39 mpg by 2016?

#11

jim beam wrote:

Quote:

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that's about 20 years out of date.

#12

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy (AT) ExtraGrumpyville (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

L Alpert wrote:
"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy (AT) ExtraGrumpyville (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:R84Rl.18712$d36.2843 (AT) bgtnsc04-news (DOT) 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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Maybe other grumpy though not yet as old men.

Quote:

JT

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

39 mpg by 2016?

Honda/Acura Vehicles Discussion group for Honda/Acura vehicles. (alt.autos.honda)

Re: 39 mpg by 2016? - 05-21-2009 , 04:06 PM

Re: 39 mpg by 2016? - 05-21-2009 , 09:21 PM