What car would you CREATE?

[Frank Lee]

It wouldn't take much of a boat to outperform it in the water.

[freebeard]

Where the flying car is just the adaption of a body that can transform into a workable wing, but has half the transmission issues.

I'd call that arguable.

Electric boats work, even underwater. I believe the Schwimmwagen had a push-button lubrication system.

Frank Lee — Wouldn't take much of a car to out-perform it on land either. It wouldn't be built for pulling water skiers.

[sidecar]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I'd call that arguable.

I can appreciate why ppl see it that way, after all, IMO there are no working examples to demonstrate the art of the possible. But its always that way when in hindsight the answer becomes 'obvious'. Ppl say, 'why didnt I think of that'

Originally Posted by freebeard

Electric boats work, even underwater. I believe the Schwimmwagen had a push-button lubrication system.

I couldnt say, sounds typically German though. No slight intended

Originally Posted by freebeard

Frank Lee — Wouldn't take much of a car to out-perform it on land either. It wouldn't be built for pulling water skiers.

you have to think who the potential client is, for if there isnt one the things 'sunk'. The obvious is the military for recon, but surely not the only one. Much military stuff is actually quite speed limited.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by sidecar

I can appreciate why ppl see it that way, after all, IMO there are no working examples to demonstrate the art of the possible.

I can debate either side of the question.

The extant examples include the Molt Taylor Aerocar. IIRC the detachable driveshaft to the pusher prop had a trick shot-filled clutch to inhibit phugoidal vibrations.

You can't just strap an airframe to the roof of a Pinto, that proved fatal. A different architecture is required:

[sidecar]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I can debate either side of the question.

The extant examples include the Molt Taylor Aerocar. IIRC the detachable driveshaft to the pusher prop had a trick shot-filled clutch to inhibit phugoidal vibrations.

You can't just strap an airframe to the roof of a Pinto, that proved fatal. A different architecture is required:

quite right
likewise for thrust dependent multi engine 'flight' Moller skycar and others, thats delayed suicide. For we say of twin engine aircraft they're twice as likely to have engine failure. And where the second engine just takes you to the crash site

the safest form of flight we have uses wings
The issue is how to make the wing fit the car analogy, and as we discovered might be necessary with the amphibian above, make the car fit the wing analogy. Success in equal parts

deadly!

[roosterk0031]

I"m pretty happy with my Cobalt XFE, a 6th 0.50 would make it better. 155 hp, it will break the tires loose in 3rd gear when it's wet, sounds good the few times a week when I break 3,000 rpm. But daughters LT has better seats and CC would be OK. It's the last of the simple cars, no ABS, ESC, TC, PW, and manual tranny.

[Ecky]

I'm surprised, no ABS in 2009?

[jcp123]

'58 Chevy wagon. Period kustom, but with a 235 six, Corvette Blue Flame induction and mild cam, three on the tree with that Borg-Warner overdrive box. Split the manifold and add Smithy's pipes. Maybe 25mpg highway, but then again if I'm able to do it in a 9-passenger wagon, that's not out of line with today's 7-seaters anyway, plus it's dripping with personality.

If we're talking more pointedly eco-cars, it would be an EK Honda hatch with HX drivetrain, lowered about an inch on adjustable coilovers and corner balanced, riding on four wheel discs and the lightest wheels I could find.

For pure performance, the Chevy SS hits me just right. Mag ride and stick, no need for the aftermarket.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by 19bonestock88

My plan to build a truck was to start with an old Ranger(likely a 93) and build a lightweight alloy frame and front suspension, swap to an independent rear (Ford 8.8" center section)

Many rednecks might think that IRS in a truck, even though it's a compact one, wouldn't stand to hard working. Well, those T2 pick-ups that I still see once in a while prove they're quite wrong

35-40mpg should be possible under the right conditions...

Mind you that a Diesel T2 like the one in the above picture get 40 to 45 MPG regularly, with all the low tech from late-70s to early-80s

[freebeard]

'58 Chevy wagon... Split the manifold and add Smithy's pipes.

I'm with you on this one. The split manifold has a ratty exhaust note, maybe a 6 into three into one header?

But definitely a four-door with the rear doors suicided.