Maybe new cars are getting more aerodynamic?

[botsapper]

Unfortunately the guv'ment doesn't sell cars. If you let 'em, imagine $500 hammers. They (we) might end up owning these dying companies but it doesn't design, build & market cars. The legacy companies were built up by millions of present & past workers that is huge part of their operating (losing) costs. They owe them their success as well as their burden.
Government sets safety & performance targets, engineers & designers have always been challenged with these constraints; ie, Japan & Europe. New companies that are not burdened by legacy problems could manage technology & marketing for consumers.
HMMM...I always wondered if Apple created a vehicle. They already ate up the aftermarket automotive stereo business with the Ipod. Something in white & very intuitive!

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by botsapper

Unfortunately the guv'ment doesn't sell cars. If you let 'em, imagine $500 hammers. They (we) might end up owning these dying companies but it doesn't design, build & market cars. The legacy companies were built up by millions of present & past workers that is huge part of their operating (losing) costs. They owe them their success as well as their burden.
Government sets safety & performance targets, engineers & designers have always been challenged with these constraints; ie, Japan & Europe. New companies that are not burdened by legacy problems could manage technology & marketing for consumers.
HMMM...I always wondered if Apple created a vehicle. They already ate up the aftermarket automotive stereo business with the Ipod. Something in white & very intuitive!

its a secret branch. . .they didn't want to deviate far from Apple though. . .its called Aptera. . .totally kidding.

[evolutionmovement]

I'd hope Apple's car would be more reliable than the electronics I've bought off them! Love the software, though.

As an interesting note on how bloated new vehicles are, look up the weight of a 1969 Plymouth Road Runner and the weight of a 2003 Toyota Camry V6. I think the difference was 50 lbs. Can't remember which was the heavier one. I'm sure similar comparisons could be made with other models, but that's just one I happened across doing research.

Good point about the government intervention. I've thought for a while that another reason for the rise in popularity of trucks and SUVs was the lesser regulations for safety and emissions vs. cars allowing their much greater profitability due to being so cheap to make (at least with the body on frame vehicles, which is where this all began). This allowed a similar business model to the cars of the old days. Trucks especially took over the dead muscle car segment. Low end torque, similar dubious handling qualities, and loads of options to make anything from a cruiser to a factory hot rod. How many cars, even 15 years ago, could be ordered with multiple engines, a couple transmissions, and multiple rear end ratios? You might have gotten two engines (base and higher trim level) or two transmissions (manual and auto), but the rear end ratio was whatever was specced with that particular transmission. If you wanted, you could order a small V8 truck, short bed, stripped, short rear end, and manual transmission in a similar manner to the muscle cars of old. For a certain group of people, that's a huge attraction. There's also an intimidation factor that goes with it that appeals to a lot of insecure people and when trucks/SUVs began to become more popular there weren't really any angry car alternatives that fit that desire either.

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by evolutionmovement

I'd hope Apple's car would be more reliable than the electronics I've bought off them! Love the software, though.

As an interesting note on how bloated new vehicles are, look up the weight of a 1969 Plymouth Road Runner and the weight of a 2003 Toyota Camry V6. I think the difference was 50 lbs. Can't remember which was the heavier one. I'm sure similar comparisons could be made with other models, but that's just one I happened across doing research.

Good point about the government intervention. I've thought for a while that another reason for the rise in popularity of trucks and SUVs was the lesser regulations for safety and emissions vs. cars allowing their much greater profitability due to being so cheap to make (at least with the body on frame vehicles, which is where this all began). This allowed a similar business model to the cars of the old days. Trucks especially took over the dead muscle car segment. Low end torque, similar dubious handling qualities, and loads of options to make anything from a cruiser to a factory hot rod. How many cars, even 15 years ago, could be ordered with multiple engines, a couple transmissions, and multiple rear end ratios? You might have gotten two engines (base and higher trim level) or two transmissions (manual and auto), but the rear end ratio was whatever was specced with that particular transmission. If you wanted, you could order a small V8 truck, short bed, stripped, short rear end, and manual transmission in a similar manner to the muscle cars of old. For a certain group of people, that's a huge attraction. There's also an intimidation factor that goes with it that appeals to a lot of insecure people and when trucks/SUVs began to become more popular there weren't really any angry car alternatives that fit that desire either.

That was more or less before aluminum was heard of as a chassis or body work component. It was before the invention/implementation of composites(non-metallic). It was before the development of CF monocoque and. . .what is it space frame design? It was before aluminum became a component to make engines out of. It was before ECUs. Manufacturers had just stopped putting "stabilizer fins" on their cars.

Lotus Elise curb weight of 1520 with 118 horses. It's 300 pounds lighter than the Insight chop off half the engine block and I am pretty comfortable with its FE. . .or maybe just press the gas very gently

[botsapper]

Lotus Elise curb weight of 1520 with 118 horses. It's 300 pounds lighter than the Insight chop off half the engine block and I am pretty comfortable with its FE. . .or maybe just press the gas very gently[/QUOTE]

Today's auto mart is exactly like our supermart. Our freedom to shop whateva we want. Veyron to Tata. I may look into your cart a see a dozen boxes of mac & cheese (Camry) compared to my cart with a gallon of picante salsa (said, Elise). Ecomodders (no flames, please) would probably have organically grown beans & tofu (Prius). =)

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by botsapper

Lotus Elise curb weight of 1520 with 118 horses. It's 300 pounds lighter than the Insight chop off half the engine block and I am pretty comfortable with its FE. . .or maybe just press the gas very gently

Today's auto mart is exactly like our supermart. Our freedom to shop whateva we want. Veyron to Tata. I may look into your cart a see a dozen boxes of mac & cheese (Camry) compared to my cart with a gallon of picante salsa (said, Elise). Ecomodders (no flames, please) would probably have organically grown beans & tofu (Prius). =)[/QUOTE]

. . .what would 25 lb bags of rice be? 5 dollar disposable scooters that came with 3 gallons of gas and get 100 mpg?

Thats what I eat alot. It is cheap lol.

[evolutionmovement]

That's the old Elise. The newer one is around 2000, but it's still a great car even if the pedals are a little crowded. But that's my point about the Road Runner—it's body on frame, a huge car with a giant iron engine, and the slightly lighter twin to the Dodge Charger of Dukes of Hazards fame. With all that new technology, the physically much smaller Camry is the same weight. A lot of that is government mandated safety junk and the rest is feature bloat. My stupid Mazda3 weighs more than my Legacy wagon. Why can't there be more cars engineered intelligently like the Lotus? I don't need or want all the crap they stick in cars today. Hell, I don't even need all the safety gear. As long as the gas tank is pretty secured so I don't burn alive in a crash, I'll take my chances. Where's the waiver I can sign? The most fun cars I had was my lightweight early '80's Subarus. No power anything, but I could roll down all 4 windows from the driver's seat and you knew the air pressure was low when the steering got heavy, foot to the floor driving got 30 mpg (even overloaded running near redline in top gear for hours on end), the chassis took amazing abuse, and a blind monkey with 3 tools could fix it on the rare occasion something went bad. It wasn't fast, but it was cheap, worry free, handled surprisingly well (with more feedback than you can get in most so-called sports cars today), and was fun. Much of that was due to the light weight.

[botsapper]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Today's auto mart is exactly like our supermart. Our freedom to shop whateva we want. Veyron to Tata. I may look into your cart a see a dozen boxes of mac & cheese (Camry) compared to my cart with a gallon of picante salsa (said, Elise). Ecomodders (no flames, please) would probably have organically grown beans & tofu (Prius). =)

. . .what would 25 lb bags of rice be? 5 dollar disposable scooters that came with 3 gallons of gas and get 100 mpg?

Thats what I eat alot. It is cheap lol.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't help myself but you gave me the opening...if you add soy sauce on your rice it'd be a Honda 'ricer' with coffee can exhausts & a rear wing!

[theunchosen]

a couple of things.. .one the quote box is messed up. ..I did not make the super market quote. I made the rice quote.

2. . .If its driven by a jet turbine engine instead of a turboshaft engine he/she is a retard.

3. that was fair game, although I really doubt civics are as cheap as rice in food comparisons. I spend like 20 bucks a month to feed myself most meals from rice, I like it and its cheap.

On the note 2. . .a turbojet engine has laughable power compared to a turboshaft engine when traction is available. Jets obviously can't have that but cars do. i.e. take your 100HP engine and make it a fan and see how fast you can go over whatever kind of time period you like. I promise it won't be even close to probably your second highest gear below 3K rpm(4rth for me). I(. . .my grandfather. . .) had a 16C turboshaft( I believe it was a rolls royce, but I could be mistaken on the exact designation). It was slightly larger than my cars engine but out of the shaft it could turn 400 horses for the same weight. It was too tall. . . It didn't need a transmission because it could be geared rather "short" and be fine(the engine operating range was up to I believe 43,000RPM). It ended up going into his plane as a "custom built engine with 0 hours" which was a slight lie. He rebuilt it but it had far too many hours to be in the air. Nevertheless the gov't safety regulations have yet to cause a problem. . .6 years later?

[theunchosen]

I think I am going to be sick. . .I went looking for turboshaft driven cars and found a forum in which they kept calling it a turbo-prop and referring to hooking it to the axle.

Then they got to talking about how it couldn't be used in small land based vehicles.

1.) if it turns a shaft thats not connected to a traditional horizontal propeller its a turboshaft even if its connected to a vertical lift specific "rotary blade" or tires/treads. Helicopters, tanks and motorcycles use turbo shaft engines.

2.) they already exist.

Sorry I had to vent somewhere. . .