What are the car manufacturers doing??

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by userdoubleo

Must be able to hold 4 or 5 passengers.

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...

[userdoubleo]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

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:

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.)

[NeilBlanchard]

Greetings,

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.

[userdoubleo]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

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.

[metromizer]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

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.

[NeilBlanchard]

Greetings,

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.

[texanidiot25]

Originally Posted by userdoubleo

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.

[Blue07CivicEX]

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?

[userdoubleo]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Greetings,

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.

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.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

You're getting the Cd numbers confused. A Cd of 1.9 is terrible, and a Cd of 0.19 is outstanding. Take a look at Wikipedia.

The Aptera Typ-1 has a Cd of 0.11 -- the best by far of any "real" vehicle I know of.

The Mercedes Boxfish (aka Bionic) has a Cd 0.19

The Honda Insight has a Cd of 0.25

The Toyota Prius has a Cd of 0.26

My Scion xA has a Cd of 0.31

A Jeep and Hummer have Cd's ~0.5+

A Formula 1 car has a Cd of 1.6 -- it generates 3.5G's of downforce, and it has ~1,000HP to overcome the drag.