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.

On May 19, 12:13*pm, "rick++" <rick... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:
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.

Leftie wrote:
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.

rick++ wrote:

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.

On May 19, 11:52*pm, jim beam <m... (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote:
also, 50 lb amps driving 8 10 lb speakers.

jim beam wrote:


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

Leftie wrote:
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?

jim beam wrote:

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.

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

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,,,,,

L Alpert wrote:

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