Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodak
Nice job punching all those numbers. What formula did you use to calculate the 27.4mpg headwind comparison?
The numbers make me wonder how automakers haven't employed some of these technologies. I've seen the wheel covers, but that's really it. I suppose the simple answer is that some aero changes might seem unsightly - or at least pose a major marketing risk.
|
Kodak,that was a goof and I've gone back and edited the mistake.
It should have read mph,instead of mpg.Sorry!
With respect to the 'unsightly' issue,it could all come down to that.
The 1929 'pregnant' Buick and 1934 Chrysler/DeSoto/Imperial Airflows are mentioned as examples of styling before their time.
If they don't sell,they'll disappear from the market.
Education could be a factor although I'm not holding my breath on that one.You'll notice Energy Secretary,Steven Chu's deafening silence on the issue.
The science is there.The votes are out on whether or not consumers are ready.
Hollywood and Madison Ave. could probably invert market tastes within 90-days with an efficiency corollary to Smoky and the Bandit,The Fall Guy,and HUMMER-toting 'Governator' Arnold Schwartzenegger .
Re-defining an Americans right of passage into adulthood and quelling fear of self-emasculation will play big roles if things are to ever change.