100 miles per gallon sporster. Easy.
http://www.techsnack.com/The_Posts/Transportation/Volkswagen_EcoRacer_-_100_MPG_Sports_Car_Concept.html
How about 250 miles per gallon. Also done!
http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/top-vw-1-liter-car.htm
Welcome to the future.
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm47/roy-nexus-6/VW-1-Liter-Car-Front-1280x960.jpg)
I was reading about a local guy here in MN that averages over 100 mpg in his Honda Hybrid. He talked about avoiding traffic and stop signs and driving at or below the speed limit. Also talked about using max tire pressure to lessen the amount of contact to the road. He drove from Chicago to NYC with 12 gallons of gas- or something like that.
You know those window stickers on new cars that have big numbers for the city/hwy mpg? If you look under that you will actually see a range that you can expect depending on how you drive. Like my new car for instance has 28 for the hwy MPG, but underneath that is a range of 25-33.
I wish i could remember what manufacturer it was - but someone ran a couple turbo diesel race cars last year and got 143 mph at and average speed of 140..
This wasn't the Audi the ran away with the 24 hours a couple years ago - damn my memory,
I got 45mpg in a Corolla going from Atlanta to DC with two people, 5 days worth of luggage, running over the spped limit, with the AC on.
250mpg in a 1 litre car that weighs almost 2,000(!!!) lbs lighter doesn't impress me.
Quote from: roy-nexus-6 on July 02, 2008, 04:47:30 AM
Welcome to the future.
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm47/roy-nexus-6/VW-1-Liter-Car-Front-1280x960.jpg)
If that little clown car is the future, I'd like to be stuck in the past plz.
Sad thing is we HAD high MPH vehicles years ago. Find a GEO Metro or Honda CRX HF. (Have you priced one lately?) A friend has the latter and still gets 52mpg in town and almost 70 on the interstate. She used to get better highway mileage years ago too. That is also over 200K miles driving over the years and head has never been off the engine. If you built that same Honda today, it would probably weigh a thousand pounds more with eight extra airbags, giant bumper structures and all the other doodads now government mandated. My brothers little Honda Civic sedan DX used to average over 50mpg from Seattle to Corvallis on regular trips for years.
Quote from: MotoCreations on July 02, 2008, 09:17:15 AM
Sad thing is we HAD high MPH vehicles years ago.
The Honda Civic VX was one such model. The VX engine made slightly less hp (92 vs 105 for base engine) but cost more with its VTEC-E system and wideband o2 sensor. But then gas prices dropped in the mid 90s and Honda stopped making this model because demand was virtually nil. I doubt it will be back either as there are more profits and bandwagon jumping with our current lame hybrid options.
Quote from: Stangman on July 02, 2008, 08:07:27 AM
If that little clown car is the future, I'd like to be stuck in the past plz.
+1
that is one ugly f u c k e r
Quote from: MotoCreations on July 02, 2008, 09:17:15 AM
Sad thing is we HAD high MPH vehicles years ago. Find a GEO Metro or Honda CRX HF. (Have you priced one lately?) A friend has the latter and still gets 52mpg in town and almost 70 on the interstate. She used to get better highway mileage years ago too. That is also over 200K miles driving over the years and head has never been off the engine. If you built that same Honda today, it would probably weigh a thousand pounds more with eight extra airbags, giant bumper structures and all the other doodads now government mandated. My brothers little Honda Civic sedan DX used to average over 50mpg from Seattle to Corvallis on regular trips for years.
Exactly.
Engines used in automobiles have gotten a lot more efficient over the years, but the cars they're put in just keep getting heavier and more bloated. Like you say, the CRX just plain couldn't be built today, both because of legislation demanding that all cars include all kinds of stupid crap, and the manufacturers themselves including a bunch more stupid "luxurious" crap as standard in order to "compete".
Because of this, 30 MPG is still somehow considered impressive. Uh, I had a 1985 Buick sedan that got 30-35 MPG, and it wasn't even particularly small or light. A Volkswagen Beetle will get 30. I bet some of the "compact" cars made by the Big Three (well, four including AMC) in the 60s could be convinced to get somewhere around 30. Thirty miles to the gallon is not earth-shattering!
The Prius isn't even all that exciting. It took all of that engineering, battery weight, and complex hybrid drivetrain to get MPG figures similar to what Honda was selling in this country twenty years ago, and can most likely be found in non-hybrid cars in other countries where small automobiles are the norm.
80-100 miles to the gallon, however, now that would be getting somewhere. The EcoRacer looks like fun. Even the little pill-shaped guy would be interesting. Make it slightly bigger so that two people could ride in comfort with a bit of luggage (so that it's not just a four-wheel enclosed motorcycle), and it could be a very practical vehicle. I even kind of like the styling. It has sort of a 90s futurism going for it.
I also am surprised at today, 30+mph is considered great. I remember driving my parents 1986 (first year) taurus wagon, and it could get 30+ mpg with a V6.
There must be a lot of weight penalties today that aren't often mention, cause just abs, airbags, and bumpers don't seem like it would knock 5mpg off, but maybe.
mitt
I don't especially get the weight argument, especially at highway speeds. In traffic and hilly terrain, inertia is definitely a pregnant dog but on the EPA highway cycle with an average speed of 48 mph, 54% of the energy required to move a car goes to aerodynamic drag. Because drag increases with the square of speed, more than twice as much energy would be required to overcome drag at 70 mph.
That said, I'm absolutely AGAINST lowered national speed limits to conserve fuel for various reasons, but I don't want this to be a political discussion.
My 75 914 got over 30 mpg highway in factory trim and it is considered a sports car. It doesn't get that anymore but can still return 25 mpg while averaging 95 mph. That is impressive to me.
Quote from: mitt on July 02, 2008, 10:02:31 AMThere must be a lot of weight penalties today that aren't often mention, cause just abs, airbags, and bumpers don't seem like it would knock 5mpg off, but maybe.
...power windows, power door locks, power rear-view mirrors, power seat positioning, power automatic transmission shifter knob heater, power trunk opener, power radio antenna, 75 speaker stereo system, 27 air bags, front and rear seat integrated GPS, four layers of sound deadening throughout the vehicle, computerized speed adjusting cruise control, redundant antilock braking systems, traction control, computerized all-wheel-drive, parking cameras, auto-dimming rear-view mirrors, more soundproofing, rain-sensing windshield wipers, heated glove compartment...
Quote from: x136 on July 02, 2008, 09:47:10 AM
Exactly.
Engines used in automobiles have gotten a lot more efficient over the years, but the cars they're put in just keep getting heavier and more bloated. Like you say, the CRX just plain couldn't be built today, both because of legislation demanding that all cars include all kinds of stupid crap, and the manufacturers themselves including a bunch more stupid "luxurious" crap as standard in order to "compete".
Because of this, 30 MPG is still somehow considered impressive.
Yap, this is exactly my point. [clap] 30mpg is a ludicrous target when other people are aiming for 300 mpg. Admittedly, this is NOT an attractive vehicle (but the 150mpg roadster rocks). However, it does show that the philosophy of design is changing world wide - less is definitely more. General motors need to stop supersizing the hell out of everything - start actually making reliable, practical vehicles. What's the net worth of GM now? 50 times less than Toyota if I remember correctly. The crew at GM has the skill set - but the management there (& in Washington) lack the will, it seems. :-\
Indeed - 30 MPG? Big deal. My '96 Mustang GT will get 26 on the highway. Whoopee.
The overly-feature-heavy (in every sense) cars today make me gag too. I'm ever waiting for the return of the bare-bones car for a daily driver: crank windows, manual everything, not even a radio unless you order it.
I had a '66 Ford 2-door post sedan that had a heater. That was it for options. Also had an '81 Mercury Zephyr that had little more than that. And they got you there just fine and with remarkable fuel mileage (yes, even the big Ford).
isn't that the car Woody Allen had in the film Sleeper?
speaking of older cars with better mileage, you see old diesel half-ton pickups that get 35-40mpg. 60-70hp but can pull a trailer and still get north of 30 mpg. go figure.
They used to use 57 Plymouths as cabs due to the fact that with their straight six and 3 speed manual, they averaged 27 MPG....
Btw people MPG = Miles per gallon
MPH = Miles per hour. Being impressed that your 46 ford could do 30+ mph isn't saying what you think it says.
Quote from: Speedbag on July 02, 2008, 06:41:19 PM
I had a '66 Ford 2-door post sedan that had a heater. That was it for options. Also had an '81 Mercury Zephyr that had little more than that. And they got you there just fine and with remarkable fuel mileage (yes, even the big Ford).
I had a '66 VW beetle. It was fully loaded.
It had the optional heater,the optional passenger side mirror, and the optional AM radio.
I have no idea what MPG it got, gas cost .35/gallon back then. Nobody cared.
Quote from: someguy on July 02, 2008, 08:24:54 PMThey used to use 57 Plymouths as cabs due to the fact that with their straight six and 3 speed manual, they averaged 27 MPG....
And if the six used in 1957 was anything like the later Mopar slant-6, it was rated in number of apocalypses that it could easily survive...
Quote from: x136 on July 02, 2008, 09:00:31 PM
And if the six used in 1957 was anything like the later Mopar slant-6, it was rated in number of apocalypses that it could easily survive...
It was a reliable mill as far as I know.
I love me the leaning tower of power though.
Quote from: someguy on July 02, 2008, 09:43:29 PM
I love me the leaning tower of power though.
There was a fun article (http://www.slantsix.org/articles/hrm-slsick/hrm-sickness.htm) about it in Hot Rod a few years ago.
(http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/3230/hrmnovjq3.jpg)
Someday, I'd like to pick up a 225-powered '65 Dart or a '66 Valiant. That'd be fun.
Quote from: yuu on July 02, 2008, 06:24:43 AM
I wish i could remember what manufacturer it was - but someone ran a couple turbo diesel race cars last year and got 143 mph at and average speed of 140..
It got 143MPH with an average speed of 140?! 140MPH? That's quite an accomplishment. Sounds like some crazy wormhole timebending shit....!
Ohhhh, you mean MPG! [cheeky] ;D
From the article...
QuoteThe naturally aspirated, direct-injection diesel engine employs advanced high-pressure unit injection technology to generate 6.3 kW (8.5 bhp) at 4,000 rpm. This gives the vehicle, which weights just 290 kg, an astonishingly lively temperament.
That's 30bhp/ton. Just focus on the economy. Please don't even pretend that this diesel single-banger is sporty... [roll] ;D
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 02, 2008, 06:41:48 PM
isn't that the car Woody Allen had in the film Sleeper?
Nah that car was better looking ;D
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3107/2633469340_560d2fd347_o.jpg)
Quote from: Bun-bun on July 02, 2008, 08:53:06 PM
I had a '66 VW beetle. It was fully loaded.
It had the optional heater,the optional passenger side mirror, and the optional AM radio.
I have no idea what MPG it got, gas cost .35/gallon back then. Nobody cared.
that would have been a 1300 and it probably got about 30-40 mpg depending on how you drove. the carb was a tiny 32mm PDST and the tranny was only 4 speed. if htey'd have put a 5 speed on them they might have gotten 45-50.
then again, your top speed was about 85
optional heater?? all of them came with heat exchangers off the exhaust. what was the option?
if you bought it new, then the exhaust probably smelt sweeeet due to the lead.. mmmm... lead...
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 03, 2008, 04:46:45 AM
optional heater?? all of them came with heat exchangers off the exhaust. what was the option?
My folks had a beetle when I was a kid. That thing cranked out heat like mad. All the time, especially when it was summer. But not so much in the winter. ;D
I think there was an optional auxiliary gas powered heater thingy you could get for them. Probably because the engine-based heater was about as effective as farting in a refrigerator for heat.
Quote from: Speedbag on July 03, 2008, 05:15:00 AM
My folks had a beetle when I was a kid. That thing cranked out heat like mad. All the time, especially when it was summer. But not so much in the winter. ;D
I think there was an optional auxiliary gas powered heater thingy you could get for them. Probably because the engine-based heater was about as effective as farting in a refrigerator for heat.
ahhhh.. i know what you're talking about, they weren't too popular in the US because so many of them leaked and ---well--..
I found the heat exchangers very effective, but you had to have your exhaust piping and internal connectors installed correctly. Moreover, on the bugs they had a long path to get to the front dash and they were blown in by the engine cooling fan. I just disconnected the front part and plugged it and opened vents where they came in under the back seat. I plugged the part from the engine fan and put a vacuum fan under the seat. voila, the car is 90 degrees in deepest winter.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 03, 2008, 04:46:45 AM
that would have been a 1300 and it probably got about 30-40 mpg depending on how you drove. the carb was a tiny 32mm PDST and the tranny was only 4 speed. if htey'd have put a 5 speed on them they might have gotten 45-50.
then again, your top speed was about 85
optional heater?? all of them came with heat exchangers off the exhaust. what was the option?
if you bought it new, then the exhaust probably smelt sweeeet due to the lead.. mmmm... lead...
The option was the aux. gas htr already mentioned.
Yup, 1300cc boxer 4, last year for the 6-volt battery and wiring. I had to install a seperate 12v battery and wiring to run my 8-track. ;D
Ran that car for 17 years, unknown miles (The speedo cable broke at 130k), never had any drivetrain issues, just rust.
I don't think I ever got that turtle above 65-68 MPH, even going downhill.
Quote from: roy-nexus-6 on July 02, 2008, 04:47:30 AM
Welcome to the future.
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm47/roy-nexus-6/VW-1-Liter-Car-Front-1280x960.jpg)
It must be a bit unstable ..... The license plate is "Wob L"
It seats one, might as well put that engine on a MC frame and see what mileage and performance you get then. That might make a descent commuter bike.
I drive 100 miles round trip each day... In the great state of Washington it rains from time to time. Don't know if you've heard that before. Anyway... I picked up a '93 Metro XFI for $595 for when I can't ride the bike or the gas in the truck is kicking my butt. This little thing is averaging 52 MPG right now and that's with me trying to get it to go as fast as my bike. ;D
I have a deposit on one of these:
www.aptera.com/ (http://www.aptera.com/)
I am awaiting delivery sometime in 2009. It will be the unit with the small generator - supposedly 300 MPG+
Quote from: Pakhan on July 03, 2008, 12:17:11 PM
It seats one, might as well put that engine on a MC frame and see what mileage and performance you get then. That might make a descent commuter bike.
2 seater!!
(http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-stuv/VW-1-Liter-Car-Side-Door-Open-1280x960.jpg)
Bikes are 2 seaters as well, 3 if you have a side car. [cheeky]
right, but how many have a Herman Miller chair to ride in?
Quote from: yuu on July 02, 2008, 06:24:43 AM
I wish i could remember what manufacturer it was - but someone ran a couple turbo diesel race cars last year and got 143 mpg at and average speed of 140..
This wasn't the Audi the ran away with the 24 hours a couple years ago - damn my memory,
Don't know if anyone has posted this up yet, but Peugot had some diesel racing cars that were wicked fast and quite frugal on the pumps...
Quote from: bozcorob on July 03, 2008, 12:31:28 PM
I have a deposit on one of these:
www.aptera.com/ (http://www.aptera.com/)
I am awaiting delivery sometime in 2009. It will be the unit with the small generator - supposedly 300 MPG+
That's an interesting looking vehicle too. Has anyone noticed that BOTH of these hyper-conservative vehicles have borrowed their shapes from fish? Biomimicry at its best.
looks like a modern messerschmitt
(http://haytom.com/images/messerschmitt/messerschmitt-1.jpg)