(Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?

I would like to know how much of that weight is specific to the side-impact standard that simulates getting hit by an SUV. Hey I got a better idea; why don't we require the SUVs to carry a big fluffy bumper so they don't inflict as much damage? And while we are at it, let's require all light trucks to be painted pastel pink. Then we will see how many people *really* need a truck.

Gordon McGrew wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

to meet the side impact standard,auto makers raised the height of the door and bodywork(to keep another vehicle from hitting the weaker window area);note that today's autos are taller than earlier models.

AFAIK,Audi and Acura are the only automakers to make an aluminum body auto,the Acura NSX is aluminum. IMO,more auto body components could be aluminum,saving some weight,and not rusting,either,although Al to steel will corrode without special coatings/fasteners.

not true for all new vehicles:

adds to the price too.

bottom line, i think safe is good, but the weight penalty to "protect" against side impact, the current hot ticket, is pretty much pointless. any time you have your head right next to a nice inflexible piece of bodywork, and no distance in which to decelerate moving objects, you're going to have injury. period. racing bucket seats, 5 point harness and helmets otoh /would/ make a significant difference to side impact safety. but they weigh nothing. just wait another 30 years and see whether they become mandatory! [not.]

like it! but it may not make as much difference as you'd like. my ex was fixated on pink. /any/ vehicle that came with a huge pink fluffy bumper, she'd buy it. i'm not joking either.

legally, they should be. but it's not enforced. write your congress critter!

you'd be surprised. i've seen a lot of crashed hondas in a lot of junk yards and they survive pretty damned well.

LOL! I was 19. Thing nickle and dimed me into the poorhouse (well, almost).

But you just looked so damned *COOL* driving it, who cared?! (Kinda like how I feel about the fuel 'economy' of my Supra, but that has more to do with the removable roof section...)

Rolled the damn 1800 right onto the roof. Thank God Volvo builds roll bars into their cars...

I think that's mostly style.

Aluminium? (love the British version) Nah. Plastics, my man, the high-tech ceramics. You don't see any aluminum tennis rackets now, the composite materials are ridiculously stronger and lighter (and cheaper!?), and they're going away from aluminum to composites now in the aircraft. Aluminum fatigues and fails, so it has to be (mildly) overengineered instead.

J.

The new 787 is largely constructed of carbon fiber.

The first big aerospace application was carbon fiber rotor blades that were pioneered by Kaman in the 1960's. The company is the world's largest producer of rotor blades today.

OTOH, the L1011 while sporting an aluminum fuselage had no stringers as it was constructed of thicker aluminum sheets which in turn really provided for an airframe that did not have a dated life time expectancy. Construction and maintenance were greatly simplified.

JT

To the best of my knowledge, the Studebaker Avanti was the only American car with an integral roll bar as part of the design. This car which was introduced in the spring of 1962, also had a fiberglass body, front disk brakes and a completely padded safety interior.

And driving was a pleasure as it sure was glued to the road. I loved that car and sure wish that I did not sell it but unfortunately, I had to thin the herd when I accepted overseas employment back in 1989...

JT