Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-03-2014, 10:30 AM   #21 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
backpacker3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 384

Homer - '02 Pontiac Sunfire SE
Team Pontiac
90 day: 30.05 mpg (US)
Thanks: 13
Thanked 53 Times in 50 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobb View Post
but whats the last thing to go through his mind?
This reminds me of a joke. What's the last thing to go through a flys mind when it hits your windshield?......














It's butt.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 03-03-2014, 10:37 AM   #22 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,014 Times in 1,300 Posts
If a rear engined Smart car can be safe on US highways then some form of more cab forward pickup could also work. I think the comparison to 60s crash statistics is very flawed. No safety glass, no laminated windshields, no air bags, no computer aided collapsible structure designs.

Are Vans not a form of cab forward? I'm not talking about something like my 66 Chevy van, with the engine sitting between the driver and passenger, more a FWD style with the engine and powertrain in front of the driver and passenger.

regards
Mech
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2014, 03:32 PM   #23 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
justme1969's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: ff
Posts: 459
Thanks: 59
Thanked 36 Times in 29 Posts
those chinese trucks

Run on the Hiways down here so Dot musta agreed to crash stats already on them.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2014, 06:33 PM   #24 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 2,643
Thanks: 1,503
Thanked 273 Times in 224 Posts
The smart is considered safe? I had read about crash reports after it came here and swear I read due to the well built egg cage inside the car it subjected the passengers to 70+gs in an accident, which was more than enough force to detach retinals and blinded those who survived an accident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Mechanic View Post
If a rear engined Smart car can be safe on US highways then some form of more cab forward pickup could also work. I think the comparison to 60s crash statistics is very flawed. No safety glass, no laminated windshields, no air bags, no computer aided collapsible structure designs.

regards
Mech
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2014, 10:17 PM   #25 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 1,230
Thanks: 85
Thanked 408 Times in 274 Posts
Small car safety is only "safe" if they hit a barrier or something else small, if they hit something twice the weight or more they lose no matter how well built or how many "stars" they have. Its just physics. The common cab forward design we have are full size van, especially the Dodge from 70 to whenever they stopped making it. In an offset frontal crash they are pretty terrible, then again so were the early minivans. Probably why the new Nissan full size van has quite the nose on it. The nose is not needed for the motor, Dodge stuffed 440s under their B series. Dodge made that van as a cutaway for lots of motorhomes, it would have made just as good a pickup or box van, if you want one just make your own.
The A100 was truly cab over and also had a pickup version, they are somewhat collectable.

Last edited by Hersbird; 03-03-2014 at 10:27 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2014, 11:05 PM   #26 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,014 Times in 1,300 Posts
At some point in impacts and collisions, it doesn't matter what you're driving unless it's a M1 ABRAMS. I've seen at lot of wrecked cars, in the tens of thousands. I've seen some of the most amazing examples of survival in wrecks you could ever believe, including a very good friend who walked away from a 63 VW after a head on with a 67 Pontiac Catalina at a combined 100 MPH. The steering wheel on the VW was pushed through the windshield while the front end crumpled like a tin can. The steering shaft came out of the column almost 3 feet and the wheel was almost a foot above the roof.

I traded him the VW for a 65 Black Lincoln Continental with red leather interior and suicide doors.

I grew old in the industry and retired after 30 years. I've seen cars that would make you puke if you walked within 50 feet of them downwind. The floor was covered with shredded human flesh from a head on at 150 MPH combined (stolen Road Runner).

Went to one auction with 300 wrecked cars. 3 of them were Toyota Land Cruisers, all 3 were rollover, nice trcuk to run inot someone with, but lousy in a corner. Fixed a Jeep with $700 in damage and 3 dead from the accident.

If the US govt allows a Smart to be sold then I can't see any reason for a unibody pickup with a front end with the ideal aerodynamic shape and a bed cover that maintained that shape all the way to the rear end. A transversely mounted 2 liter ecoboost type engine and a 6 speed manual.

40 MPG combined and capable of carrying 1500 pounds.

Comparing this to the disasters (collision wise) of decades ago just demonstrates a lack of understanding of the vast improvments in collision absorbing design that have evolved.

Argue away, slam my post or logic, waste your time. It will happen if the manufacturers want to meet the new mileage regulations in the US anyway.

I just wish I could get a 3L Lupo in the US.

regards
Mech
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2014, 10:35 PM   #27 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 1,230
Thanks: 85
Thanked 408 Times in 274 Posts
It is clear more people will die from higher cafe standards. Crash safety is always s better but physics never changes. Funny how you will hear arguments in other topics about, "if we could save just one child"... The people who will die from jacking cafe standards I guess don't count, there will be more then just one child killed. Sure almost any crash has the possibility of a miracle survival, I'm just talking averages.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 06:29 PM   #28 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 2,643
Thanks: 1,503
Thanked 273 Times in 224 Posts
I dont know about you guys or your areas, but mines its not too common a work truck is involved in an accident. Its either big yellow school buses on the days school is in session and various cars plus a few 18 wheelers.

When I worked at the shop selling commercial trucks all the accidents that occurred were either roll overs from parking on a soft shoulder, fire from improper use of a generator or not stabilizing a truck that was outfitted with a lift or hoist of some type.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2014, 01:24 AM   #29 (permalink)
CFECO
 
CFECO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vail, AZ.
Posts: 550

X-Car - '11 Homemade 2+2

Velbly1 - '17 Toyota Camery XSE
90 day: 29 mpg (US)

Velbly2 - '13 Toyota Tundra
90 day: 18.03 mpg (US)
Thanks: 174
Thanked 60 Times in 56 Posts
Start with a full size GM van, with or without 4x4 conversion, no AWD, add a "template" rear composite body over a flat bed, Ecotec gas or Duramax diesel. 25 mpg easy. For load carrying vehicles, cab forward is the most efficient, load area / overall length. Looking macho is for people who are not aware.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2014, 11:54 AM   #30 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 1,857
Thanks: 1,004
Thanked 385 Times in 274 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird View Post
It is clear more people will die from higher cafe standards. Crash safety is always s better but physics never changes. Funny how you will hear arguments in other topics about, "if we could save just one child"... The people who will die from jacking cafe standards I guess don't count, there will be more then just one child killed. Sure almost any crash has the possibility of a miracle survival, I'm just talking averages.
Double-edged sword. How many people have died over the years because of ever increasing SUV sizes... SUVs which are more likely to kill you when they run into you or when they roll over?

If everyone drove golf carts, then arguments about size and safety wouldn't exist.

And no matter how big an SUV you have, when you get hit by a big rig whose driver is nodding off, you lose. Period.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com