Street Legal car that gets 239 mpg!!! (1 Viewer)

[Aurel Savin]

If you crash, the hospital bill will be for more than he spends on gas for a few years, maybe the entire time he owns the Ram.

The way i look at it ... I can out-manuever pretty much any dangerous situation confidently in a MINI. Can't do that in a Truck ... try whipping the steering wheel to one side at high speed in a Truck to avoid something, see if that doesn't make you get a change of pants
I have driven my friends truck and other SUV's and I have never felt safe in one. To me handling is more important than sheer size in avoiding and making it out from an accident alive.

 

[AjayM]

If you crash, the hospital bill will be for more than he spends on gas for a few years, maybe the entire time he owns the Ram.

I dunno about that, that Mini is a pretty well built car, and has a ton of airbags inside of it. I don't know about the newer pickups, but a lot of them didn't fair so well in crash tests in the past. Look at a Mazda Miata and it's safer than almost every SUV on the road for front impacts and marginally worse in side impacts (mostly due to the height of the car)....

Andrew

 

[Todd Hochard]

Only a freaking Euro would think that his buddies knee wrapped around him was an acceptable amount of space.

I suspect. "Freaking Euro" was definitely uncalled for.

Todd

 

[Todd Hochard]

If you crash, the hospital bill will be for more than he spends on gas for a few years, maybe the entire time he owns the Ram.

I doubt it. A few years ago, wy wife got sandwiched between a Dodge Ram pickup, and Honda Accord. The lady in the Accord hit her (my wife stopped at a light) going 50+. My wife's tiny, little '85 CRX crumpled up like an accordian, but she walked away. The front and rear were completely folded in, and yet the passenger area did not cave. She was able to climb out through the open moonroof. She did have a stiff neck for a few days.

So, it's been my (our) experience that fears of small cars are unfounded.

Todd

 

[AjayM]

My point is- it would be smarter to live where you handle your business (work, leisure, entertainment, etc), rather than commute there. I do understand that it is difficult to do, particularly in high cost areas. The right answer is both- fuel efficient transportation, and short commutes.

Well that depends on a lot of things I suppose, in a strictly financial sense, I'd rather live 20 miles away and save $100k when buying a house, or not having to pay an extra $2k in property taxes a year, etc.
But I agree the best solution is to have fuel effeciency and live close (the 240mpg car shows that off pretty nicely)...or even better, live close and use public transportation or just simply walk!
Andrew

 

[Mike Lenthol]

I don't get it. What is so high-tech in this car, the tiny diesel engine or the exorberent costs that went into aerodynamics and weight reduction?
Just look at the numbers.
Average of the average cars 1997 V6 Camry is 3300lb + 300lb for 2 people divided by 195hp = 18.4 pounds for every horsepower
And the slowest production automobile known to man 1997 Geo Metro at 1800 pounds + 300lb again for 2 people and divided by a whopping 60hp = 35 pounds for every horse
Now this "car" is 639lb + 300lb / 8.5hp = 110 !! Assuming it has a 5sp. that tops out at 60mph, and the narrow power band of the diesel, it would take 40-60sec of pedal to the metal to reach cruising speed?
This is not a car, its a glider with wheels instead of wings

 

[Todd Hochard]

Well that depends on a lot of things I suppose, in a strictly financial sense, I'd rather live 20 miles away and save $100k when buying a house, or not having to pay an extra $2k in property taxes a year, etc.

Yeah, that's the gotcha in my plan.

 

[AviTevet]

yeah, I don't see what the big deal is. Everyone knows that when you reduce power & weight and increase aerodynamics you get better gas mileage. The only question was what number would they get. Every car manufacturer could have built a similar auto in the 60's, but they didn't because it's completely impractical (avg 46.6 mph over 120 miles of country roads?) and doesn't prove anything we don't already know.

 

[AjayM]

yeah, I don't see what the big deal is. Everyone knows that when you reduce power & weight and increase aerodynamics you get better gas mileage. The only question was what number would they get. Every car manufacturer could have built a similar auto in the 60's, but they didn't because it's completely impractical (avg 46.6 mph over 120 miles of country roads?) and doesn't prove anything we don't already know.

Because it's never been done before, it's all well and good in theory and on papaer, but nobody has been able to do it. And nobody could have built a car like this in the 60's, aerodynamic work/knowledge was nowhere where it is today, today it's normal for a major car manufacture to have many wind-tunnels for doing aero work, back then nobody had them (except for the plane builders).

And another point about reducing weight, power, etc...that's not really true. It's all in reducing "loss" while driving down the road, that means aerodynamic loss, and drivetrain loss. That's it, if you can make a car that slices through the wind and has minimal drivetrain parasitic effects, the car will get better gas mileage. There is a reason why a Porsche 911TT or a Corvette or a Viper (all over 400hp) will get close to 30mpg on the highway, they are all aerodynamic cars. If you stuck a set of ultra-skinny, low rolling resistant tires on them, you could probably get an extra 5-7mpg out of them. This is partially why the Honda Insight get's good numbers, they have reduced drag, reduced parasitic drivetrain losses, threw on a set of low rolling resistance tires. Weight has nothing to do with the final MPG number, it will effect how fast the car accelerates (ie you could trade off to much acceleration to make a heavy car).

Andrew

 

[Ryan Wright]

Ryan,
This-quote:
was a result of this-quote:
I suspect.

Ah ha. I understand now. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

The way i look at it ... I can out-manuever pretty much any dangerous situation confidently in a MINI.

By your reasoning, motorcycles should never get into accidents because they are probably more manuverable than just about anything.

 

[Aurel Savin]

By your reasoning, motorcycles should never get into accidents because they are probably more manuverable than just about anything.

Let's put it this way ... if you drive defensively, you will avoid accidents. I never buy into the mentality that having a physically bigger car means you will survive an accident or avoid one.
Accidents have a lot more to do with the drievr than with the car he drives ... and this applies to motorcycles as well.
My friend, who has a motorcycle got into the 2 accidents he had, by his own fault, not the other drivers. The main thing you should remember when riding a motocycle (or bicycle) is that you are invisible to other drivers. He loves to ride by the side of other cars in the drivers blind spots ... so he got nailed twice.
I've driven pretty much all types of vehicles on the road (except 18 wheelers) and know how they drive. The only thing that I feel safe in is a regular good ole' sedan

 

[Todd Hochard]

By your reasoning, motorcycles should never get into accidents because they are probably more manuverable than just about anything.

Not sure about that. Most of the sport bikes I've seen tested come out in the 0.8G range, which I was surprised by. They get around corners faster than some cars, not because they corner better, but because they can take a better line (i.e. wider turn- lower G's). That's my recollection, anyway. I wish I could find the reference.

I used to own a VFR, and there is no way I could pull a classic collision avoidance maneuver as hard as I could in my Vette, particularly when going fast.

Todd

 

[AjayM]

By your reasoning, motorcycles should never get into accidents because they are probably more manuverable than just about anything.

It may be very manuverable in a "perfect" setting, ie when it's being tested for a magazine, but in a panic situation will the average rider be able to apply max braking instantly without being thrown? Will he be able to a lane change right at the limits of adhesion at the blink of an eye?

Size is good for some things in a crash, but please remember that a lot of SUV's, Pickup's aren't built to the same standards as cars are (they are starting to get better). You are safer to be in a little 3-series BMW than you are in a lot of SUV/Pickups.

Andrew

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

Size is good for some things in a crash, but please remember that a lot of SUV's, Pickup's aren't built to the same standards as cars are (they are starting to get better). You are safer to be in a little 3-series BMW than you are in a lot of SUV/Pickups.

I agree with that. If a sedan is safe and gets 100mpg, I am all for it. I would not get into that contraption however.