Perhaps if one lives in flat country. Drive one up a long grade and try to
maintain the posted speed limit, or try accelerating from 60 MPH and you
will see why it is a slug. On needs to drive with the throttle to the floor
most of the time on anything but a flat road.and if you do that your mileage
will drop way off ;)
One would expect any vehicle that could actually achieve 225 MPG or even
125 MPG would be quickly brought to market by the inventor. If he did not
have the capital, or the investors, to do so one would think he would at
least license the patent to a manufacture who would gladly bring it to
market and put all of its competitors out of business. LOL
BUICK Century with a 3.1L engine.
That's about 185 cu inches...
Considerably smaller then the 6's of the 60's and 70's
At first, I thought it underpowered,
but since then, I've learned to drive with my head,
not the gas pedal.
It's no speed demon,
30 > 35 mpg on the interstate more than makes up for it !
good point.......many, many times while I'm trying to merge onto the
highway, there's some dipshit moron in front of me who's doing like 35mph
at the point the entrance ramp meets the highway and they're in a 220hp
modern car. So it's driver error. I've owned econobox hatchback type cars
with 65hp that you could easily get up to 55-65mph before merging.
Who is taking about speed? Even a 4cy car can do 100 MPH. For a car to be
safe it should have the torque, at the proper RPM, to be quick enough to get
out of its own way when needed, a 4cy Camry can not. A 4cy Camry can not
even maintain the speed limit on a long grades on the interstates around
here. Eight out of ten Camrys sold in the US only have the four, our local
dealer stocks mostly V6s for that reason. The Camry V6, like the Century
3.1L engine, has the proper torque for a car that size.
A lot of it is WEIGHT. cars aren't getting any lighter; despite
improvements in technology and engineering (one can save weight by
using compter modeling to make parts only as heavy as they absolutely
need to be to perform reliably) possible weight savings are negated by
upsizing and upcontenting just about every model line. Compare a
current VW Golf to the original Rabbit and you'll see what I mean, but
this is by no means the only example. Personally I'd be ecstatic if I
could buy a simple, basic 2-seater that weighed maybe 2000-2500 lbs.
and I bet it could perform well and get good fuel economy too. But the
insurance industry (2-seaters are bad, m'kay) federal safety
regulations (airbags add weight, as do door beams, rollover protection,
etc. not to mention the possibly soon-to-be-mandatory ABS and DSC) and
simple market pressures (people still tend to buy the biggest car they
can afford, as they assume that "bigger and more expensive must equal
better") pretty much ensure that that won't happen, unless I go with an
expensive, high-performance model.
There are plenty of small high mileage vehicles available on the market
today for those that choose to buy them. The reality is few buyers choose
to do so, prefer to buy the better equipped, safer, larger, more powerful
vehicle that are available at around the same price. How many in the US do
you believe will buy a two seater 'Smart' for 14K, that will so go on sale
here, when they can buy any of a half dozen others that are better equipped,
safer, larger, more powerful for the same price? Especially when GM
dealers are advertising the base Aveo for $9,990 and DerMopar the base
Caliber for $11,995
I wouldn't buy any of them, when one can probably buy a used Miata or
944 for the same price. I'm a cheap SOB. However, if someone came up
with a "poor man's sports car" concept, I'd be all over it like flies
on you know what. I really don't care about better equipped or larger;
safer (in terms of better performance capabilities) and more powerful
are really the only deciding factors.
What would be awesome would be, say, something like a 914 or X1/9 with
a modern, powerful yet efficient engine like the VW TDI. It would have
to be drastically decontented to meet my price criteria, but I'm OK
I guess I must not be your average car buyer...
Mike Hunter wrote:
My dad once raced a friend through a twisty/windy mountain road back in the
70's. My dad was driving an Austin Bugeye Sprite and his friend was in a
Charger with a 440ci. My dad's time was better than the other guy's
elapsed time, so my dad won because of the superior handling of the Austin
Sprite. It would be cool to get one of these tiny little British roadster
(Sprite, MG Midget, etc..) and install, let's say, a Toyota 4AGE (1600cc
DOHC 16V) in it. There is a racing circuit in Europe that people drive old
Lotuses, Trimuph and MG's in, and most of the cars have more modern
Didn't Top Gear do a hillclimb challenge between an old guy in a Sprite
and some modern "tuner" car recently? IIRC the Sprite spanked the tuner
car, as you'd expect. It was a little hokey (the "tuner car" had Lambo
doors, playstation, etc. but the owner seemed to think it was fast) but
proved a point. At least a Charger is a real car.
I'm not really into old British stuff, but a Beck spyder might make a
good base for an "econo-sportster" if you could get past the price tag.
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.