<VV> 85 isn't the point

[Tony Underwood]

At 02:10 hours 04/18/2005, Chuck Kubin wrote:


> > ====85 mpg carburetor/ Sure, right next to your soon-to-be-delivered
> > Brooklyn
> > Bridge! ====
>
>OK guys, I can save you a lot of backyard science and typing messages to 
>the forum. I picked 85 mpg out of the hat to illustrate that the industry 
>has done a lot of experimenting, testing and engineering with all kinds of 
>ideas that you aren't going to see on a production car. I wrote it in 
>reaction to the notion that if the General didn't put SOME ONE CERTAIN 
>EXACT PARTICULAR THING  (AS IN ANYTHING ANYTHING ANYTHING NOT JUST AN 85 
>MPG CARB) out to the public, it wouldn't work.




Does anyone remember the news story (even made Popular Hotrodding) about 
the gentleman who bought/ordered a new Ford Pinto with his choice of 
interior and exterior colors in 1974 and got something which was rather 
anemic and down on power but it got almost 65 mpg?    Then about month 
after purchasing said vehicle, the dealership contacted him to tell him it 
was a mistake, that he'd picked up the wrong vehicle...  or rather, the 
dealership had been sent the wrong vehicle and the one accidentally sent 
was originally intended to have been a Ford R&D test mule for a new fuel 
delivery system installed on a prototype engine.

Trouble developed when the gentleman informed the dealership that he'd paid 
for the Pinto in good faith wasn't gonna give the car back.

Seems Ford had to pay top dollar to reclaim the car, via giving the 
gentleman some sort of luxo-sedan in exchange for the nonthirsty Pinto 
which was actually worth a couple hundred thousand dollars seeing as how 
the experimental driveline was a one-off item.

This was the gist of the article, to the best of my memory.


Anyone remember this news story?    It generated a few editorials at 
Pop-Rod via debating the auto manufacturers' abilities to build cars that 
would get better mileage,  seeing as how this story broke about the same 
time as the Oil Embargo of the '70s when gas prices went up overnight and 
lines formed, rationing was initiated etc.



It's mostly a matter of a car's weight vs performance as to what sort of 
mileage to expect.    There's a 1200 lb Fiat in the fleet which manages ~50 
mpg but its top speed is 45-50 mph and it takes about 45 seconds to get 
there if the road is flat and level.    It's also not what I'd regard as a 
comfortable car to drive or ride in, although it is kinda fun...   it takes 
~5 gallons to fill the tank.    Zero to sixty times:    ...next week, if 
there's a downhill.    Now, perhaps this is for the best, seeing as how 
this little car is taller than it is wide.   I'd not wanna be in it going 
60 mph, but it's OK at 45...  long as you stay alert; it's twitchy on the 
Interstates.   Sharp corners and it becomes a bicycle.

No issues in this camp about Vairs turning over...  try a sharp turn in a 
Fiat 600 Multipla.    Its saving grace is that if it does turn over, two 
guys can tip it back up onto its wheels easily enough and go on down the 
road.     The ones here have no road rash on their door handles.


Sure, you can build a car that gets 60 mpg but it's not likely that it's 
gonna be very pleasing to drive on a daily basis.  Mileage and convenience 
sometimes don't go together.


I'm surprised at the figures some guys are getting out of a Corvair at the 
Economy Runs...  40+ mpg?    Amazing.   Wish my '60 could manage that...


tony..