Detroit Is Full Of Shit!!!

Gonzo1977

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

RolandTD20Kdrummer

That's messed dude. They even used thicker, heavier metal back then.

Surely there is a catch right?

What is the catch?

Safety enhancements?

pollution control?

What kind of MPG do those mini smart cars get?

El_Kabong

i could be wrong as i don't have one, but don't some volvo's get like 50 or more mpg?

meistereder

Crazy. Looks almost like a VW Beetle too.

Gonzo1977

It's a complete joke!!

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...

jbalicki10

To be fair, I think this was a concept car and it was never proven to actually get 66 miles to the gallon.

Gonzo1977

jbalicki10 wrote:

To be fair, I think this was a concept car and it was never proven to actually get 66 miles to the gallon.

It wasn't a concept car...Look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_360

stuckinline

i posted this in the big 3 auto thread. my question is if other countries have higher fuel standards, why doesn't the usa?



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

polaris

stuckinline wrote:

i posted this in the big 3 auto thread. my question is if other countries have higher fuel standards, why doesn't the usa?



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 ...

jbalicki10

Gonzo1977 wrote:

It wasn't a concept car...Look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_360

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.

callen

Not sure if Detroit was full of sh*t more like they used failed strategy to sell cars. Namely they knew they couldn't compete with sedans and thus attempted and successfully transitioned a portion of the buying public to full size trucks and SUV's. You couldn't watch TV 5 minutes without seeing a Truck and SUV commercial. Was relentless...and it worked. Your not a real man unless you drive a truck and your not a caring mom if you don't put your little treasures in a protective 3 ton vehicle. Insecurity and fear......cornerstones of swaying Americans, well ah ah...okay all humans. Not a coincidence the big three and Dubya and his goons used the same strategy. These vehicles aren't considered practical/economical in the rest of the world and thus they had they found their niche. Course in the last few years other foreign manufacturers followed suit with they're gas guzzling monsters.

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.

Strangest Tribe

Yeah, you can thank the Highway Safety Act for the trend of larger less fuel efficient vehicles of the 70's.

Who was largely responsible for the HSA you might ask?

Well....

That would be Mr Ralph Nader of course.

Thanks for playing:D

Commy

Maybe this is the way to go.


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."

Lesbelges

Now I don't know the details, but my guess is that that little car would not even be close to meet safety standards. I mean....If you would like, you could buy it and get 66MPG, but you'd be forgoing airbags, power steering, Anti Lock brakes. All these things add a lot of weight reducing the MPG rating.

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

Maicojames

While I agree that Detroit is full of it, as are the other makers too...well theSubaru is a piss poor example. We should mention the Corvette-how about 400+ hp and 30 mpg too. Well, there goes the old lbs of fuel realtion to brake horsepower. ..and remember this is a pushrod V-8. As far as efficeincy, try the factory works Honda 125cc RC149 of 1966!!! 360BHP per litre!! That is before cad cam-old school stuff. The technology to make more fuel effiecient gasoline engines is about 20years old, that is when port electronic fuel injection became reliable.

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

Flannel Shirt

i have heard from people I know in the auto industry that Ford has a car ready to launch that gets like 80 mpg, but they have no money to get it off the ground and nobody is buying cars now. thats a catch 22.

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 dont like SUV's).

ajedigecko

Flannel Shirt wrote:

i have heard from people I know in the auto industry that Ford has a car ready to launch that gets like 80 mpg, but they have no money to get it off the ground and nobody is buying cars now. thats a catch 22.

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 dont like SUV's).

i remember reading the article on aol several months ago about ford having a diesel focus/fiesta being produced in europe. if i remember correctly they would not make it available for U.S. customers.....due to cost. amazing!

i put my vote in for "no" corporate auto/union auto welfare.

bootlegger10

Flannel Shirt wrote:

i have heard from people I know in the auto industry that Ford has a car ready to launch that gets like 80 mpg, but they have no money to get it off the ground and nobody is buying cars now. thats a catch 22.

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 dont like SUV's).

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.

Lesbelges

ajedigecko wrote:

i remember reading the article on aol several months ago about ford having a diesel focus/fiesta being produced in europe. if i remember correctly they would not make it available for U.S. customers.....due to cost. amazing!

i put my vote in for "no" corporate auto/union auto welfare.

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.

know1

This is exactly why we need to let the big 3 fail. Because if we keep giving them band-aids, they will keep running their businesses without a care in the world for what is right.

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.

lowbudgetlush

know1 wrote:

This is exactly why we need to let the big 3 fail. Because if we keep giving them band-aids, they will keep running their businesses without a care in the world for what is right.

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.

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.