I've got a radical notion about what the car companies can start doing right NOW:
1) Offer snap-on grill block bits and rear wheel well covers as accessories.
I think that it would be very easy for every single car/vehicle to lower their Cd by smoothing out all the bumps, creases, pockets, slots on the nose -- and minimizing and optimizing the cooling air intakes. They just need to mold the plastic differently, and they could put all of us modders out of work...
This should be STANDARD! Mold the plastic bits differently, lower the Cd by 0.05 (or so) and every car/vehicle would get 5-8mpg better on the highway. It's a no-brainer!
Now the wheel skirts could be optional, along with the flush wheel covers (though maybe some additional brake cooling would be needed).
__________________
Sincerely, Neil
War is not the answer. FCNL.org
Red Car - '89 Celebrity CL 4 door 90 day: 32.22 mpg (US)
What I think would be a good idea for trucks (especially diesels) would be to have a high/low range option in the transfer case, but geared much higher. High range would be an economical gearing for just driving normally with no load, making the best use of the power and torque and gaining quite a bit of mpgs. Then for the handful of times when the average driver really needs to haul or tow something, they can kick it into low range.
Similar to the low range found in some already, except not a granny gear. But they could still offer the granny gear for the few who actually use it.
"I think that it would be very easy for every single car/vehicle to lower their Cd by smoothing out all the bumps, creases, pockets, slots on the nose -- and minimizing and optimizing the cooling air intakes. They just need to mold the plastic differently, and they could put all of us modders out of work... This should be STANDARD! Mold the plastic bits differently, lower the Cd by 0.05 (or so) and every car/vehicle would get 5-8mpg better on the highway. It's a no-brainer!"
Yes ... and most of these would be nothing new. Remember the Subaru XT Coupe from 20+ years ago? It had the perfect design for door handles ... completely flush ... and they contributed to the car's Cd of 0.29 (remarkable for the time).
I saw fords going to bring the festiva to the USA again in 2010.. what the hell, this cars in production now for other countries.. just slap a dollar amount on it and state its crash test results , bad or good and sell the damn thing.. Id buy one if it gets over 40mpg.. lived my aspire back in the day..
It's more so the regulations that slow /prevent these cars from selling here than any other single factor.. Really what does the government car if the car crash tests badly if the manufacture discloses it clearly.. thes the buyers choice of what level of safety they choose for there self.. and as for safety a new festiva equipped with air bags has got to be far better than my non air baged 87 crx thats leagally on the roads here in the USA .. the nanny state is just killing the freemarket..
You realize of course that personal responsibility doesn't really fly with the unwashed masses in the US, right? Frivolous lawsuits anyone?
People allowed the gov to think for them, now they expect it. Didn't someone once say that the best way to keep the gov in check is to have a revolution every few generations?
I liked reading about the AXP all over the net, the quest for a 100mpg car is exciting. The pages on that guys 95mpg Honda is also impressive (all it took was a little money and a heap of ingenuity). Now for what I believe the automakers should do.
My new car list for automakers:
1. Make new cars this shape:
Like this:
Originally posted by "MetroMPG" Here
or This:
Originally posted by "Cd" Here
2. Make sure they have a Cd of 1.9 or less.
Not easy to be sure, oh wait, it is. The AeroCivic did it for $400. However all cars would tend to look alike. All like the perfect shape. Accept it, embrace it. It is the perfect shape. I don't think anyone can patent that shape or sue you for making your car more perfect, and somehow closer to theirs in appearance.
3. Allow the driver to pick their gears in the automatic, or make a manual option.
4. Do all you have to in order to make it pass safety regulations, if that makes it weigh more, :sigh: oh well.
5. Make use of your data on its torque curve and make the last gear have just enough torque to overcome your Cd for 60mph.
This one is a little confusing. What I mean is so that traveling at 60 in last gear, the engine will only be producing enough power to overcome their Cd so they can maintain that speed. Putting the engine at the lowest RPM to maintain that speed, therefore very efficient.
6. Must be able to hold 4 or 5 passengers.
Car pooling, anyone?
7. Use off the shelf parts where appropriate.
If the smallest engine your company makes is a 2.0L, then use it. However if people actually buy the car, consider research and development for smaller engines in next years model. If your research and development team can easily churn out a nice 1.4L in a few months notice for this years model, good for you, do it.
I can't really think of anything else right now.
If a car maker can satisfy all those things.
1. The car doesn't need to cost more then 15k.
2. None can rightly say the automakers are doing nothing.
3. All their cars should easily get 40mpg or better. Even if with safety equipment they weigh in at over 3500lbs. (Seriously guys, if $400 can turn an old Honda into a 1.7 Cd monster, why cant a new 15k car do it!?)
4. They will sell like hot cakes when they can rightfully tote mpg ratings of 50mpg or more and cost only 15k.
Anyway, this is my first post, and a rant. Sorry for that. I should have softened it with more pictures LOL. If we could all ride bikes, now that is a way to travel, but since that is unsafe... why does the car need to be so un-intuitive?
Yours Sincerely,
Userdoubleo ~ My online name <(^^ , <)
Last edited by userdoubleo; 07-15-2008 at 05:29 AM.
Scrap that one. Make more two-seaters for those of us who never need to carry more passengers. Of course having a 4/5 passenger model in the same line that shares parts is a good idea...
Scrap that one. Make more two-seaters for those of us who never need to carry more passengers. Of course having a 4/5 passenger model in the same line that shares parts is a good idea...
Well... I see your point, the car could save on weight. And possibly be smaller. But that would only help if they sat jet-plane style, aka: one in front of the other. But if they sat next to each other, well look at the "perfect" shape:
There is still room for small rear seating no matter how soon you start to taper the back end.
But yes, for cost and weight, lose the back seats, you may have less headroom though, if you wanted to scale down the perfect shape a little.
Oh, and:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Hello,
Here's another one to put in the mix; the Mercedes Bionic "Boxfish" car with 0.19Cd:
Ya I saw that car. I wonder what it costs and what mpg it gets... (5 minutes later by way of google and wikipedia) Ok it costs: not-for-sale, weighs: 2,425 lbs, and gets: 70mpg. Very nice <(^^ , <)
But wait a minute, get this:
"At a constant 56 mph, the concept car will return an amazing 84 mpg."
Source here
How it that for good. And it is a 4-seater. Now that is a car, thanx NeilBlanchard, or should I say Mr. Hello. I had forgot about that car. But it is a concept, :sigh:
(Second post. shh, I don't think anyone will notice.)
Last edited by userdoubleo; 07-15-2008 at 07:13 PM.
Yes, it is a great design, I think. One detail makes me chuckle: the door handles are flush, and when the person with the key (which has an RF link) approaches, the handles pop out so you can open the door.
I'll bet that if it could be fitted with a plug in electric hybrid system, it would do even better than 84mpg.
__________________
Sincerely, Neil
War is not the answer. FCNL.org
Greetings,
I'll bet that if it could be fitted with a plug in electric hybrid system, it would do even better than 84mpg.
Oh there are all sorts of upgrades/mods. We don't know what the underbelly looks like, the front tires can have 1-piece plastic hubs, and what about losing the rear seats and panels in the car, more weight. (And the driver could do with losing some weight too, probably) If you are really serious, ditch the alternator and get a motorcycle battery, and set a charger on it every night. The alternator is not nearly as efficient as a nice charger. Even when its not running there is still a belt or something turning because of it.
Other than that, obviously it needs to gain a few pounds to pass crash test, after all concept cars aren't usually crash tested and may not pass.
If you have to ask, you don’t know safety regs.
You wanna legislate technology to get better MPG? Outlaw the automatic transmission. Safety would be improved as well. You’d have to be an octopus to jabber on the cell phone and shift gears.
Amen, tell it brutha...
It's funny to read about crash testing and model ratings. Put into context, just about the worst rated car today would have been outstanding just 10 years ago. How many of us gladly drove (and survived) commuting in a car without airbags? show of hands please... how many are glad they now have them? Yea, I want to grow old someday, too...
I have come to many of the same conclusions I've read here.
It's a changing model here in the US... $4.50/gal fuel prices is brand new, the almighty consumer will set the tone for future offerings. BTW, even after I tried and tried to convince her otherwise, my ex bought a new SUV about 2 yrs ago... "I like to see over the other traffic..." you can't educate some people
another random comment: GM isn't forcing anything down anyone's throat. They continue to offer a product they can turn a profit on. Like every car company, they have no social responsibility and care little past the next sale. They are in business to turn a profit their stockholders, but manufacturing cars is a 2-4 year cycle, they set the plans in motion years ago for what they will offer today. The biggest thing the GM brass is guilty of IMO is a poor view in to the future... or maybe being too focussed on the short term. They are paying dearly for it (look at the dealer lots full of SUVs and trucks that aren't selling). Most on this forum saw it coming, I'm sure.
Last edited by metromizer; 07-15-2008 at 08:40 PM.
I'm pretty sure that with a Cd of 0.19 that they put a very smooth belly pan on it...
Notice the lack of mirrors. It has rear view cameras, like the Aptera.
I've already mentioned the very trick flush door handles.
They copied the structure from the boxfish -- it is quite strong and stiff, and they claim it is 30% lighter than it would be with a standard structure. Mercedes invented the crumple zone -- I think they can handle the safety design; if they haven't already.
I think that if it is put into production, it would have to lose some of the glass; on the roof, in particular.
__________________
Sincerely, Neil
War is not the answer. FCNL.org
2. Make sure they have a Cd of 1.9 or less.
Not easy to be sure, oh wait, it is. The AeroCivic did it for $400. However all cars would tend to look alike. All like the perfect shape. Accept it, embrace it. It is the perfect shape. I don't think anyone can patent that shape or sue you for making your car more perfect, and somehow closer to theirs in appearance.
Difference is, the Aerocivic is not a practical car by any means for a normal consumer. You think folks have trouble now with blind spots and parking, imagine havin the boat tail like that on board.
__________________
1990 Pontiac Firebird
3.1L V6, 4 speed auto, 270,000 miles and T-Tops!
Just finished getting it back on the road and in my hands for the 1st time.
I want a boxfish, if mercedes made it, put the diesel in it they talked about, got it 60-70mpg epa, changed that god awful color and charged me $22k-$24k I would trade my civic in on one in a heartbeat. Odds of this happening? I'd probably be better off playing powerball but *shrug* maybe they read forums like this to get input on vehicles?
__________________
2007 Honda Civic Ex
Second Goal = 50mpg
First goal = 40mpg Goal Achieved 3 tank average over 40mpg
Starting point 30mpg ready...... GO.
I'm pretty sure that with a Cd of 0.19 that they put a very smooth belly pan on it...
Notice the lack of mirrors. It has rear view cameras, like the Aptera.
I've already mentioned the very trick flush door handles.
They copied the structure from the boxfish -- it is quite strong and stiff, and they claim it is 30% lighter than it would be with a standard structure. Mercedes invented the crumple zone -- I think they can handle the safety design; if they haven't already.
I think that if it is put into production, it would have to lose some of the glass; on the roof, in particular.
I stand corrected. I guess it is a good car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by texanidiot25
Difference is, the Aerocivic is not a practical car by any means for a normal consumer. You think folks have trouble now with blind spots and parking, imagine havin the boat tail like that on board.
Now you could have it covered with see-through plastic / glass. Ive been in plenty of cars even longer. The only thing I would think is bad is that parallel parking would be less than happy. However for long commuters, they usually get parking lots at their jobs. I do see it as a problem for some, but it wont be an "everyone" car; its not a "peoples car", its an "eco-car". Better mileage has trade-offs. That's why I said 1.9, it gives plenty of room for non-boattail cars, just look at that Mercedes-Benz thing, no boat-tail and 1.9 Cd.
