39 mpg by 2016?
 

The new standard proposes this for passenger cars.
But only two exceed this now- the Insight and the Prius.
My 2004 Civic averages 34 for year-round driving,
about the same my smaller1990 Civic.
I'm not sure how you'd get this much higher without
shedding size. And most Americans think that size of
vehicle is a sardine can anyways.

Re: 39 mpg by 2016?
 

On May 19, 12:13 pm, "rick++" <rick...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The new standard proposes this for passenger cars.
> But only two exceed this now- the Insight and the Prius.
> My 2004 Civic averages 34 for year-round driving,
> about the same my smaller1990 Civic.
> I'm not sure how you'd get this much higher without
> shedding size. And most Americans think that size of
> vehicle is a sardine can anyways.

I think the thing is that the average is a fleet average, so, not
every vehichle is going to get to the standard. .. as long as a
company can average that thru their fleet they will be okay. So, I
think we will be seeing a few models with 100 mpg ratings ect. using
electric / hydrogen / cold fusion / methane from usenet posters
ect... these will offset the models that will still "only" get 30
mpgs.

say goodbuy to the v8? most current 6's put out more power than a 15
year old 8 anyway.

Re: 39 mpg by 2016?
 

Leftie wrote:
> rick++ wrote:
>> The new standard proposes this for passenger cars.
>> But only two exceed this now- the Insight and the Prius.
>> My 2004 Civic averages 34 for year-round driving,
>> about the same my smaller1990 Civic.
>> I'm not sure how you'd get this much higher without
>> shedding size. And most Americans think that size of
>> vehicle is a sardine can anyways.
>
>
> I average 41mpg with a '95 Civic, so if they can get the cars to make
> it easy to drive economically but effortlessly, that's not much of a
> struggle.

high mpg is dead easy if you reduce the weight of vehicles. but since
we've seen vehicle weights increase by huge percentages in the last 20
years to meet "safety" ratings for crash modes that are somewhat
unrealistic [and of course, the oilcos contributions to washington's
hungry political machine have had ZERO influence on this], then it's
actually going to be hard to achieve.

Re: 39 mpg by 2016?
 

rick++ wrote:
> The new standard proposes this for passenger cars.
> But only two exceed this now- the Insight and the Prius.
> My 2004 Civic averages 34 for year-round driving,
> about the same my smaller1990 Civic.
> I'm not sure how you'd get this much higher without
> shedding size. And most Americans think that size of
> vehicle is a sardine can anyways.


I average 41mpg with a '95 Civic, so if they can get the cars to
make it easy to drive economically but effortlessly, that's not much of
a struggle.

Re: 39 mpg by 2016?
 

On May 19, 11:52 pm, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Leftie wrote:
> > rick++ wrote:
> >> The new standard proposes this for passenger cars.
> >> But only two exceed this now- the Insight and the Prius.
> >> My 2004 Civic averages 34 for year-round driving,
> >> about the same my smaller1990 Civic.
> >> I'm not sure how you'd get this much higher without
> >> shedding size. And most Americans think that size of
> >> vehicle is a sardine can anyways.
>
> > I average 41mpg with a '95 Civic, so if they can get the cars tomake
> > it easy to drive economically but effortlessly, that's not much of a
> > struggle.
>
> high mpg is dead easy if you reduce the weight of vehicles. but since
> we've seen vehicle weights increase by huge percentages in the last 20
> years to meet "safety" ratings for crash modes that are somewhat
> unrealistic [and of course, the oilcos contributions to washington's
> hungry political machine have had ZERO influence on this], then it's
> actually going to be hard to achieve.

also, 50 lb amps driving 8 10 lb speakers.

Re: 39 mpg by 2016?
 

jim beam wrote:
> Leftie wrote:
>
>> rick++ wrote:
>>
>>> The new standard proposes this for passenger cars.
>>> But only two exceed this now- the Insight and the Prius.
>>> My 2004 Civic averages 34 for year-round driving,
>>> about the same my smaller1990 Civic.
>>> I'm not sure how you'd get this much higher without
>>> shedding size. And most Americans think that size of
>>> vehicle is a sardine can anyways.
>>
>>
>>
>> I average 41mpg with a '95 Civic, so if they can get the cars to
>> make it easy to drive economically but effortlessly, that's not much
>> of a struggle.
>
>
> high mpg is dead easy if you reduce the weight of vehicles. but since
> we've seen vehicle weights increase by huge percentages in the last 20
> years to meet "safety" ratings for crash modes that are somewhat
> unrealistic [and of course, the oilcos contributions to washington's
> hungry political machine have had ZERO influence on this], then it's
> actually going to be hard to achieve.



Now, this is something that I agree with you 100%.

To prove that lighter weight has an effect, my '83 Civic FE does just
better than 42 mpg in mixed driving. And that's with an '82 engine with
the FE accesories. The original FE engine would do even better with its
modified piston/ring regime.

Also, its 2,000 lb weight has a lot to do with it...

JT

Re: 39 mpg by 2016?
 

Leftie wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Leftie wrote:
>>> rick++ wrote:
>>>> The new standard proposes this for passenger cars.
>>>> But only two exceed this now- the Insight and the Prius.
>>>> My 2004 Civic averages 34 for year-round driving,
>>>> about the same my smaller1990 Civic.
>>>> I'm not sure how you'd get this much higher without
>>>> shedding size. And most Americans think that size of
>>>> vehicle is a sardine can anyways.
>>>
>>>
>>> I average 41mpg with a '95 Civic, so if they can get the cars to
>>> make it easy to drive economically but effortlessly, that's not much
>>> of a struggle.
>>
>> high mpg is dead easy if you reduce the weight of vehicles. but since
>> we've seen vehicle weights increase by huge percentages in the last 20
>> years to meet "safety" ratings for crash modes that are somewhat
>> unrealistic [and of course, the oilcos contributions to washington's
>> hungry political machine have had ZERO influence on this], then it's
>> actually going to be hard to achieve.
>
>
> My '95 Civic has two airbags and is almost as large and heavy as our
> '95 Camry sedan (which also has dual airbags). Substituting some carbon
> fiber for non-structural components and adding a bit more side impact
> protection (like side airbags) would probably let it meet current safety
> standards - and still get 41 MPG.

what /are/ "safety standards"?

from the bosch automotive handbook:

"distribution of accidents by type of collision
front left, 32%
side, 20%
front right, 16%
front full, 16%
rollover, 10%
rear 6%

so you can ask questions about how much is spent on one type of impact
relative to it's percentage likelihood.

then you can go on to ask, how often do you see cars hit truly solid
objects full on? like those used in crash testing?

and /then/ you can ask, why don't cars come with 5-point harnesses, roll
cages and mandatory helmet use?

Re: 39 mpg by 2016?
 

jim beam wrote:
> Leftie wrote:
>> rick++ wrote:
>>> The new standard proposes this for passenger cars.
>>> But only two exceed this now- the Insight and the Prius.
>>> My 2004 Civic averages 34 for year-round driving,
>>> about the same my smaller1990 Civic.
>>> I'm not sure how you'd get this much higher without
>>> shedding size. And most Americans think that size of
>>> vehicle is a sardine can anyways.
>>
>>
>> I average 41mpg with a '95 Civic, so if they can get the cars to
>> make it easy to drive economically but effortlessly, that's not much
>> of a struggle.
>
> high mpg is dead easy if you reduce the weight of vehicles. but since
> we've seen vehicle weights increase by huge percentages in the last 20
> years to meet "safety" ratings for crash modes that are somewhat
> unrealistic [and of course, the oilcos contributions to washington's
> hungry political machine have had ZERO influence on this], then it's
> actually going to be hard to achieve.


My '95 Civic has two airbags and is almost as large and heavy as our
'95 Camry sedan (which also has dual airbags). Substituting some carbon
fiber for non-structural components and adding a bit more side impact
protection (like side airbags) would probably let it meet current safety
standards - and still get 41 MPG.

Re: 39 mpg by 2016?
 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
news:R84Rl.18712$d36.2843@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>> Leftie wrote:
>>
>>> rick++ wrote:
>>>
>>>> The new standard proposes this for passenger cars.
>>>> But only two exceed this now- the Insight and the Prius.
>>>> My 2004 Civic averages 34 for year-round driving,
>>>> about the same my smaller1990 Civic.
>>>> I'm not sure how you'd get this much higher without
>>>> shedding size. And most Americans think that size of
>>>> vehicle is a sardine can anyways.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I average 41mpg with a '95 Civic, so if they can get the cars
>>> to make it easy to drive economically but effortlessly, that's not
>>> much of a struggle.
>>
>>
>> high mpg is dead easy if you reduce the weight of vehicles. but
>> since we've seen vehicle weights increase by huge percentages in
>> the last 20 years to meet "safety" ratings for crash modes that are
>> somewhat unrealistic [and of course, the oilcos contributions to
>> washington's hungry political machine have had ZERO influence on
>> this], then it's actually going to be hard to achieve.
>
>
>
> Now, this is something that I agree with you 100%.
>
> To prove that lighter weight has an effect, my '83 Civic FE does
> just better than 42 mpg in mixed driving. And that's with an '82
> engine with the FE accesories. The original FE engine would do even
> better with its modified piston/ring regime.
>
> Also, its 2,000 lb weight has a lot to do with it...
>
> JT

My old 79 Accord hatch used to do quite well, until I was rear ended
while stopped at a red light by an early 80's Chrysler Newport doing
about 50 or so (with another car stopped in front of me). Glad it
wasn't a Pinto,,,,,

Re: 39 mpg by 2016?
 

L Alpert wrote:
> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
> news:R84Rl.18712$d36.2843@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>
>>jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>Leftie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>rick++ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The new standard proposes this for passenger cars.
>>>>>But only two exceed this now- the Insight and the Prius.
>>>>>My 2004 Civic averages 34 for year-round driving,
>>>>>about the same my smaller1990 Civic.
>>>>>I'm not sure how you'd get this much higher without
>>>>>shedding size. And most Americans think that size of
>>>>>vehicle is a sardine can anyways.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I average 41mpg with a '95 Civic, so if they can get the cars
>>>>to make it easy to drive economically but effortlessly, that's not
>>>>much of a struggle.
>>>
>>>
>>>high mpg is dead easy if you reduce the weight of vehicles. but
>>>since we've seen vehicle weights increase by huge percentages in
>>>the last 20 years to meet "safety" ratings for crash modes that are
>>>somewhat unrealistic [and of course, the oilcos contributions to
>>>washington's hungry political machine have had ZERO influence on
>>>this], then it's actually going to be hard to achieve.
>>
>>
>>
>>Now, this is something that I agree with you 100%.
>>
>>To prove that lighter weight has an effect, my '83 Civic FE does
>>just better than 42 mpg in mixed driving. And that's with an '82
>>engine with the FE accesories. The original FE engine would do even
>>better with its modified piston/ring regime.
>>
>>Also, its 2,000 lb weight has a lot to do with it...
>>
>>JT
>
>
> My old 79 Accord hatch used to do quite well, until I was rear ended
> while stopped at a red light by an early 80's Chrysler Newport doing
> about 50 or so (with another car stopped in front of me). Glad it
> wasn't a Pinto,,,,,


Being rear ended by a large car doing "about 50" is right in the range
of no survivability. You were lucky period.

There are those that espouse safety at any cost but realistically, this
just is not justifiable. At some point, cost vs. benefit ratios must
take precedence. If not, we'll all go broke.

I don't consider my Gen II Hondas very safe in a passive accident. I'm
fully willing to take that risk in return to low operating cost. That's
my decision but it may not be share by many.

If I were the grand poopah, I would let the marketplace determine what
features personal autos offered. Currently, there is way too much in the
way of guv'ment mandates. I would offer only basic features such as
seatbelts, ample padding and STRONGER bumpers but that's it! Let
everything else be an option.

But that's just me and no one ever listens to grumpy old men...

JT

Re: 39 mpg by 2016?
 

jim beam wrote:
> Leftie wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Leftie wrote:
>>>> rick++ wrote:
>>>>> The new standard proposes this for passenger cars.
>>>>> But only two exceed this now- the Insight and the Prius.
>>>>> My 2004 Civic averages 34 for year-round driving,
>>>>> about the same my smaller1990 Civic.
>>>>> I'm not sure how you'd get this much higher without
>>>>> shedding size. And most Americans think that size of
>>>>> vehicle is a sardine can anyways.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I average 41mpg with a '95 Civic, so if they can get the cars to
>>>> make it easy to drive economically but effortlessly, that's not much
>>>> of a struggle.
>>>
>>> high mpg is dead easy if you reduce the weight of vehicles. but
>>> since we've seen vehicle weights increase by huge percentages in the
>>> last 20 years to meet "safety" ratings for crash modes that are
>>> somewhat unrealistic [and of course, the oilcos contributions to
>>> washington's hungry political machine have had ZERO influence on
>>> this], then it's actually going to be hard to achieve.
>>
>>
>> My '95 Civic has two airbags and is almost as large and heavy as
>> our '95 Camry sedan (which also has dual airbags). Substituting some
>> carbon fiber for non-structural components and adding a bit more side
>> impact protection (like side airbags) would probably let it meet
>> current safety standards - and still get 41 MPG.
>
> what /are/ "safety standards"?
>
> from the bosch automotive handbook:
>
> "distribution of accidents by type of collision
> front left, 32%
> side, 20%
> front right, 16%
> front full, 16%
> rollover, 10%
> rear 6%
>
> so you can ask questions about how much is spent on one type of impact
> relative to it's percentage likelihood.
>
> then you can go on to ask, how often do you see cars hit truly solid
> objects full on? like those used in crash testing?
>
> and /then/ you can ask, why don't cars come with 5-point harnesses, roll
> cages and mandatory helmet use?


If you look at tests actually being used by places like the
Insurance Institute (IIRC) they use offset and side crash testing with
actual vehicles. You seem to have a picture of how crash testing works
that's about 20 years out of date.

Re: 39 mpg by 2016?
 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
news:yRcRl.19719$d36.7153@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> L Alpert wrote:
>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
>> news:R84Rl.18712$d36.2843@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>>>
>>>jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>Leftie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>rick++ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The new standard proposes this for passenger cars.
>>>>>>But only two exceed this now- the Insight and the Prius.
>>>>>>My 2004 Civic averages 34 for year-round driving,
>>>>>>about the same my smaller1990 Civic.
>>>>>>I'm not sure how you'd get this much higher without
>>>>>>shedding size. And most Americans think that size of
>>>>>>vehicle is a sardine can anyways.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I average 41mpg with a '95 Civic, so if they can get the cars
>>>>> to make it easy to drive economically but effortlessly, that's
>>>>> not much of a struggle.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>high mpg is dead easy if you reduce the weight of vehicles. but
>>>>since we've seen vehicle weights increase by huge percentages in
>>>>the last 20 years to meet "safety" ratings for crash modes that
>>>>are somewhat unrealistic [and of course, the oilcos contributions
>>>>to washington's hungry political machine have had ZERO influence
>>>>on this], then it's actually going to be hard to achieve.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Now, this is something that I agree with you 100%.
>>>
>>>To prove that lighter weight has an effect, my '83 Civic FE does
>>>just better than 42 mpg in mixed driving. And that's with an '82
>>>engine with the FE accesories. The original FE engine would do
>>>even better with its modified piston/ring regime.
>>>
>>>Also, its 2,000 lb weight has a lot to do with it...
>>>
>>>JT
>>
>>
>> My old 79 Accord hatch used to do quite well, until I was rear
>> ended while stopped at a red light by an early 80's Chrysler
>> Newport doing about 50 or so (with another car stopped in front of
>> me). Glad it wasn't a Pinto,,,,,
>
>
> Being rear ended by a large car doing "about 50" is right in the
> range of no survivability. You were lucky period.
>

I saw him coming in my RV mirror, so I laid back in the seat and
closed my eyes....I ened up in the back seat (front seat back broke
off instantly), the entire back end of the car was pushed around and
under the back tires. Nothing more then a scratch on me. I was
lucky, big time.

> There are those that espouse safety at any cost but realistically,
> this just is not justifiable. At some point, cost vs. benefit ratios
> must take precedence. If not, we'll all go broke.
>

Well, if the guy was driving a smaller car similar to mine, he would
have hit me with maybe 50% less force (figuring that his car was twice
the weigt of mine). It's next to impossible to engineer for the
maximum amount of probable force, so one must engineer for the most
probable amount of force, or else we would all be driving tanks that
would be getting heavier on a log scale.

> I don't consider my Gen II Hondas very safe in a passive accident.
> I'm fully willing to take that risk in return to low operating cost.
> That's my decision but it may not be share by many.

For anyone that purchases a smaller vehicle (such as both of us), it
should always be an informed decision on all aspects of the vehicle as
one can absorb.

>
> If I were the grand poopah, I would let the marketplace determine
> what features personal autos offered. Currently, there is way too
> much in the way of guv'ment mandates. I would offer only basic
> features such as seatbelts, ample padding and STRONGER bumpers but
> that's it! Let everything else be an option.
>

Next thing you know, the government (and by default, we the people)
will be buying into American industry.

> But that's just me and no one ever listens to grumpy old men...

Maybe other grumpy though not yet as old men.
>
> JT