not what I said. Anyways, according to the abstract they can only send it 2 meters.



Powering a light bulb 2 meters away is different than the idea of powering cars driving down the road, or Tesla's idea to have homes powered wirelessly. I didn't say that was impossible to send power through the air, but to do it in a manner which Telsa dreamed is almost certainly impossible.

its only impossible because someone has yet to figure out how to make it work.

200 years ago, manned flight was impossible.

sappstuf
7/29/2011, 03:27 PM
The Chevy Cruze has outsold the Focus YTD...

As a bonus, it didn't cost the taxpayers $7500 every time one was sold!

pphilfran
7/29/2011, 03:29 PM
its only impossible because someone has yet to figure out how to make it work.

200 years ago, manned flight was impossible.

I wouldn't hold my breath...

pphilfran
7/29/2011, 03:30 PM
As a bonus, it didn't cost the taxpayers $7500 every time one was sold!

Somehow I get the feeling you didn't like the GM bailout....:)

But, I already knew that as fact...

NormanPride
7/29/2011, 03:33 PM
Well that's not what I said. Anyways, according to the abstract they can only send it 2 meters.



Powering a light bulb 2 meters away is different than the idea of powering cars driving down the road, or Tesla's idea to have homes powered wirelessly. I didn't say that was impossible to send power through the air, but to do it in a manner which Telsa dreamed is almost certainly impossible.
8 times the radius of the coils. And you can simply embed the coils in the road and have a car charge itself while waiting at a stoplight. I'm not the mechanical or electrical genius here, so I only know it can be done.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/29/2011, 03:39 PM
8 times the radius of the coils. And you can simply embed the coils in the road and have a car charge itself while waiting at a stoplight. I'm not the mechanical or electrical genius here, so I only know it can be done.

pfft, make the stop lights the coils

pphilfran
7/29/2011, 03:46 PM
Are the new standards strictly for emissions?

Anyone know if NG in passenger vehicles is mentioned?

NormanPride
7/29/2011, 03:51 PM
pfft, make the stop lights the coils
Them be huge stoplights, then. I was thinking in the road, so the tech could be re-purposed to be used on highways and such.

Condescending Sooner
7/29/2011, 03:53 PM
it wasn't private industry that invented the single greatest technological advancement in human history... it was the department of defense. government funded research has always outpaced private industry.

What advancement was that? I would say most world changing inventions have been from private inventors.

pphilfran
7/29/2011, 03:55 PM
How much would it cost to bury enough coils to supply the traffic down HE Bailey?

NormanPride
7/29/2011, 03:55 PM
The internet.

sappstuf
7/29/2011, 03:59 PM
Somehow I get the feeling you didn't like the GM bailout....:)

But, I already knew that as fact...

How was GM different than Pan Am? There should be natural repercussions to bad decisions and a bad business model.

pphilfran
7/29/2011, 04:02 PM
How was GM different than Pan Am? There should be natural repercussions to bad decisions and a bad business model.

Not now....I got a headache...


We didn't save em...they still went under...and Chrysler, they ain't even US owned...

My problem is we waited too long to get the bk underway...we let em dangle by a hangman's rope for 6 months while they used up the rest of their cash on hand and then gave them operating money...

pphilfran
7/29/2011, 04:04 PM
Oh, and the bondholders got screwed...

sooner_born_1960
7/29/2011, 04:11 PM
If an auto maker can produce and sell a 54 MPG car, good for them. The market should drive this.

sappstuf
7/29/2011, 04:14 PM
Oh, and the bondholders got screwed...

That is a completely different subject, but it would give me a headache as well! :)

Hope you feel better.

jumperstop
7/29/2011, 04:15 PM
8 times the radius of the coils. And you can simply embed the coils in the road and have a car charge itself while waiting at a stoplight. I'm not the mechanical or electrical genius here, so I only know it can be done.

At that point it'd probably be more energy efficient to have electric magnetic strips that just guide the car magnetically while on those roads and then switch back to whatever other fuel source the car runs on for roads without the strips. But that ain't happening in my lifetime.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/29/2011, 04:50 PM
mag lev is mainly useful for freight purposes in the US.

NormanPride
7/29/2011, 04:51 PM
Yup. Weight vs. power needed to move it, yes?

diverdog
7/29/2011, 05:02 PM
Hydrogen is a dead end due to litigation. They'd show clips of the Hindenberg when some poor schmucks car asploded.

I think electric engines are the future, but high capacity batteries are a dead end. Harking back to the master of the electric engine, the end game will most likely be some kind of Tesla over the air transmission from cell like towers.

Which takes us full circle to our energy problem. The reason that fossil fuels dominate the energy landscape is that they are available on demand. Almost all of the "green" alternatives are only available during certain periods and do little to solve our dependence on oil.

Constant On Demand sources are grouped into 2 categories

1. Gravity Driven - Tidal/Waves/Hydro/Geo-Thermal
2. Sun Driven - Bio/Fossil/Off Planet Solar

Some of these require tech we don't have - Off Planet Solar would require a space elevator, Bio would require us to create organisms that run turbines, etc.

Actually this is completely wrong on the hydrogen issue.
I know several people working on hydrogen and the biggest hurdles are not explosions. They are storing hydrogen in compounds that are stable. The biggest issue is refueling time and absorption rates. It takes something like 16 hours to fuel a car to go 300 miles. That is not a marketable product. They are getting a better handle on it but it is decades before these products come to market.

soonercruiser
7/29/2011, 05:04 PM
So it's a bad thing to force car companies to make fuel efficient cars? Am I missing something? The technology is there, but they aren't going to put the money into research without the government making them.

Yes! You missed the Constitution!
Oh, just throw it in the crapper and let the Obama administration do whatever it wants.
54 MPG???!!!

Only those federal government offficals that recently got the big pay raises can afford $50+K for little Volt in this economy!

Americans do not want to drive around the highways at 70 mph in a little can!
Many Americans need to haul stuff.
He11! I couldn't even get my golf clubs in a Fiat 500!
To survive in a capitalistic economy, Detroit must build cars that Americans will buy.

Wonder what the "deal" was behind closed doors?
Some kind of (more than) veiled threat, I'll bet.
:rolleyes:

GKeeper316
7/29/2011, 05:06 PM
Yes! You missed the Constitution!
Oh, just throw it in the crapper and let the Obama administration do whatever it wants.
54 MPG???!!!

Only those federal government offficals that recently got the big pay raises can afford $50+K for little Volt in this economy!

Americans do not want to drive around the highways at 70 mph in a little can!
Many Americans need to haul stuff.
He11! I couldn't even get my golf clubs in a Fiat 500!
To survive in a capitalistic economy, Detroit must build cars that Americans will buy.

Wonder what the "deal" was behind closed doors?
Some kind of (more than) veiled threat, I'll bet.
:rolleyes:

regardless of any other consideration?

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/29/2011, 06:38 PM
Actually this is completely wrong on the hydrogen issue. I know several people working on hydrogen and the biggest hurdles are not explosions. They are storing hydrogen in compounds that are stable. The biggest issue is refueling time and absorption rates. It takes something like 16 hours to fuel a car to go 300 miles. That is not a marketable product. They are getting a better handle on it but it is decades before these products come to market.

Its not marketable because its too easy to litigate. All it takes is one malfunction and the lawsuits would be horrendous. Look at the runaway prius stuff...

texaspokieokie
7/29/2011, 07:15 PM
That's why cars in europe consistently get 40-50 mpg....right. They have the technology, it's just making it the standard.

little bitty cars with diesels.

we'll all be in diesel "Smart" cars.

actually, i think turbo-charged diesels is the way to go.

texaspokieokie
7/29/2011, 07:17 PM
have you seen the ss camaro's engine? or the charger's? they both shut off cylinders to conserve fuel when cruising. 54 mpg is possible without sacrificing on demand horsepower or torque.

we no longer need gigantic, inefficient, cast iron block V8s anymore.

don't get me wrong... my dream car is still a 69 cutlass convertible with the rocket 350, and 60s-70s american muscle cars should be considered national treasures and should be restored to thier original glory and maintained to be enjoyed forever!

chevy pick-ups shut off cylinders when cruising.
my 07 does.

texaspokieokie
7/29/2011, 07:18 PM
Yet saddenly Hummers are EXCLUDED from these requirements (as are trucks and other SUVs).

Let me put this another way. If you will notice there are only 3 car companies that are signing on for this -> GM, Ford, Chrysler. Right now, 2.4% of ALL new cars sold in the US are Hybrids of which the Prius is the top seller (As an aside, the F150 ALONE outsells them). Basically, the government is forcing the big 3 to sell an unpopular car without making any of their overseas competitors do the same.

they don't make hummers anymore.

texaspokieokie
7/29/2011, 07:22 PM
Modern engines moved into the realm of diminishing returns 5 years ago with the variable cylinder technology. The problem with fuel efficiency of cars is not the engine, its the weight of the car. We had cars that got 60 MPG in 1988 (the Ford Fiesta) but the thing was a death trap. [Humorously, the Fiesta is still one of Ford's best sellers, but they sell it in Europe with a diesel engine and without all of the required safety items that the US requires.]

For example, I drive a 2010 car with a 5.4 supercharged engine. I get 19 MPG. Someone tossed that same engine into a 1967 Mustang Convertible and got 35 MPG. The difference? Curb Weight of that 67 was 2000 lbs lighter than my new car.

i don't think there's 2000 lbs difference. 67s had to weigh around 3000.

texaspokieokie
7/29/2011, 07:28 PM
Most of the energy released by burning gasoline is released as heat through the radiator. Engines have gotten a little more efficient since the 1950's but not a ton.

If you figure it out you'll be the first. Good Luck.

engines are MUCH more efficient than they were in the 50s.

50 olds had 303 cu in @ 135 hp.
engines got much larger toward end of 50s (and into 60s) & developed gobs o power, but they were "gas hogs". that's not efficient.

i drove a 67 Pontiac (400 cu in, 350 hp) on a 5000 mi trip. got 12 mpg.
that's efficient ??

engines are much more efficient & mostly, much much more reliable.

texaspokieokie
7/29/2011, 07:34 PM
GM's are the worst made cars...10 years and they will have gone belly up. Ford is the only decent American car maker left.

i've had many gm cars & also several fords. (like a total of 40) & i like their products very much.

i have 3 gm cars now (wife & i) & i think they're great !!!!

GottaHavePride
7/29/2011, 07:59 PM
Don't forget that part of the deal for allowing Fiat to buy part of Chrylser was that Obama wanted a European fuel efficient car brought over..

I introduce you to the Obama 500!!! Err... Fiat 500!

http://www.carpages.co.uk/fiat/fiat-images/fiat-500-16-04-08.jpg

2012 model is on it's way.

Um, you realize that car was so popular they sold out the first year's production run in three weeks?

Hell, watch Top Gear's test of the Abarth 500 and then tell me you wouldn't drive one of those.

diverdog
7/29/2011, 08:02 PM
Its not marketable because its too easy to litigate. All it takes is one malfunction and the lawsuits would be horrendous. Look at the runaway prius stuff...


Prius's are still on the road. There have been huge issues with gas tanks in all sorts of vehicles. Hydrogen is no more dangerous than gasoline. The blimp burned because of the coating on the air frame covering not from the hydrogen.

delhalew
7/29/2011, 09:00 PM
chevy pick-ups shut off cylinders when cruising.
my 07 does.

So did my 08, not that I found it to be very impressive.

sappstuf
7/29/2011, 09:15 PM
Um, you realize that car was so popular they sold out the first year's production run in three weeks?

Hell, watch Top Gear's test of the Abarth 500 and then tell me you wouldn't drive one of those.

There are a lot of popular cars in Europe that are nothing more than a niche market over here.

Most families over there that even have children don't have more than one... So they will squeeze into one of those as their primary car. That isn't happening over there.

It is a glorified Mini Cooper or VW Bug. Good for single women and that is about it...

JDMT
7/29/2011, 09:20 PM
I have a GTO.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/30/2011, 04:35 PM
actually, i think turbo-charged diesels is the way to go.

Most diesels use some form of forced air induction to get the compression ratio in the cylinders up. The new dual turbo-charging systems show some seroius promise (big turbo for low speeds, smaller turbo for higher speeds).

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/30/2011, 04:36 PM
Prius's are still on the road. There have been huge issues with gas tanks in all sorts of vehicles. Hydrogen is no more dangerous than gasoline. The blimp burned because of the coating on the air frame covering not from the hydrogen.

We are talking about a jury here. Facts aren't nearly as important as sensationalism.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/30/2011, 04:48 PM
i don't think there's 2000 lbs difference. 67s had to weigh around 3000.

stock weight was 3200 but most of the rebuilds were coming in at 2700 or so by replacing a lot of the stock cast iron components with aluminum.

this was a rebuild I was considering...

http://www.modularfords.com/forums/f30/supercharged-4-6l-67-mustang-fastback-175703/

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/30/2011, 04:59 PM
engines are MUCH more efficient than they were in the 50s.

50 olds had 303 cu in @ 135 hp.
engines got much larger toward end of 50s (and into 60s) & developed gobs o power, but they were "gas hogs". that's not efficient.

i drove a 67 Pontiac (400 cu in, 350 hp) on a 5000 mi trip. got 12 mpg.
that's efficient ??

engines are much more efficient & mostly, much much more reliable.

maximum efficiency for an IC is around 37% (current engines are at 28-29%) so both of you are correct.

It might be very possible for that 1950s engine to approach the efficiency of a modern engine because it isn't constrained by emission equipment. For example, catalytic converters require a constant F/A mixture that is mechanically inefficient.

diverdog
7/30/2011, 08:45 PM
We are talking about a jury here. Facts aren't nearly as important as sensationalism.

Lol. This is true.

BudSooner
7/30/2011, 09:54 PM
Um, you realize that car was so popular they sold out the first year's production run in three weeks?

Hell, watch Top Gear's test of the Abarth 500 and then tell me you wouldn't drive one of those.I see your Abarth, and raise you a Veyron...


Top speed fuel economy 3 miles per U.S. gallon (78 L/100 km; 3.6 mpg-imp), or 1.4 U.S. gal (5.3 L; 1.2 imp gal) per minute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Veyron

Veritas
7/30/2011, 11:13 PM
Don't forget that part of the deal for allowing Fiat to buy part of Chrylser was that Obama wanted a European fuel efficient car brought over..

I introduce you to the Obama 500!!! Err... Fiat 500!

http://www.carpages.co.uk/fiat/fiat-images/fiat-500-16-04-08.jpg

2012 model is on it's way.
I can't wait for that silly thing to hit the streets so I can give it the same smoking burnout treatment I give any Prius or Smartcar that pulls up behind me at a stoplight. ;)

goingoneight
7/31/2011, 12:28 AM
I may be off here, but I think a reason among many America's oil consumption is so high is because it's WAY too easy for the average DUMBASS to get behind a wheel.

texaspokieokie
7/31/2011, 08:53 AM
stock weight was 3200 but most of the rebuilds were coming in at 2700 or so by replacing a lot of the stock cast iron components with aluminum.

this was a rebuild I was considering...

http://www.modularfords.com/forums/f30/supercharged-4-6l-67-mustang-fastback-175703/

67 & 68s were my favorite mustangs. (almost the same) strongly considered buying a 67 but fastback, but decided it was too small. bought a 67 gran prix instead.

the car in pictures looks much like an "eleanor".

i've seen (go to lotsa car shows) an old mustang & about a 67 fairlane
that had front suspension like a mustang II. looked like it works out great.
getting rid of shock towers gives a bunch of space.

whoever said (in a previous post) that his new mustang is 2000 lbs
heavier than a 67 didn't check his numbers.

BudSooner
7/31/2011, 09:16 AM
67 & 68s were my favorite mustangs. (almost the same) strongly considered buying a 67 but fastback, but decided it was too small. bought a 67 gran prix instead.

the car in pictures looks much like an "eleanor".

i've seen (go to lotsa car shows) an old mustang & about a 67 fairlane
that had front suspension like a mustang II. looked like it works out great.
getting rid of shock towers gives a bunch of space.

whoever said (in a previous post) that his new mustang is 2000 lbs
heavier than a 67 didn't check his numbers.I would say the new model is "slightly" heavier.

texaspokieokie
7/31/2011, 09:19 AM
I would say the new model is "slightly" heavier.

me too.

pphilfran
7/31/2011, 09:31 AM
A 65 Fastback weighed around 2600 lbs...

A 2011 Mustang weighs around 3600...

I owned a 67 coupe while in high school...three 65 K Code fastbacks since...

CrimsonKel
7/31/2011, 10:07 AM
I wish our supply of fossil fuels was infinite but it isn't. The easy oil has been found and produced. Any new fossil fuels we find in the future are going to be more expensive to produce than what we're producing now.

We're all about cost here. We'll start using hydrogen as a fuel when its cheaper than fossil fuels. I suspect we'll figure out ways of using hydrogen that make it more economical and convenient when we have to. Necessity is the mother of invention. Right now we don't have to use hydrogen so we use what's cheaper.

The Government is doing a worried mother thing and no one likes being told what to do.

In the 80s, the Honda CRX HF got about 54 mpg on the highway if memory serves so its possible to make a car that does that.

Hydrogen floats away to burn whereas gasoline stays right there with the driver and passengers to burn. We're just used to the fossil fuels risk so we're not as scared of it. I've noticed the signs going up at gas stations about how we shouldn't get back in our cars when fueling due to the risk of a spark of static electricty starting a gasoline fire so gasoline is pretty dangerous too.

It occurs to me that we may not need to worry about any of this if the economy keeps going the way it is. Only about .5 percent of the world's population will be able to afford cars if things keep going the way they are.

texaspokieokie
7/31/2011, 10:08 AM
A 65 Fastback weighed around 2600 lbs...

A 2011 Mustang weighs around 3600...

I owned a 67 coupe while in high school...three 65 K Code fastbacks since...

so 67s were several hundred lbs heavier than 65s.

Veritas
7/31/2011, 10:42 AM
I wish our supply of fossil fuels was infinite but it isn't. The easy oil has been found and produced. Any new fossil fuels we find in the future are going to be more expensive to produce than what we're producing now.
Bull****. The easy oil is sitting under layers of paper created by the environmental lobby and their political lackeys.


We're all about cost here. We'll start using hydrogen as a fuel when its cheaper than fossil fuels. I suspect we'll figure out ways of using hydrogen that make it more economical and convenient when we have to. Necessity is the mother of invention. Right now we don't have to use hydrogen so we use what's cheaper.
So how are we going to create all this hydrogen? Electrolysis? Do you realize that the best way to obtain hydrogen is as a byproduct of the breakdown of coal and oil and that this is still horribly energy inefficient?


The Government is doing a worried mother thing and no one likes being told what to do.
No, Obama is pushing an environmentalist agenda that uses as justification the artificial scarcity of oil created by the same environmentalist agenda.


In the 80s, the Honda CRX HF got about 54 mpg on the highway if memory serves so its possible to make a car that does that.
Yes, a 1.5 liter motor that made a paltry 64 horsepower.


Hydrogen floats away to burn whereas gasoline stays right there with the driver and passengers to burn. We're just used to the fossil fuels risk so we're not as scared of it. I've noticed the signs going up at gas stations about how we shouldn't get back in our cars when fueling due to the risk of a spark of static electricty starting a gasoline fire so gasoline is pretty dangerous too.
Non sequitor. The signs at gas stations are placed there by corporate lawyers trying to head off litigious PI lawyers at the pass. Watch the Mythbusters where they tried to get a cell phone to light a gas explosion. It's damn near impossible.

Furthermore, faster evaporation hardly equals greater safety as evaporation leads to explosions which are far more dangerous in nature than burning. Hydrogen will explode when mixed with air from 5% to 70% in saturation. Gasoline, on the other hand, only ignites in concentrations from 4% to 8%.

In other words, madly simplified, gas will explode at 4% of the range, hydrogen at 65%.


It occurs to me that we may not need to worry about any of this if the economy keeps going the way it is. Only about .5 percent of the world's population will be able to afford cars if things keep going the way they are.
:rolleyes: 0.5%? Did you just make that up?

Why am I not surprised that you're a 10/2010 registrant? (Yes, I know, ad hominem)

soonercruiser
7/31/2011, 01:46 PM
I can't wait for that silly thing to hit the streets so I can give it the same smoking burnout treatment I give any Prius or Smartcar that pulls up behind me at a stoplight. ;)

Being on a onramp behind a Prius, is like being in NASCAR race with new tires and a full tank, at the green flag behind someone who stayed out during a caution.
(Do they only have two gears?)

CrimsonKel
7/31/2011, 02:52 PM
Bull****. The easy oil is sitting under layers of paper created by the environmental lobby and their political lackeys.



That's good news about there being easy oil left. Its one less thing to worry about. Makes me feel better.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
7/31/2011, 03:07 PM
A 65 Fastback weighed around 2600 lbs...

A 2011 Mustang weighs around 3600...

I owned a 67 coupe while in high school...three 65 K Code fastbacks since...


the 67 coupe is also mostly cast iron, when you do a rebuild you replace a lot of those parts with aluminum (wheels, etc). Its curb weight drops into the 22-2500 range depending on what you alum/titaniuminize.

I was using the 2010 GT500 which clocks in at 4100 according to the door plate. the 2011 has an all aluminum motor which knocks off 300 lbs.

pphilfran
7/31/2011, 04:01 PM
the 67 coupe is also mostly cast iron, when you do a rebuild you replace a lot of those parts with aluminum (wheels, etc). Its curb weight drops into the 22-2500 range depending on what you alum/titaniuminize.

I was using the 2010 GT500 which clocks in at 4100 according to the door plate. the 2011 has an all aluminum motor which knocks off 300 lbs.

You can remove a couple hundred pounds reasonably easily...four or five hundred gets a lot tougher...

I have taken about 250 lbs out of my 911...no a/c...only heat on drivers side....no soundproofing...no smog...cleaned things up nicely...

A stock SC...not mine...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/stocksc.jpg

My car...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/motor028.jpg

picasso
7/31/2011, 04:09 PM
Easy oil? Are you kidding?

texaspokieokie
8/1/2011, 09:13 AM
the 67 coupe is also mostly cast iron, when you do a rebuild you replace a lot of those parts with aluminum (wheels, etc). Its curb weight drops into the 22-2500 range depending on what you alum/titaniuminize.

I was using the 2010 GT500 which clocks in at 4100 according to the door plate. the 2011 has an all aluminum motor which knocks off 300 lbs.

67 coupe is listed @ about 3400. tuff to get it down to 22-2500 range. cast iron wheels. nothing was said about "rebuild".
:)

texaspokieokie
8/1/2011, 09:20 AM
So did my 08, not that I found it to be very impressive.

me neither.

C&CDean
8/1/2011, 09:31 AM
Lotsa geek going on in this thread.

Did jkm say I was full of hot air?

I own exclusively Fords. I've owned them all, worked on them all, and I'll keep driving Fords until they do something stupid. My 09 F-150 averages 19mpg according to the computer. 4.6 liter V-8. Momma's 2010 Fusion averages 31mpg according to the computer. 4-cyl, 6 speed auto. My farm trucks suck *** at mileage. My newest one is an 09 F-350 and it averages 9.5mpg on 6.4 liter diesel. Ouch. However, I'll take the durability/driveability/torque all day for what I use them for.

stoops the eternal pimp
8/1/2011, 09:50 AM
I'll take the durability/driveability/torque all day for what I use him for.

This is what I tell people about you dean

C&CDean
8/1/2011, 09:51 AM
And you would be correct sir.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
8/1/2011, 12:16 PM
67 coupe is listed @ about 3400. tuff to get it down to 22-2500 range. cast iron wheels. nothing was said about "rebuild".
:)

well, dropping a terminator/modern engine in the car means a fairly extensive rebuild ;)

BudSooner
8/1/2011, 01:14 PM
Lotsa geek going on in this thread.

Did jkm say I was full of hot air?

I own exclusively Fords. I've owned them all, worked on them all, and I'll keep driving Fords until they do something stupid. My 09 F-150 averages 19mpg according to the computer. 4.6 liter V-8. Momma's 2010 Fusion averages 31mpg according to the computer. 4-cyl, 6 speed auto. My farm trucks suck *** at mileage. My newest one is an 09 F-350 and it averages 9.5mpg on 6.4 liter diesel. Ouch. However, I'll take the durability/driveability/torque all day for what I use them for.I agree, my 01 Dodge 1/2 ton hauls all I want it to and since I have a work vehicle assigned to me the truck is not driven that much except running errands and hauling stuff for hunting/fishing so I can deal with it.
It averages, best I can calculate 14MPG city 19MPG hwy and that is just fine with me. Some have bitched about the 5.9L being a gas hog but it's more how you drive it, it's got plenty of torque for what I need and that includes hauling a 21' pontoon boat.

texaspokieokie
8/1/2011, 04:14 PM
well, dropping a terminator/modern engine in the car means a fairly extensive rebuild ;)

yeah, those OHC engines are kinda wide & then you have all that wiring with the computers & stuff. 289s weren't heavy, (i know, cast iron heads & block)
but some had 390s which were kinda big for the mustang engine bay.

289s were physically smaller & lighter than chevy small blocks.

don't know if you can find a point in there, but i think i'm basically agreeing with you.

Condescending Sooner
8/1/2011, 05:06 PM
[QUOTE=CrimsonKel;3305928]

Hydrogen floats away to burn whereas gasoline stays right there with the driver and passengers to burn. We're just used to the fossil fuels risk so we're not as scared of it. I've noticed the signs going up at gas stations about how we shouldn't get back in our cars when fueling due to the risk of a spark of static electricty starting a gasoline fire so gasoline is pretty dangerous too. [QUOTE]

Did you know you could throw a lit cigarette into a bucket of gasoline and it just goes out? I have seen it done. (from a distance)