It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Car gets almost 10,000 mpg...IN 1999!!!

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


I tow a trailer full of equipment that weighs several thousand pounds. No way a 4cyl would tow it. Does that make me a "real man"? No.
Perhaps if I could take a cue from you, and make a ridiculous argument on a conspiracy website. That surely would increase my manhood.




posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
This over 100MPG car was completed in 1984, but car companies ignored it.


The Avion was developed as a lightweight and aerodynamic and very fuel-efficient sports car. The prototype was completed in 1984 and set the Guinness world record for fuel economy in 1986 at 103.7-mpg average driving from the Mexico border to British Columbia Canada border.


100MPG and it's not even electric. 1984, lets see that's 26 years ago and why couldn't any of the major car companies do what a couple amateurs could?

There could be ten companies selling these things right now and I bet they couldn't make enough to sell. Just where the hell are they and why is it so difficult to bring a new car to consumers in the United States?



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Compare how fast, comfortable, safe, and reliable a Model T is compared to Ford Explorer. That should answer your question. MPG is just one component of a car. If we add anything else to the car, MPG will suffer. The Model T was a box on wheels incapable of fast speeds. Modern cars are better appointed than most peoples' homes were when the Model T rolled off the production line.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I have converted a vw rabbit to electric and the dmv had it impounded and we were talked to about it, not to pursue this. I also converted 2 motorcycles and a toyota echo to run from H2O, then to have to remove it for regisration. Now I run a boost kit and it helps, but the engine is not the system that is the problem(maybe aluminum block) and there are some that have made some internal combustion engine(ice) up to 74% efficient.


Look to Stan Meyers, and Roy McCallister. Great resources.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by eazyriderl_l
 


I would like you to elaborate on the VW incident. "They" told you not to pursue this? "They" impounded it? On what grounds?



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Compare how fast, comfortable, safe, and reliable


I already explained this. I do not need to go back so far. My 83 car was far heavier than my current van and I did not gain all that much in 3 decades and a lot of shed weight. I am not sure how much safer or more comfortable I am anyway. I miss my leather seats. All the things you are discussing have nothing to do with MPG. My van is safe because it is made of lighter stronger material. My first car was safe because it was a gigantic hunk of metal and would pretty much drive through anything I owned after. The stereo was at last 20X the weight of my current cd player. I can go on and on but I do not need to. My new van is lighter almost 30 years later. Why did the MPG barely increase. Do not tell me it is because my seatbelt is more comfortable now or because the dashboard has been streamlined. They can add all the airbags they want. If they are not making the over all weight more, it does not matter. It does not use gas just to have airbags other than the weight of them and the mechanisms involved. Like I said though, the over all weight is less so what does it matter if anything inside that does not use gas is different in any way be it safer, more comfy, or aesthetically pleasing.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
It's because you have idiots, although sometimes funny, such as Jeremy Clarkson, who are all about power, whilst disregarding efficiency.

I never understood why cars designed for families, used on normal roads, under normal speed limits, still have the capability to go way beyond the speed limit, yet have sod'all efficiency. You can surely sacrifice one for the other, right? Yet, they don't do it. Doesn't make sense.

I'm not saying they shouldn't make fast cars, because I know people love them, and I myself, I'm quite fond of muscle cars. But, it still doesn't make sense.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Any of you guys have any idea what those old Model T's originally were running on? Or the body made from, for that matter?

Hint: they had NOT invented gasoline yet...



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptChaos
 


The engine was capable of running on gasoline, kerosene or ethanol,[10][11] though the decreasing cost of gasoline and the later introduction of Prohibition in the United States made ethanol an impractical fuel. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 


First off a fnord is evaported tea without the leaves, also known as the first whole number between 0 and 1. Source: www.principiadiscordia.com

Secondly, you are 100% correct that oil companies want us to consume more fuel and thus make them more profits. however, Auto companies, I believe are not in on this conspiracy after all, what would they gain from having less fuel efficient cars on the road? the reason why detroit kept on making SUVs and other vehicles with in-efficent engines is profit why spend money on developing new technologies or on building smaller cars when people are wiling to pay 10K more for a car that does the same job?


Third: as you mentioned you drive a V8 truck that gets 13MPG that is because trucks are not designed with fuel-efficency in mind (they have the aerodynamic profile of a brick wall) they are not even designed with horsepower in mind, the most important statistic on a Truck engine is the torque for towing and off-road capabilities and weight bearing etc... if you use a truck for anything else than work duties that require you to have a pickup truck then you have no right to complain, even then you still have no right to complain as you are able to write off the amount of money you spend on gas as a business expense. and than to top it off your wife drives a mini-van which is just as inefficient as an SUV or a pickup truck. 20mpg for a v4 is terrible gas milage. and thats because you both drive vehicles that are needlessly large. replace both with cars and you are going to save $2500 a year on gas. (assuming you drive exactly the same amount and each get a car with 25% better gas milage than what you were driving before)

Fourth: that 10K MPG car? lets say you scaled it up to fit 4 people exactly like that. so it 4x bigger which means wind has 4x the effect the weight is 4x and the engine size must be 4x larger too. you could probably calculate the resulting MPG using complex mathematics, but I'm too lazy to do so. but I would estimate that, the end result would make the cars efficiency go down to 500MPG and thats without any safety and luxury features. not to mention that car is made out of expensive materials... I would say that considering every little detail, our cars are pretty damn efficient. (relatively speaking of course, as we all know internal combustion is not at all efficient as a form of energy generation)



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
I drive a Chevy 4x4 truck, 8cyl, 350hp. I get around 13 mpg.


drive a 4cyl and you will half your fuel bill - but no, you need a large V8 as you are a man, and men must drive a V8!!


What it actually read....


I drive a Chevy 4x4 truck, 8cyl, 350hp. I get around 13 mpg. My wife drives a Honda CRV 4cyl, she gets 20mpg.


So his wife does drive a 4cyl, and she only gets 7mpg more. You see?
Not double, which is what you were inferring. Direct comparison in the same post, but you ignored that part of it. Your arguments, Dereks, read like scripts from the Hannity show. Focus only on what works for you and ignore all other data. Then, when your argument breaks down shout over what anyone else is saying.

I truly believe that more efficient engines are available, but we're being forced to buy oil/gasoline at high prices. Oil guys like to make money, and they will do all they can to ensure the price stays artificially high, and the demand is consistent. If we all suddenly had 200mpg cars, there would be a small number of oil people who would lose a LOT of income. You'd recognize a lot of names on that list of people.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by fnord
 


It would serve you well to read more on car companies colluding with oil companies. Read about who killed the electric car: www.ev1.org... en.wikipedia.org...

As far as my truck goes, if you would bother to read additional posts in this thread you would see I DO use my truck for towing. And my wife's car is NOT a mini-van. See?www.vmrintl.com... It is sooo not "needlessly big". You would have also read that our gas bill is nearly $5000 annually, so a 25% reduction would not equal $2500 annually.

And finally, you said:


that 10K MPG car? lets say you scaled it up to fit 4 people exactly like that. so it 4x bigger which means wind has 4x the effect the weight is 4x and the engine size must be 4x larger too. you could probably calculate the resulting MPG using complex mathematics, but I'm too lazy to do so. but I would estimate that, the end result would make the cars efficiency go down to 500MPG and thats without any safety and luxury features. not to mention that car is made out of expensive materials...


So after adding seats for passengers, more wind drag, weight for saftety features, etc, that 10K mpg car would only get 500mpg. GREAT!! That was truly a terrible argument. It completely supported mine.



I would say that considering every little detail, our cars are pretty damn efficient.

This statement tops them all though. So considering your last argument that cars should get around 500mpg, you feel like "our cars are pretty damn efficient" getting only 20mpg. Listen, do me, you, and other readers a favor and don't post here again. Your asinine arguments take up too much space.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
if you do that stuff for work, than you can write off on your taxes so your complaint about 5000 dollars a year is moot.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by fnord
 


Do you honestly believe that writing off a $5000 expense means I didn't have to spend it? Do you honestly believe that writing off a $5000 expense means I get $5000 back from the IRS? Seriously?

If yes, then you don't understand how running a business works.

I find it disheartening that I would post a thread about oil companies keeping us addicted to their product and get idiots defending them. And the arguments are completely ridiculous and unfounded and with no basis in facts. Why can't you people go argue with those people who post pics of moon bases that are really rocks. You're time would be better served there.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Internal combustion engines have undergone continuous improvement since they first appeared but the emphasis has been more on extracting more power per cc of fuel, not better distance per cc and this seems most evident in the USA and other places where fuel is comparatively very cheap by global standards. I owned a couple of high performance cars in the 70s that got less than 20mpg but that wasn't a concern with fuel selling for $0.30/gallon in those days. Now the local price for fuel is more like $6/gallon or more the trend is naturally toward more economical cars that achieve about 40mpg or better so it's evident that there's a transition going on in terms of the overall motoring public focus. This is more evident in places where fuel prices are highest naturally but there'll always be those whose focus is on speed, horsepower, acceleration - an addiction that'll be getting more expensive all the time.

The internal combustion engine has a fairly narrow band in which it achieves peak power/efficiency figures and although innovations like variable valve timing etc have widened that 'sweet' band, the nature of operating vehicles under all conditions means we can very rarely actually be getting the best returns per unit of fuel with standard engines directly driving the vehicle.

That's where the hybrids come into their own, with the engine always running (when it's running) within its band of peak efficiency storing excess output in the batteries, recovering energy via dynamic braking etc.

A ultralight vehicle with an engine the size of a chainsaw and a top speed like 25mph on level ground might return fantastic economy figures under the perfect conditions but who'd really desire such an impractical conveyance except for the curiosity factor?




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join