Detroit Is Full Of Shit!!!
Gonzo1977
Posts: 1,696
20 miles per gallon?? WTF is wrong with Detroit??
Remember the Suburu 360???
66 miles per gallon!!!
That's right folks....66 miles per gallon!!!
Better yet...the car was on the market in 1969!!!
http://adventurebooks.newsvine.com/_news/2008/05/03/1467619-in-1969-subaru-was-getting-66-miles-per-gallon
Remember the Suburu 360???
66 miles per gallon!!!
That's right folks....66 miles per gallon!!!
Better yet...the car was on the market in 1969!!!
http://adventurebooks.newsvine.com/_news/2008/05/03/1467619-in-1969-subaru-was-getting-66-miles-per-gallon
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Surely there is a catch right?
What is the catch?
Safety enhancements?
pollution control?
What kind of MPG do those mini smart cars get?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Today you have Mit Romney and some other YOB from Georgia out their flapping their idiot mouths on C-Span how we need to "Push Detroit to aim for 35 miles per gallon by 2010"???
What the fuck is wrong with these people?? Did we lose the blueprints here??
You mean to tell me we can create a car that can get 66 miles per gallon in 19-fucking-69 and not in 2008?
I don't get it...
It wasn't a concept car...Look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_360
The United States, with current efficiency standards of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 22.2 per gallon for SUVs and small trucks, has lagged behind the rest of the developed world. In the European Union, automakers have agreed to voluntary increases in fuel-economy standards that next year will lift the average to 44.2 miles per gallon, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In Japan, average vehicle fuel economy tops 45 miles per gallon. China's level is in the mid-30s and projected to rise, propelled by government policy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101026_pf.html
pandora's box ...
the answer to this question answers a bunch of others too ...
Thanks... I seen in the link the following:
The 360 was imported to the United States by Malcolm Bricklin, but the Subaru 360 received notoriety in 1969, when Consumer Reports magazine branded the automobile "Not Acceptable" (because of safety concerns and lack of power), and sales collapsed. There were various rumors of Subaru 360s being tossed overboard or being shredded to pieces. It was also reported that many 360s sat on dealers' lots for two or three years without ever being purchased. Despite this, Subaru gained popularity in the United States with its later models, and remains profitable there today.
No wonder I never heard of it. It must have been a scooter with 4 wheels. Not much to talk about if it had no power to it. (But then that was the muscle car era right?) Dont know if it was bias.
The failure of domestic sedans was partly going to front wheel drive..well at least for their premium sedans....freakin FWD caddy or Lincoln. Now they're attempting to bring back RWD platforms like the Pontiac Grand Prix but they've conditioned it takes a truck to be cool..they can't sell them.
Do give them credit for they're health insurance and retirement liabilities, maybe if we moved to some sort of government healthcare system we could relieve business's for subsidizing the wealth of healthcare business.
Who was largely responsible for the HSA you might ask?
Well....
That would be Mr Ralph Nader of course.
Thanks for playing:D
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/11/20/ap5723885.html
"The initiative would make the Bay Area the first region in the U.S. to create an electric car network."
Also, that engine was a 2 cylinder with 36 horse power. So I'm guessing that engine only got up to around 40 to 50 mph...
Oh and from the Wiki article you posted:
"The 360 was imported to the United States by Malcolm Bricklin, but the Subaru 360 received notoriety in 1969, when Consumer Reports magazine branded the automobile "Not Acceptable" (because of safety concerns and lack of power), and sales collapsed"
Now if it wasn't acceptable back in '69, it should give you an indication of how unsafe it must have been.
Now that's not to say that the Big 3 didn't follow a poor strategy of completely ignoring the car market and focusing on trucks.
People seem to see things in such black and white matters, when you forget that decisions companies make are affected by many factors, especially in an industry as complicated as the auto industry.
My .02
Bridge School '06 Night 1 & 2
Venice '07 pummeled by the sleet!
Nijmegen '07
Werchter '07
April Fools ~ LA1
BTW stop pissing about light trucks, the least fuel effiecnt now is the Toyota Tundra( about 12 mpg in real world use).Still , light trucks will be needed-the point is that here is no reason a 1/2 ton truck with a small v-8 (making about 250hp-plenty) can not be made to average 35 mpg-and then you know what to expect from smaller vehicles. The US makers have dropped the ball, while the Asian makers have stayed just far enough ahead in fuel economy to differentiate their makes( not to mention qaulity), BTW many of these plants are in the south, so the dude's comment about nuking us would be detreemtnal to this situation as well. LOL
everyone is mad at the "big 3" for pumping out nothing but gas guzzling trucks and SUV's in the 80's and 90's,, but they were making big bucks off them fuckers. thats what companies are supposed to do....make cash. not saying its right, but we kept buying them (not me,
i put my vote in for "no" corporate auto/union auto welfare.
Well, business that make decisions with short-term thinking, likely aren't going to be around for the long-term. Well, the Big 3 formula of making money only trucks and SUV's has gotten them in a world of hurt. We can and should blame them for making big bucks off SUV's. Their business model sucked.
I used to think this too. But I found out that Diesel fuel in Europe and the US is very different, therefore a completely new engine would have to be engineered which costs several Billion and takes years.
Bridge School '06 Night 1 & 2
Venice '07 pummeled by the sleet!
Nijmegen '07
Werchter '07
April Fools ~ LA1
Yet - the Democrats are the ones tripping all over themselves to give them an handout. I just can't understand why unless it has to do with kickbacks or something of the sort.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I live in Detroit & agree that we can't keep bailing these companies out, but it would be a DISASTER if we did let them fail. I read in the paper last week that if GM declares chapter 11 bankruptcy that pensions and retirees benefits would be null & void. That just doesnt seem right.
or how about these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztFDqcu8oJ4
come on Washington, lets get the ball rolling on these innovations
The band all knows. We're too afraid to mention.
Don't want to be part of Frank's luncheon.
Lose weight. Be safe. Where's Mike McCready?
My god he's been ate!
There have been, without question, terrible business practices from the big 3.
Having said that, it really pains me to see the malice directed toward them. As if they wanted this to happen. These are companies, that even outside of the union, have done tremendous things to help this nation, this region, and the people that work for them. From being early adopters of Same-Sex benefits, to good wages, and even donating a LOT of money to local charities and developments.
For people to be rooting for these 3 companies to fail, to punish the couple hundred at the top, at the expense of Hundreds of thousands of honest, dedicated workers, and the supporting businesses, is absolutely insane to me.
Obviously the Suburu had it's flaws. The car was only able to obtain a maximinum speed of 80 mph and it had some huge safety issues that took it off the road.
The fact is...The car was able to get 60 mpg. You mean to tell me that we haven't figured out how to improve the safety of cars since 1969? That it is impossible to create a car that is both safe and fuel efficient?
That is bullshit and we all know it.
The fact of the matter is The Big 3 has made some huge errors in judgement over the last 20 years in regards to their failed business model. The decision to flood the market with useless gas guzzling SUV's, Hummers, and Big Trucks was a huge and arrogant mistake.
The Big 3 lost touch with their customers and ignored their needs. And that is why they are in this mess.
And now they come to Washington with their hands out begging for some help, yet they continue to claim that the technology and money isn't there to produce Customer Friendly Fuel Efficient Cars.
Which is not only a flat out lie, but a blatant lazy and apathetic approach to business and it's completly unacceptable.
I'm all for giving these companies some assistance in getting them back on track, but we really need to take the Big 3 to task and force them to get their act toghether.
We have to make it very clear that in order to recieve this money, they are going to have to get off their asses and give the American People what they want and need.
No more Irresponsibility
No more Lazyness
No more of this bullshit underacheiving goal of 30-40 mpg by 2010.
It's time to pull the straps up and get down to work.
where did you get such garbage?
http://www.answers.com/topic/national-traffic-and-motor-vehicle-safety-act
Regulators issued twenty standards for passenger cars by the initial deadline, including rules requiring installation of seat belts for all occupants, impact-absorbing steering columns, padded dashboards, safety glass, and dual braking systems.
so which of these features made the vehicles less fuel efficient than they were?
the 2009 volkswagon jetta is supposed to get 60mpg, i haven't seen it but i bet it's a pretty safe care.
i don't really think impact-absorbing steering columns and padded dashboards makes a car slower or less efficient, it's the technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal-Combustion_Engine#Engine_Efficiency
Engine Efficiency
The efficiency of various types of internal combustion engines vary. Most gasoline fueled internal combustion engines, even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, have a mechanical efficiency of about 20% [2][3]. The efficiency may be as high as 37% at the optimum operating point in engines where this is a high priority such as that of the Prius. Most internal combustion engines waste about 36% of the energy in gasoline as heat lost to the cooling system and another 38% through the exhaust. The rest, about 6%, is lost to friction.
thanks for playing, maybe next time you will get it right
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
They rate it at 41+ MPG but has gotten closer to 50MPG when driven at more normal speeds.
http://www.greencar.com/features/2009-vw-jetta-clean-diesel-wins
The new Honda Insight is coming out soon, it has a very weird dash/speedo/computer system.
Depending on your driving, the colors change to tell you how much fuel you are burning.
---
The Ecological Drive Assist System was developed by Honda to enable its clients to improve their fuel economy in actual driving conditions. The scoring function offers accumulated, long-term feedback via graphic ‘leaves’, which ‘grow’ over time as drivers learn and then implement a sleeker driving style that raises fuel economy. The visual character of the scoring function presentation makes it easy and enjoyable for drivers to enhance the efficiency of their driving skills in time.
http://jalopnik.com/5045333/new-honda-insight-hybrid-revealed-expected-18500-price-tag-to-make-it-worlds-cheapest
http://jalopnik.com/photogallery/insightdashpreview/1004747662