Jaguar: Back to the Future.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by slowmover

As to the topic, there's no practical value to a 1960s car re-engined. Crash protection is abysmal.

Which ought to be an incentive not to crash, no? Seems like the more crash protection you add, the more recklessly people drive.

[freebeard]

George Hotz has shown it's possible to retro-fit self-driving capabilities. All the four-door sedans may be crushed, but the sedan deliveries and convertibles deserve to live on.

It’s a complicated balance, but all signs point to more new efficiency gains than losses from self-driving tech—even at its present power-hog status. The University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems, for instance, last year summed up the potential efficiency gains from various aspects of converting to a self-driving economy, including reduced congestion and potential savings in the weight of safety systems if such cars can be engineered not to crash.

https://blog.caranddriver.com/self-driving-vehicles-may-save-energy-despite-power-hog-tech-on-board/

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by slowmover

As to the topic, there's no practical value to a 1960s car re-engined. Crash protection is abysmal.

...except that average owners COULD actually service & repair pretty much everything by themselves. And, NOT getting into an accident is far more effective than attempting to survive one.

[freebeard]

You sound like a VW Beetle driver.

[wdb]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Some famous person said the XKE is the most beautiful car in the world.

Enzo Ferrari in 1961.

I think the long hood and upright windshield looks [another word for dorky]. I prefer the Volhart-Sagitta V2 from that era, or better yet the Shelby Cobra coupe;

The Sagitta looks like a Saab with a toothache. Hideous. Pete Brock penned the Daytona Coupe several years after the E Type was introduced, and that famous guy made his famous comment. I doubt he would have ever said the same thing about the Daytona Coupe! After all it trounced his own 250's.

And I don't really care what Enzo says. The original E Type is a stupefyingly gorgeous collection of curves.

[freebeard]

Oh, that guy.

"Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines."

Enzo Ferrari

The curves are nice, it's that awkward angle at the base of the upright, flat windshield. Compare the bubble top of the Volkhart-Sagitta or the Talbot-Lagos. Figoni & Falaschi teardrop coupé on a 1938 SS 150 chassis:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talbot-Lago

Ferrari post-Enzo:


https://liquifun.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/what-enzo-ferrari-would-say-on-la-ferrari/#more-233

I'd like to see the La Ferrari lights, cut-lines, and livery on a Volkhart-Sagitta [clone].

[Fingie]

a old volvo is pretty safe even by modern standards.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Major metro areas = private & delivery as electric only; and commercial is Diesel to distribution center, then LNG into town.

Rural = all else.

Then licensing and taxation to punish ICE.

Once again I gotta say it doesn't seem reasonable to ban the ICE at all. Though I still consider the conventional reciprocating engine to remain viable in the foreseeable future, there are also other alternatives that could be developed further such as that LiquidPiston rotary engine and microturbines that could get a multifuel ability enabling them to become a good power supply not just for plug-in hybrids but eventually also supply electric power to the household during a shortage. Replacing regular gasoline and Diesel fuel with renewable biofuels seem more reasonable.

As to the topic, there's no practical value to a 1960s car re-engined. Crash protection is abysmal.

It might not seem to make sense from a practical standpoint nowadays, but hey, had crash standards been an absolute priority for everybody there would be no motorcycles anymore. OTOH it still sounds more sustainable to repower an older bodyshell instead of making an entire new vehicle.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...except that average owners COULD actually service & repair pretty much everything by themselves. And, NOT getting into an accident is far more effective than attempting to survive one.

Here's an example. Fatal crashes in cities tend to be by red light runners. T-bone. Not something one can anticipate with surety.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Here's an example. Fatal crashes in cities tend to be by red light runners. T-bone. Not something one can anticipate with surety.

1) I don't live in a city, or spend more than a minimal amount of time in one. Why should I have to drive a vehicle built with city hazards in mind? And not say deer/wild horses/bears &c running out in front of me?

2) One can surely look both ways when sitting at a light, to see if there's approaching vehicles that don't appear interested in stopping?