In article <1171473186.156454.325580@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups. com>,
isquat@gmail.com wrote:

> > I agree it's impossible with the engine design and materials that go into
> > cars these days. Way too inefficient and way to heavy.
> >
> Only the cars that joe schmoe is buying.

Joe Schmoe doesn't have a choice.

The current Civic Si is several hundred pounds heavier than the 92 Civic
Si. That's how they build it. It has multiple airbags, etc.

 

In article <1171473186.156454.325580@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups. com>,
isquat@gmail.com wrote:

> > I agree it's impossible with the engine design and materials that go into
> > cars these days. Way too inefficient and way to heavy.
> >
> Only the cars that joe schmoe is buying.

Joe Schmoe doesn't have a choice.

The current Civic Si is several hundred pounds heavier than the 92 Civic
Si. That's how they build it. It has multiple airbags, etc.

 

<isquat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171473186.156454.325580@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
> On Feb 14, 5:03 am, "Kinik" <K...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Now if you leave behind the "standard" car shape, and try something
>> > exotic life a Jetsons-car, then you might be able to do better.
>> > Volkswagen did exactly that a few years ago, with a 1-seat car, 8
>> > horsepower engine, and shaped like a cigar.
>>
>> > But even then, they still only got 250 miles per gallon.
>>
>> I agree it's impossible with the engine design and materials that go into
>> cars these days. Way too inefficient and way to heavy.
>>
> Only the cars that joe schmoe is buying.
> Lotus seven body has been around for more than half of the
> centrury now.
>
>> It would require a radical new engine design. Most likely something not
>> thought of yet.
>> It would also require a huge leap forward in materials technology .
>> Something that can be affordable, as strong as steel, and be 90% lighter
>> and
>> still transport a family.
>
> It's doable but since an average car buyer is a moron
> who is buying a heavy pig (such as a prius) and does not
> pay any attention to the weight aluminum frames for the masses ain't
> gonna happen.
>

The Honda Insight has an aluminum frame. 1875 lbs I think.

 

<isquat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171473186.156454.325580@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
> On Feb 14, 5:03 am, "Kinik" <K...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Now if you leave behind the "standard" car shape, and try something
>> > exotic life a Jetsons-car, then you might be able to do better.
>> > Volkswagen did exactly that a few years ago, with a 1-seat car, 8
>> > horsepower engine, and shaped like a cigar.
>>
>> > But even then, they still only got 250 miles per gallon.
>>
>> I agree it's impossible with the engine design and materials that go into
>> cars these days. Way too inefficient and way to heavy.
>>
> Only the cars that joe schmoe is buying.
> Lotus seven body has been around for more than half of the
> centrury now.
>
>> It would require a radical new engine design. Most likely something not
>> thought of yet.
>> It would also require a huge leap forward in materials technology .
>> Something that can be affordable, as strong as steel, and be 90% lighter
>> and
>> still transport a family.
>
> It's doable but since an average car buyer is a moron
> who is buying a heavy pig (such as a prius) and does not
> pay any attention to the weight aluminum frames for the masses ain't
> gonna happen.
>

The Honda Insight has an aluminum frame. 1875 lbs I think.

 

<isquat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171473186.156454.325580@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
> On Feb 14, 5:03 am, "Kinik" <K...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Now if you leave behind the "standard" car shape, and try something
>> > exotic life a Jetsons-car, then you might be able to do better.
>> > Volkswagen did exactly that a few years ago, with a 1-seat car, 8
>> > horsepower engine, and shaped like a cigar.
>>
>> > But even then, they still only got 250 miles per gallon.
>>
>> I agree it's impossible with the engine design and materials that go into
>> cars these days. Way too inefficient and way to heavy.
>>
> Only the cars that joe schmoe is buying.
> Lotus seven body has been around for more than half of the
> centrury now.
>
>> It would require a radical new engine design. Most likely something not
>> thought of yet.
>> It would also require a huge leap forward in materials technology .
>> Something that can be affordable, as strong as steel, and be 90% lighter
>> and
>> still transport a family.
>
> It's doable but since an average car buyer is a moron
> who is buying a heavy pig (such as a prius) and does not
> pay any attention to the weight aluminum frames for the masses ain't
> gonna happen.
>

The Honda Insight has an aluminum frame. 1875 lbs I think.

 

<isquat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171473186.156454.325580@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
> On Feb 14, 5:03 am, "Kinik" <K...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Now if you leave behind the "standard" car shape, and try something
>> > exotic life a Jetsons-car, then you might be able to do better.
>> > Volkswagen did exactly that a few years ago, with a 1-seat car, 8
>> > horsepower engine, and shaped like a cigar.
>>
>> > But even then, they still only got 250 miles per gallon.
>>
>> I agree it's impossible with the engine design and materials that go into
>> cars these days. Way too inefficient and way to heavy.
>>
> Only the cars that joe schmoe is buying.
> Lotus seven body has been around for more than half of the
> centrury now.
>
>> It would require a radical new engine design. Most likely something not
>> thought of yet.
>> It would also require a huge leap forward in materials technology .
>> Something that can be affordable, as strong as steel, and be 90% lighter
>> and
>> still transport a family.
>
> It's doable but since an average car buyer is a moron
> who is buying a heavy pig (such as a prius) and does not
> pay any attention to the weight aluminum frames for the masses ain't
> gonna happen.
>

The Honda Insight has an aluminum frame. 1875 lbs I think.

 

I'm not saying 400mpg is possible now, but technology changes.

At one time everyone agreed that :
the world was flat
Man could not fly
we couldn't put a man on the moon
we couldn't move faster than the speed of sound

etc.. etc.. etc..

I don't think we have really been trying to make great steps in fuel
economy. Yes we talk the talk, but I have a 1961 car that weighs about
a million pounds, yet it still gets ~10-12mpg.

I find it hard to beleive that with the technological advances we have
had in the last 40 years that if we had been really working on it we
haven't been able to improve on the mileage we got back in the early
60's.

*************************************************
Scott H. Sexton help@
www.sexton.com sexton.com
Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com
*************************************************

 

I'm not saying 400mpg is possible now, but technology changes.

At one time everyone agreed that :
the world was flat
Man could not fly
we couldn't put a man on the moon
we couldn't move faster than the speed of sound

etc.. etc.. etc..

I don't think we have really been trying to make great steps in fuel
economy. Yes we talk the talk, but I have a 1961 car that weighs about
a million pounds, yet it still gets ~10-12mpg.

I find it hard to beleive that with the technological advances we have
had in the last 40 years that if we had been really working on it we
haven't been able to improve on the mileage we got back in the early
60's.

*************************************************
Scott H. Sexton help@
www.sexton.com sexton.com
Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com
*************************************************

 

I'm not saying 400mpg is possible now, but technology changes.

At one time everyone agreed that :
the world was flat
Man could not fly
we couldn't put a man on the moon
we couldn't move faster than the speed of sound

etc.. etc.. etc..

I don't think we have really been trying to make great steps in fuel
economy. Yes we talk the talk, but I have a 1961 car that weighs about
a million pounds, yet it still gets ~10-12mpg.

I find it hard to beleive that with the technological advances we have
had in the last 40 years that if we had been really working on it we
haven't been able to improve on the mileage we got back in the early
60's.

*************************************************
Scott H. Sexton help@
www.sexton.com sexton.com
Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com
*************************************************

 

I'm not saying 400mpg is possible now, but technology changes.

At one time everyone agreed that :
the world was flat
Man could not fly
we couldn't put a man on the moon
we couldn't move faster than the speed of sound

etc.. etc.. etc..

I don't think we have really been trying to make great steps in fuel
economy. Yes we talk the talk, but I have a 1961 car that weighs about
a million pounds, yet it still gets ~10-12mpg.

I find it hard to beleive that with the technological advances we have
had in the last 40 years that if we had been really working on it we
haven't been able to improve on the mileage we got back in the early
60's.

*************************************************
Scott H. Sexton help@
www.sexton.com sexton.com
Eeyore's Birthday Party http://eeyores.sexton.com
*************************************************

 

"Bob" <no@spam.here> wrote in message
news:MPG.203d34a98d1ad9159896a6@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> I'm not saying 400mpg is possible now, but technology changes.
>
> At one time everyone agreed that :
> the world was flat
> Man could not fly
> we couldn't put a man on the moon
> we couldn't move faster than the speed of sound
>
> etc.. etc.. etc..
>
> I don't think we have really been trying to make great steps in fuel
> economy. Yes we talk the talk, but I have a 1961 car that weighs about
> a million pounds, yet it still gets ~10-12mpg.
>
> I find it hard to beleive that with the technological advances we have
> had in the last 40 years that if we had been really working on it we
> haven't been able to improve on the mileage we got back in the early
> 60's.


Vague, but I think two things hinder further improvements: Safety, and
culture.

Safety: We could build cars out of lightweight composite materials. They
might end up being as rugged as golf carts, and the death toll from
accidents would be close to 100%. For lousy drivers, this would be a good
thing, but not for those of us who happen to be in their way when they run
stop signs, etc.

Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind, clinically
dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How do we get rid
of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting chance? That would
be tough because of:

Culture: We have the right to travel anywhere in the U.S. freely. Some
people think this means we have the right to drive cars. Wrong. We need
driving tests that are almost impossible to pass. If you fail, not only
don't you get a license, but you're not allowed to own a car. This will
raise hell with those who think the right to drive comes from god, but who
cares?

 

"Bob" <no@spam.here> wrote in message
news:MPG.203d34a98d1ad9159896a6@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> I'm not saying 400mpg is possible now, but technology changes.
>
> At one time everyone agreed that :
> the world was flat
> Man could not fly
> we couldn't put a man on the moon
> we couldn't move faster than the speed of sound
>
> etc.. etc.. etc..
>
> I don't think we have really been trying to make great steps in fuel
> economy. Yes we talk the talk, but I have a 1961 car that weighs about
> a million pounds, yet it still gets ~10-12mpg.
>
> I find it hard to beleive that with the technological advances we have
> had in the last 40 years that if we had been really working on it we
> haven't been able to improve on the mileage we got back in the early
> 60's.


Vague, but I think two things hinder further improvements: Safety, and
culture.

Safety: We could build cars out of lightweight composite materials. They
might end up being as rugged as golf carts, and the death toll from
accidents would be close to 100%. For lousy drivers, this would be a good
thing, but not for those of us who happen to be in their way when they run
stop signs, etc.

Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind, clinically
dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How do we get rid
of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting chance? That would
be tough because of:

Culture: We have the right to travel anywhere in the U.S. freely. Some
people think this means we have the right to drive cars. Wrong. We need
driving tests that are almost impossible to pass. If you fail, not only
don't you get a license, but you're not allowed to own a car. This will
raise hell with those who think the right to drive comes from god, but who
cares?

 

"Bob" <no@spam.here> wrote in message
news:MPG.203d34a98d1ad9159896a6@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> I'm not saying 400mpg is possible now, but technology changes.
>
> At one time everyone agreed that :
> the world was flat
> Man could not fly
> we couldn't put a man on the moon
> we couldn't move faster than the speed of sound
>
> etc.. etc.. etc..
>
> I don't think we have really been trying to make great steps in fuel
> economy. Yes we talk the talk, but I have a 1961 car that weighs about
> a million pounds, yet it still gets ~10-12mpg.
>
> I find it hard to beleive that with the technological advances we have
> had in the last 40 years that if we had been really working on it we
> haven't been able to improve on the mileage we got back in the early
> 60's.


Vague, but I think two things hinder further improvements: Safety, and
culture.

Safety: We could build cars out of lightweight composite materials. They
might end up being as rugged as golf carts, and the death toll from
accidents would be close to 100%. For lousy drivers, this would be a good
thing, but not for those of us who happen to be in their way when they run
stop signs, etc.

Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind, clinically
dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How do we get rid
of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting chance? That would
be tough because of:

Culture: We have the right to travel anywhere in the U.S. freely. Some
people think this means we have the right to drive cars. Wrong. We need
driving tests that are almost impossible to pass. If you fail, not only
don't you get a license, but you're not allowed to own a car. This will
raise hell with those who think the right to drive comes from god, but who
cares?

 

"Bob" <no@spam.here> wrote in message
news:MPG.203d34a98d1ad9159896a6@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> I'm not saying 400mpg is possible now, but technology changes.
>
> At one time everyone agreed that :
> the world was flat
> Man could not fly
> we couldn't put a man on the moon
> we couldn't move faster than the speed of sound
>
> etc.. etc.. etc..
>
> I don't think we have really been trying to make great steps in fuel
> economy. Yes we talk the talk, but I have a 1961 car that weighs about
> a million pounds, yet it still gets ~10-12mpg.
>
> I find it hard to beleive that with the technological advances we have
> had in the last 40 years that if we had been really working on it we
> haven't been able to improve on the mileage we got back in the early
> 60's.


Vague, but I think two things hinder further improvements: Safety, and
culture.

Safety: We could build cars out of lightweight composite materials. They
might end up being as rugged as golf carts, and the death toll from
accidents would be close to 100%. For lousy drivers, this would be a good
thing, but not for those of us who happen to be in their way when they run
stop signs, etc.

Between 90% and 95% of drivers are either drunk, legally blind, clinically
dead, or too stupid to operate a spoon, much less a car. How do we get rid
of them so composite (less safe) vehicles have a fighting chance? That would
be tough because of:

Culture: We have the right to travel anywhere in the U.S. freely. Some
people think this means we have the right to drive cars. Wrong. We need
driving tests that are almost impossible to pass. If you fail, not only
don't you get a license, but you're not allowed to own a car. This will
raise hell with those who think the right to drive comes from god, but who
cares?

 

muzicmakr wrote:
> <isquat@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > It's doable but since an average car buyer is a moron
> > who is buying a heavy pig (such as a prius) and does not
> > pay any attention to the weight aluminum frames for the masses ain't
> > gonna happen.
> >
>
> The Honda Insight has an aluminum frame. 1875 lbs I think.



And body. And engine. The exhaust is lightweight magnesium & the
underbody is covered with plastic to reduce air friction.

The Civic Hybrid incorporates some, but not all, of the insight's
innovations which makes it nice & light. For example the engine is
aluminum, and ditto the hood. The underside has the plastic covering
to reduce friction.



The problem with using aluminum is that it requires a higher
temperature to become malleable, and therefore costs more to produce.
That's why Honda discontinued its Aluminum insight, and VW
discontinued its Aluminum 90mpg Lupo. It was just too costly.