PROBE-V/Ultralite LRR tires ecomods

[aerohead]

I put this together for Ryan High School students for Earth Day 1994.Some of the cars are still on the road.The table will give you an idea of what the state-of-the-art in auto tech might have meant for the man on the street.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I put this together for Ryan High School students for Earth Day 1994.Some of the cars are still on the road.The table will give you an idea of what the state-of-the-art in auto tech might have meant for the man on the street.

file was too large,so here's second try

[stevey_frac]

I don't understand. What is this 'probe-v' ?

[cfg83]

stevey -

1985 Ford Probe V (Ghia)

The "80-20 Rule" states that the last 20% of development of a product, activity or organization takes 80% of the total effort expended. There is no scientific basis for the 80-20 Rule. There is only the empirical experience of thousands of managers, developers, athletes, engineers, artists and businessmen who have coped with it in work and life. It’s a good bet that Dennis Connor, Chuck Yeager, Robert McNamara and Sir Edmund Hillary all would recognize and acknowledge the 80-20 Rule. It applies to the Ford Probe series, too. Probe V is the final advance in that series of aerodynamic concepts. It achieved a 10% reduction in drag coefficient, achieving 0.137 to Probe IV’s 0.152. This tiny, but very significant, 10% reduction in drag required building a whole new concept to achieve it.

It is probably no accident that Probe V looks like the Taurus, Ford’s huge gamble on aero styling. They appeared simultaneously and Probe V showed that the Taurus concept wasn’t a dead end, that there was an improving evolutionary path to even greater aerodynamic efficiency - and that the Taurus design wasn’t some marketing gimmick. Probe V represents subtle refinement of Probe IV. Along with being more efficient aerodynamically than Probe IV, Probe V has more character than its technically-styled predecessor. A two-door Probe V uses an novel door design that swings out on short parallelogram hinges until it clears the side of the body then slides back out of the way creating wide and unobstructed interior access.

(Ghia Rocks, BTW)

CarloSW2

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by stevey_frac

I don't understand. What is this 'probe-v' ?

Stevey,thanks to cfg83' image,you can see this "producible" low-drag concept car that debuted long ago now.Had your Cobalt been shaped just like it,with same frontal area,same weight,same powertrain,etc.,along with the extremely low rolling resistance concept tires built for the GM Ultralite by Goodyear,your Cobalt would be pushing 60-mpg on the highway,everyday.

[stevey_frac]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Stevey,thanks to cfg83' image,you can see this "producible" low-drag concept car that debuted long ago now.Had your Cobalt been shaped just like it,with same frontal area,same weight,same powertrain,etc.,along with the extremely low rolling resistance concept tires built for the GM Ultralite by Goodyear,your Cobalt would be pushing 60-mpg on the highway,everyday.

...


...


WANT!

(somewhat geeky reference... antithesis of ThinkGeek :: Do Not Want! )


Srsly. If i culd pull 60 MPG, i'd save an estimated $100 in fuel a month.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by stevey_frac

...


...


WANT!

(somewhat geeky reference... antithesis of ThinkGeek :: Do Not Want! )


Srsly. If i culd pull 60 MPG, i'd save an estimated $100 in fuel a month.

Think about how much money the North American continent would have saved by now,had this technology gone into production.It could easily be measured in trillions.

[stevey_frac]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Think about how much money the North American continent would have saved by now,had this technology gone into production.It could easily be measured in trillions.

There are two sides to that argument really. One of which is, the value of the fuel saved, at current market prices. The other is that demand would be so dramatically reduced if implemented across the entire lineup of vehicles, that market prices would undoubtedly be lower.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by stevey_frac

There are two sides to that argument really. One of which is, the value of the fuel saved, at current market prices. The other is that demand would be so dramatically reduced if implemented across the entire lineup of vehicles, that market prices would undoubtedly be lower.

Yeah,my comment is pretty simplistic and I've no access to crystal balls,but just looking at ave. annual miles driven per vehicle,actual mpg's,and gasoline prices ranging from $0.899/gallon ( eve of Desert Storm) to over $4.00/gallon ( Katrina,911,BP pipeline shutdown,India,China,etc.) we've spent a lot.