GWguy
*
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
If the kids can do it, why can't the major manufacturers do it?
If the kids can do it, why can't the major manufacturers do it?
Kids Build 65mpg Car
- Thread starter GWguy
- Start date
Crewdawg141
IYAMYAS!!!!!
Because the kids are driven by desire, not profits like major manufacturers. I hope that these kids can take these lessons and apply them for greater things in the future.
E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
does it have 15 mph bumpers and crumple zones
how save is to drive
how save is to drive
GWguy
*
Did you guys look at the video? It's a production vehicle that they changed the drive train on. Same vehicle that's on the roads. How does that suddenly become unsafe?
As far as fed regs, not sure, but I'll bet everything they put in is already covered by some reg. Harley motor with I'm sure a much improved exhaust system, etc...
To me, no different than removing a 289 v-8 from a Mustang and shoehorning a 427 in there with a different tranny and rear end. You'd fully expect it to pass inspection, wouldn't you?
As far as fed regs, not sure, but I'll bet everything they put in is already covered by some reg. Harley motor with I'm sure a much improved exhaust system, etc...
To me, no different than removing a 289 v-8 from a Mustang and shoehorning a 427 in there with a different tranny and rear end. You'd fully expect it to pass inspection, wouldn't you?
Crewdawg141
IYAMYAS!!!!!
Yes, I did look at the video. I honestly would like to see the build sheet for their Ford. Did they get the engine and motor secondhand or did they go for something new? I am also curious to know if the stock Ford transmission was retained or did that get swapped out too?
glhs837
Power with Control
Did they mount the engine in such a way that it moves like the stock one in a crash? Did they crash test any cars? Did they do the same sort of longevity testing of this drive train that a maker does? How long does a Harley motor stand up when pushing 3,000 llbs? Hell when SRT needed to alter the transmission programming on the early 6.1 liter cars, it was six months of required testing after the fix was developed. Just for altered transmission programming.
The point is that a one off is easy, but a product that has to live in the real world, operated by idiots and worked on by part replacing monkeys? For over 100,000 miles? Not so easy.
GWguy
*
Ok, I guess that's valid. Just seems that if the kids can do it, the big boys could have easily done this by now.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Government regulation would make it tough.
I'm sure you'd need millions of dollars, 40,000 sheets of paperwork, and a lobbyist to be able to mass produce it.
Hell, there are disel cars in Europe that get 60+ MPG, but for some reason the US doesn't like diesel fuel.
Our government is run by lawyers, not engineers. Talkers, not doers. I doubt 1 out of 100 of them even knows how a diesel engine differs from a gasoline engine (other than the fuel it uses). So I'm not surprised by the government's inability to see how much it would help – everything from "the environment" to the economy – by knocking down the stupid regulatory roadblocks that are keeping diesel cars on the other side of the pond.
I'm sure you'd need millions of dollars, 40,000 sheets of paperwork, and a lobbyist to be able to mass produce it.
Hell, there are disel cars in Europe that get 60+ MPG, but for some reason the US doesn't like diesel fuel.
Our government is run by lawyers, not engineers. Talkers, not doers. I doubt 1 out of 100 of them even knows how a diesel engine differs from a gasoline engine (other than the fuel it uses). So I'm not surprised by the government's inability to see how much it would help – everything from "the environment" to the economy – by knocking down the stupid regulatory roadblocks that are keeping diesel cars on the other side of the pond.
E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
not a lot of people want cracker boxes that get high fuel economy
they are to light weight to survive any kind of crash ...
.... because they have to be built like Budweiser cans to get the fuel economy required now
why do you thing SUV's and Mini Vans are so popular
they are safer
they are to light weight to survive any kind of crash ...
.... because they have to be built like Budweiser cans to get the fuel economy required now
why do you thing SUV's and Mini Vans are so popular
they are safer
glhs837
Power with Control
Which of course compleltey avoids the whole train of thought that a vehicle should be able to avoid a crash in the first place. A lot of folks just assume that being in a crash is inevitable and " dress" accordingly. People don't teach their children how to drive and send them forth in a tank.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Crewdawg141
IYAMYAS!!!!!
I have seen these tests in the past and I agree that the cage that was designed for the Smart Car was well engineered. I have issues with this - 33 city / 41 hwy If I am going to pay money to look that stupid why does it not get better mileage? I can find VW Diesels that look better, get 50+ mpg, and still save some coin in the long run.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
That was my point. It was stated that fuel mileage comes with an unsafe car. With the well engineered cage in this tiny a$$ car, It's not far-fetched to have a safe, and fuel efficient car.
As far as your question....the EPA, manufacturers, oil companies...who knows. The EPA doesn't like diesel fuel for some reason. Maybe auto companies are in bed with oil companies. As long as high mileage cars "aren't allowed" here, the oil companies will always have more business.
True, but who's to say a larger car couldn't be made using the same cage setup with a larger crumple zone in front, and behind it.