Bush approves CAFE standard increase.

[OS]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: OS


ahhh, yes such wonderfully objective and reputable sources like anti-state.com which says, "Welcome to anti-state.com, the center of the market anarchist movement."

Shut up assh0le. You say show me, you're shown! Ball's in your court now. Show me where that info is wrong! :| What a dick!

F*ck you bitch. I suppose I could go cite greenpeace, but I don't fight dirty like you.

 

[Ornery]

You got nuthin', fvckhead, as I expected!

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Ornery
I heard 2 cycle engines were pretty damn efficient. Trouble is, they're too dirty to suit the emissions standards. Always that trade off thing!

Speaking of trade offs Eli, the problem with legislating higher mileage involves trade offs too. Either the technology is too expensive, like exotic light alloys, or it gets too dangerous because there is very little car wrapped around you. It still disgusts me that they mandated air bags. Those damn things add about $1,600.00 to the price of each car, and they're freakin' dangerous to boot! Takes an act of Congress to have one disabled! Air Bags: Saving Lives at Any Cost? A Public Health Perspective Every time the government mandates something, it ends up costing more than it's worth!

Ever notice how fragile windows are in cars these days? Now that the thickness has been reduced to save gasoline, the crack more easily. What does the government care if you have to replace a couple windshields in a car during the time you own it? It gets .002 more MPG, and that's what really matters, right?

Well.. I understand that point of view.. but that's not where the MPG savings should be focused.

I support anything that furthers the research and development of the 150 year old Internal Combustion Engine. We need better engines. We can build better engines. They need to be pushed to build better engines.

I think if the standards are put forth, they will find a way to cope. We could build super efficent engines, but like everything.. it's a tradeoff.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Ornery
You got nuthin', fvckhead, as I expected!

Uhhh, dipsh*t, you didn't even consider the first article I posted, why should I waste my time looking for more??

 

[Ornery]

"Well.. I understand that point of view.. but that's not where the MPG savings should be focused.

I support anything that furthers the research and development of the 150 year old Internal Combustion Engine. We need better engines. We can build better engines. They need to be pushed to build better engines.

I think if the standards are put forth, they will find a way to cope. We could build super efficent engines, but like everything.. it's a tradeoff."

Like I said, the 2 cycle engine is efficient, but it's too dirty. Go look under the hood of your car and check out all the crap in there to keep it running clean and efficiently. Too much! Your mechanic has to be a damned rocket scientist to troubleshoot it. Forget about doing it yourself.

They'll find a way to cope, eh? Yeah, they find a way, and we're the ones that pay! Sometimes with our lives...

Forcing ever-smaller automobiles on the American public will exact a terrible price.
by Daniel R. Levine

• "Forcing automakers to build vehicles to meet a drastically higher gas mileage standard would cost us more money, limit our choices and endanger our live. Just ask Tim Kauk, whose two-month-old son was left without a mother after the head-on collision of their subcompact car: "Every time you go out in a small car, you're putting your family's safety on the line. The sacrifice is not worth it."

Report says vehicle safety ratings confusing to consumers
From the Journal Sentinel

• "Many consumers likely believe a 4-star compact car protects them in a crash to a similar degree as a 4-star van or (sports) utility (vehicle), when in fact they are significantly more likely to be injured in a crash when occupying the smaller vehicle," wrote author Patrick Anderson of Anderson Economic Group."

Status of Injury and Crashworthiness Consumer Information
TranSafety, Inc

• "Large, heavy cars generally offer more protection to their occupants, with fatalities in lighter vehicles averaging two to three times the fatalities in heavier vehicles. Because of their additional size, larger vehicles allow more "crush space" to absorb impact."

The Issue: Do real-life safety statistics warrant an insurance discount for larger vehicles?

• "State Farm Insurance, the nation's largest underwriter, will begin offering discounts to drivers of safer automobiles. Critics charge that the plan will "legitimize" larger vehicles that pose a danger to smaller cars. But the new policy actually reflects sound risk management."

When Heavy Meets Light

• "...So the statistics show. In 1996, 41,207 people died in traffic accidents, 35,579 of them within their vehicles. Crashes between LTVs and cars resulted in 5,259 fatalities. Of these, 81 percent, or 4,260 fatalities, occurred in the cars. Clearly, the passengers in the larger vehicles came out ahead. But that doesn?t make the LTVs the villains of the piece. Because it?s not just the mismatch in size that makes cars less safe. Fatal crashes between two cars caused 4,013 deaths, while LTV-LTV crashes resulted i n far fewer fatalities: 1,225. Even if we correct for the difference in the numbers of each type of vehicle on the road, it seems obvious that if everyone drove an LTV, far fewer bodies would be hauled off the nation?s highways every year..."

Safety Pointers for Car Shoppers

• "Larger, heavier vehicles generally are crashworthier than smaller, lighter ones. First, larger vehicles typically have longer crush zones, which helps protect the safety cage in one- and two-vehicle accidents. Plus, the extra weight offers additional safety in two-vehicle crashes -- as the heavier vehicle plows into the lighter one, some of its momentum is transferred to the other vehicle."

The 5 safest cars of all time

• According to the IIHS, vehicle size can protect you in both single- and two-vehicle collisions because larger vehicles usually have longer crumple zones that help prevent damage to the safety cage while reducing the crash forces inside it.
  
  Vehicle weight, on the other hand, protects you principally in two-vehicle crashes, says the IIHS. In a head-on crash, for example, the heavier vehicle drives the lighter one backward. This decreases forces inside the heavy vehicle and increases forces in the lighter one. So while all heavy vehicles, even poorly designed ones, offer this advantage in two-vehicle collisions, they may not offer good protection in single-vehicle crashes.

I'll keep driving the horrible gas guzzlers, and safety is the primary reason!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Do you want to completely remove SUV and light trucks from the market? Or do you know how to make light weight alloys at low cost or make engines produce more power on the same gas. 8MPG over 10 years would probably be unreasonable because of the expense.

GM is an agreement to purchase several hundred thousand motors from Honda. Why? B/C GM lacks the technological expertise to make fuel efficient engines. GM has some of the most convoluted model years in the industry. Why? B/C GM prefers to juggle model years instead of actually producing better vehicles. So what exactly does GM have against CAFE?
GM public policy
It forces manufacturers to offset popular models, that may have lower fuel economy but offer the features the customer wants by selling more higher-mileage vehicles that consumers often don't want. Consumers want larger vehicles for their family, work and leisure transportation.

Hmm lets see the truth is consumers just don't want Chevy's and scarcely desire Saturns. But guess who sells a whole lot of Civics/Accords? Ford performs somewhat better with the Focus but it highlights the historical idioacy of car crash comparisons. Escorts, Tempos, Cavaliers, were sold in the millions. They were the predominant small car on the road even though Honda made better vehicles. Now Ford and to a certain extent GM make safer small cars today than 20 or even 10 years ago. Why? Regulation. But the safest, most fuel efficient vehicles in almost every category are made by foreign ocompanies (although many of the vehicles are made in North America).

Now in all honesty if I have to be in accident I want to ride in a Benz . . . S-class . . . OK Maybach. Safer b/c of design and mass. If I'm driving I would prefer an M3 . . . safer b/c of maneuverablility, braking, design, and construction. By all means if you must pick a truck or SUV do so. But if you want an increased safety margin it should be from Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, M-B (except the AL crap), BMW, VW, or Volvo.
Unsafe at any speed?
In 40 mph tests, the institute characterized the safety performance of the Ford F-150 and Dodge Ram as poor. In the case of the F-150, the institute said it's about as "bad as it gets."

The Toyota Tundra got a good overall rating, along with a good rating for five of six sub-categories.

The GMC Sierra 1500 and its twin Chevrolet Silverado 1500 received a marginal rating overall, with a good rating for its prevention of different types of injuries, but poor ratings for the cab's structural integrity as well as how well the airbag, seat belts and other restraints restricted movement by a crash dummy during the test.

The safety of heavier vehicles breaks down on several levels. Just to name a couple . . . 1) design likely matters more than mass, 2) the ability to avoid accidents even controlled deceleration reduces the risk of death and injury. Take everyone out of a Chevy Cavalier and put them in a Honda Civic . . . wow fewer fatalities. A better car produces a better outcome . . . oops and better fuel economy.

 

[Ornery]

STATUS REPORT SPECIAL ISSUE: DRIVER DEATH RATES

• Bigger and heavier vehicles are better: Two important characteristics influencing crash outcome are vehicle size and weight, which are strongly related. The smaller, lighter vehicles in each class generally have higher death rates. (See Table 1.)
  
  Although heavier vehicles generally have lower death rates, the effects of additional weight tend to diminish as vehicles get heavier and heavier -- for example, among utility vehicles and pickups weighing more than 4,000 pounds. This makes sense because an increase of 500 pounds is much less significant among vehicles that already weigh 4,000 pounds than it is among cars weighing only 2,500 pounds.
  
  The vehicles with the lowest death rates are larger, heavier passenger vans. Rates for these vehicles likely reflect their use patterns as well as their larger, more protective designs.
  
  Two-door cars generally have higher death rates than four-door models weighing about the same. This is true except for cars that weigh 3,500 pounds or more, among which death rates in two- and four-door models are about the same.
  
  Within any given weight class, pickup trucks have the highest driver death rates, and four-wheel-drive pickups are the worst. High single-vehicle rollover death rates are major contributors to the poor overall rates in these vehicles. The heaviest four-wheel-drive pickups (5,000+ pounds) have a death rate of 109 per million registered vehicle years, and the single-vehicle rollover death rate is 54 per million. In contrast, the corresponding rates for four-door cars weighing about half as much as the heavy pickups are 85 and 21.
  
  In large part because of their high centers of gravity, both utility vehicles and pickup trucks in most weight classes have relatively high driver death rates in single-vehicle rollover crashes. A somewhat surprising -- and as yet unexplained -- finding is that utility vehicles weighing less than 3,500 pounds have lower rollover death rates than two-door cars of comparable weight.

Honda Civic encountered a GMC Sierra

• ...needless to say, my Honda lost, he hit me so hard, my car turned 90 degrees. His truck had a dent in the bumper.
  
  My car was totaled and so is my body..."

 

[Eli]

There isn't any doubt that when a 2000lb object and a 4000lb object come together, the 2000lb object is going to "give way" first and more.

However, in my eyes... it is besides the point. This mandate is asking them to create more fuel efficent vehicles, not do away with the SUV.

We need more fuel efficent engines. The engine and drivetrain is where the gain should come, not from making the vehicle lighter.

I know we can do it. We need someone to push the engine envelope... find new materials, new ways...

Hell, we're still learning everything that goes on inside an engine as it is running. It's really quite an amazing process.

It would be nice to see some Infinately Variable Valve Timing mechanisms... totally computerized. Would probably need an electromagnetic valve system...

*drool*

 

[Ornery]

What about the rotory? That put out a hell of a lot of power for it's displacement. The IC engine has been around for quite a while. It's been improved over the years, but I think we're reaching a point of very diminishing returns. The durability is fading as the complexity increases. Well, they are still capable of lasting a while, but how much futzing do you have to do the the gadgets attached to it, to keep it running? I prefer simple, even crude, brute power over some buzzy, high RPM, basically overclocked screamers. You start putting in more than two valves per cylinder and you're just looking for trouble. A nice, simple, cast iron, 350ci, V8 with electronic ignition is good enough for me.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Ornery
What about the rotory? That put out a hell of a lot of power for it's displacement. The IC engine has been around for quite a while. It's been improved over the years, but I think we're reaching a point of very diminishing returns. The durability is fading as the complexity increases. Well, they are still capable of lasting a while, but how much futzing do you have to do the the gadgets attached to it, to keep it running? I prefer simple, even crude, brute power over some buzzy, high RPM, basically overclocked screamers. You start putting in more than two valves per cylinder and you're just looking for trouble. A nice, simple, cast iron, 350ci, V8 with electronic ignition is good enough for me.

And I'm sure some people would prefer a 2 cylinder 4L Chrysler motor.

 

[Ornery]

WTH is that, some kind of marine engine?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Ornery
What about the rotory? That put out a hell of a lot of power for it's displacement. The IC engine has been around for quite a while. It's been improved over the years, but I think we're reaching a point of very diminishing returns. The durability is fading as the complexity increases. Well, they are still capable of lasting a while, but how much futzing do you have to do the the gadgets attached to it, to keep it running? I prefer simple, even crude, brute power over some buzzy, high RPM, basically overclocked screamers. You start putting in more than two valves per cylinder and you're just looking for trouble. A nice, simple, cast iron, 350ci, V8 with electronic ignition is good enough for me.

Heh... I kinda agree... I love the simpleness of the old engines.. But we've had computerized engines for a long time now, we've proven that it does work..

And obviously it would only be worth it if it either increased the MTBF of the engine, or it didn't really change...

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Eli
I can't believe there are people that are arguing against improving gas milage standards.

Yeah, sad isn't it? Not only does better gas mileage save people money, it also lowers pollution and decreases our dependance on foreign oil. It also means that we'll have more oil available for future generations, which some people around here don't seem to care about. :disgust:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Eli
There isn't any doubt that when a 2000lb object and a 4000lb object come together, the 2000lb object is going to "give way" first and more.

However, in my eyes... it is besides the point. This mandate is asking them to create more fuel efficent vehicles, not do away with the SUV.

We need more fuel efficent engines. The engine and drivetrain is where the gain should come, not from making the vehicle lighter.

I know we can do it. We need someone to push the engine envelope... find new materials, new ways...

Hell, we're still learning everything that goes on inside an engine as it is running. It's really quite an amazing process.

It would be nice to see some Infinately Variable Valve Timing mechanisms... totally computerized. Would probably need an electromagnetic valve system...

*drool*

I largely agree here. Fuel economy, safety and comfort are 3 big selling points. I dont beleive fuel economy has to reduce safety or comfort. A well built car is a well built car. I will say it is going to be increasly difficult to make the ICE more effecient. The next step will probably be some economical way to reduce weight without reducing safety. Applied fleet wide, everything become lighter...over time of course.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Eli
I can't believe there are people that are arguing against improving gas mileage standards.

Yeah, sad isn't it? Not only does better gas mileage save people money, it also lowers pollution and decreases our dependance on foreign oil. It also means that we'll have more oil available for future generations, which some people around here don't seem to care about. :disgust:

Some people are either REALLY slow, or just don't bother reading the entire topic.

Everybody would like their cake, and eat it too, but there are negative trade offs for higher mileage that just aren't worth it! For example, if you ride a bike instead, you save maximum fuel, but risk life and limb every minute! I'll pass! Same with a motorcycle. Great fuel savings, really poor accident performance. You can draw the line on compromise where ever you want, but increasing CAFE is forcing us to compromise. Nope, I don't like it...

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Ornery
What about the rotory? That put out a hell of a lot of power for it's displacement. The IC engine has been around for quite a while. It's been improved over the years, but I think we're reaching a point of very diminishing returns. The durability is fading as the complexity increases. Well, they are still capable of lasting a while, but how much futzing do you have to do the the gadgets attached to it, to keep it running? I prefer simple, even crude, brute power over some buzzy, high RPM, basically overclocked screamers. You start putting in more than two valves per cylinder and you're just looking for trouble. A nice, simple, cast iron, 350ci, V8 with electronic ignition is good enough for me.

I prefer two stroke motors but those damn eviromentalist nut jobs won't let me run one in my truck. They are the most powerful per ltr.

For example my KX500 has 65HP and it's displacement is only .5L. Imagine if my 7.3L could be two stroke, you do the math.


And I know Tom would'nt mind sitting next to me at a stop light blowing 4" blue clouds out to him because that's capitalism at work. Most power/great fuel economy

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Eli
I can't believe there are people that are arguing against improving gas mileage standards.

Yeah, sad isn't it? Not only does better gas mileage save people money, it also lowers pollution and decreases our dependance on foreign oil. It also means that we'll have more oil available for future generations, which some people around here don't seem to care about. :disgust:

Some people are either REALLY slow, or just don't bother reading the entire topic.

Everybody would like their cake, and eat it too, but there are negative trade offs for higher mileage that just aren't worth it! For example, if you ride a bike instead, you save maximum fuel, but risk life and limb every minute! I'll pass! Same with a motorcycle. Great fuel savings, really poor accident performance. You can draw the line on compromise where ever you want, but increasing CAFE is forcing us to compromise. Nope, I don't like it...

You people live in your own little world don't you?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

IIHS
Forty-one percent of car occupant deaths in 2000 occurred in single-vehicle crashes, 59 percent in multiple-vehicle crashes. In contrast, percentages for pickups and utility vehicles combined were 60 and 40 percent. Single-vehicle crashes were highest among utility vehicles (65 percent).
If you have an accident in a car make sure you don't hit another vehicle . . . but if you have an accident in a pickup or SUV you need to hit someone (especially someone in a car).

Crashes in which a vehicle rolled over accounted for 31 percent of passenger vehicle occupant deaths in 2000 (54 percent of single-vehicle crash deaths and 10 percent of multiple-vehicle crash deaths).
3/10 highway deaths are rollovers . . . hmm you should probably avoid rollovers. I wonder what kind of vehicle is more likely to rollover . . .

Fuel efficiency methods . . .
1)Improve the combustion engine: chief innovators (Japan/Europe)
2)Hybrids: chief innovator (Japan)
3)decrease gross vehicle weight without reducing safety: chief innovator (Japan/Europe)
4)adjust model years (GM)
5)increase GVW to exceed thresholds for a given vehicle class (GM, Ford)

GM BS
We are on the verge of greater availability and consumer acceptance of hybrid vehicles and the eventual replacement of the internal combustion engine with pollution-free fuel cells. Higher CAFE standards would force manufacturers to devote enormous resources to tiny, incremental improvements in fuel economy at the expense of the revolutionary research and development work that may someday completely remove oil and emissions from the automotive equation.
If GM is on the verge, Honda and Toyota must be over the cliff and halfway down.

Should the manufacturer add expensive equipment that raises the fuel economy of the 15-mpg vehicle, but also raises its price? Will the higher price make the vehicle less desirable in the marketplace, thus affecting sales and ultimately, the entire fuel calculation?
I vote for adding inexpensive equipment . . . and raise the price . . . capitalism at work.

Should production of the vehicle or its components - and the jobs -- be moved to another country so the vehicle CAFE is not counted in the domestic fleet?
Hmm, so the Japanese can make fuel efficient vehicles in America but we can't?! Does anybody really believe that post-NAFTA the Big Three wouldn't still be making vehicles in Canada and Mexico if CAFE didn't exist?

In calendar year 1999, manufacturers paid civil penalties totaling more than $16 million for failing to comply with the fuel economy standards for 1997 and 1998 model years. General Motors, nor any domestic manufacturers, has ever had to pay a non-compliance penalty.
Yeah, nobody is better at introducing 1999 vehicles in 1997.

fuel efficiency according to GM
Curious how 29+19=25 for GM while 28+20=24 for anyone else.

Disclosure: I drive a mildly modded Acura Integra GSR 31/25 (2765 lbs). My fiance has an Oldsmobile Aurora 26/17 (3967 lbs). By most measures my car fairs better for accident avoidance, morbidity/mortality in single vehicle accidents (including rollover) . . . but if she ever gets pissed and we do a head on I'm toast b/c her car's hood line is almost the same length as my whole car.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Eli
I can't believe there are people that are arguing against improving gas mileage standards.

Yeah, sad isn't it? Not only does better gas mileage save people money, it also lowers pollution and decreases our dependance on foreign oil. It also means that we'll have more oil available for future generations, which some people around here don't seem to care about. :disgust:

Some people are either REALLY slow, or just don't bother reading the entire topic.

Everybody would like their cake, and eat it too, but there are negative trade offs for higher mileage that just aren't worth it! For example, if you ride a bike instead, you save maximum fuel, but risk life and limb every minute! I'll pass! Same with a motorcycle. Great fuel savings, really poor accident performance. You can draw the line on compromise where ever you want, but increasing CAFE is forcing us to compromise. Nope, I don't like it...

Wow, there was actually a GOOD idea buried in that pathetic arguement of yours! If more people left their 12 MPG tank-like SUV's at home and rode their bikes to work instead, we could REALLY cut down on both gas consumption and pollution in larger cities! It would also help a bunch of SUV-driving "soccer moms" and middle-aged executives get some well needed EXERCISE, and perhaps cut down on the number of people in this country who are spoiled rotten, lazy, and overweight.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Eli
There isn't any doubt that when a 2000lb object and a 4000lb object come together, the 2000lb object is going to "give way" first and more.

However, in my eyes... it is besides the point. This mandate is asking them to create more fuel efficent vehicles, not do away with the SUV.

We need more fuel efficent engines. The engine and drivetrain is where the gain should come, not from making the vehicle lighter.

I know we can do it. We need someone to push the engine envelope... find new materials, new ways...

Hell, we're still learning everything that goes on inside an engine as it is running. It's really quite an amazing process.

It would be nice to see some Infinately Variable Valve Timing mechanisms... totally computerized. Would probably need an electromagnetic valve system...

*drool*

I largely agree here. Fuel economy, safety and comfort are 3 big selling points. I dont beleive fuel economy has to reduce safety or comfort. A well built car is a well built car. I will say it is going to be increasly difficult to make the ICE more effecient. The next step will probably be some economical way to reduce weight without reducing safety. Applied fleet wide, everything become lighter...over time of course.

Are alloys of titanium still too expensive to use in things like that, at least compared to elcheapo aluminum? Probably a dumb question, lol.

I know... It's getting difficult... It really is near the end of it's practical road...

Although.. we shouldn't limit ourselves to gasoline as being the only fuel source. Along with CAFE, they should be offering large incentives.. or other programs... to get them to seriously consider alternative fuel sources.

I go as far as to say that we should have never used gasoline as a fuel in the first place.

If all of the oil refineries in existance today were instead producing alcohol from waste biomass, we would have alcohol comming out of our ears. It would be cheap.. and perhaps more importantly, it wouldn't be using oil, and wouldn't be causing nearly as much pollution. Not to mention our engines would last longer, and be more powerful. There would only be one grade of alcohol - 105 Octane.

We could also do away with every single emissions gadget on the engine except the PCV valve, and still end up with an 80%+ reduction in CO and HC emissions.

We could at least do ourselves a favor and run 50% ethanol and 50% gasoline.

Some of you should read the story about the alcohol industry, the oil industry, and the automobile industry. Pretty interesting, if not upsetting, stuff.

It's stupid, really.

 

[Nemesis77]

Ornery: You seem to have alot of data regarding how "small cars kill people". Do you happen to have any data that shows how many people have died in smaller car because they were hit by humungous SUV? If a smaller car gets hit by another smaller car, the risk of death isn't that big. But if smaller car gets hit by some monster-SUV, of course the risk of death is bigger.

So I ask you: how many of those deaths happened because the car that hit them was some humungous SUV instead of smaller vehicle? You say that SUV's save lives. Maybe, but they also kill people. Only difference is that they kill others while keeping the people in the SUV safe.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: Ornery
What about the rotory? That put out a hell of a lot of power for it's displacement. The IC engine has been around for quite a while. It's been improved over the years, but I think we're reaching a point of very diminishing returns. The durability is fading as the complexity increases. Well, they are still capable of lasting a while, but how much futzing do you have to do the the gadgets attached to it, to keep it running? I prefer simple, even crude, brute power over some buzzy, high RPM, basically overclocked screamers. You start putting in more than two valves per cylinder and you're just looking for trouble. A nice, simple, cast iron, 350ci, V8 with electronic ignition is good enough for me.

I prefer two stroke motors but those damn eviromentalist nut jobs won't let me run one in my truck. They are the most powerful per ltr.

For example my KX500 has 65HP and it's displacement is only .5L. Imagine if my 7.3L could be two stroke, you do the math.


And I know Tom would'nt mind sitting next to me at a stop light blowing 4" blue clouds out to him because that's capitalism at work. Most power/great fuel economy

Sorry, but me and my old RD400 would leave you gasping for breath! Coffman pipes, DG heads and I stripped all the emission control stuff and put 30MM Mikunis on it.

I raced a Kaw triple for a couple years. H2 750 bored to 1080. Stretched frame, wheely bars......there will always be a soft place in my heart for 2 strokes....Those were the days....Damned exhaust emmission standards killed them!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Ornery: You seem to have alot of data regarding how "small cars kill people". Do you happen to have any data that shows how many people have died in smaller car because they were hit by humungous SUV? If a smaller car gets hit by another smaller car, the risk of death isn't that big. But if smaller car gets hit by some monster-SUV, of course the risk of death is bigger.

So I ask you: how many of those deaths happened because the car that hit them was some humungous SUV instead of smaller vehicle? You say that SUV's save lives. Maybe, but they also kill people. Only difference is that they kill others while keeping the people in the SUV safe.

Big car little car is always going to be an issue.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Ornery: You seem to have alot of data regarding how "small cars kill people". Do you happen to have any data that shows how many people have died in smaller car because they were hit by humungous SUV? If a smaller car gets hit by another smaller car, the risk of death isn't that big. But if smaller car gets hit by some monster-SUV, of course the risk of death is bigger.

So I ask you: how many of those deaths happened because the car that hit them was some humungous SUV instead of smaller vehicle? You say that SUV's save lives. Maybe, but they also kill people. Only difference is that they kill others while keeping the people in the SUV safe.

You're right, there's a LOT of data, maybe too much. Though ole' ultimatebob may think the argument is "pathetic", it is documented FACT that he, BaliBabyDoc and Jellomancer prefer to ignore, or overlooked:

When Heavy Meets Light:

• "...it?s not just the mismatch in size that makes cars less safe. Fatal crashes between two cars caused 4,013 deaths, while LTV-LTV crashes resulted i n far fewer fatalities: 1,225. Even if we correct for the difference in the numbers of each type of vehicle on the road, it seems obvious that if everyone drove an LTV, far fewer bodies would be hauled off the nation?s highways every year..."

Dead Is Dead

• Making every car smaller would not help. Fewer than five percent of small car accident deaths result from collisions with large SUVs; it is car size in general that impacts death rates."

CAFE's Three Strikes - It Should be Out

• "...occupants of small cars do worse than passengers of larger sedans, minivans or sport utility vehicles (SUVs) in every kind of accident."

Here's more to add to the truth:

An honest discussion of safety you?re not likely to see elsewhere:

• "The federal government says the reduction of average vehicle weight from 3700 to 2700 lbs. has resulted in 2,000 additional fatalities and 20,000 additional serious injuries each year. The death rate for vehicles with wheelbases of 95? or less is 3.1 per 10,000 registered cars. For cars with wheelbases greater than 114,? the rate was 1.1."

CAFE Standards: Do They Work? Do They Kill?

• "Then the National Academy of Sciences issued its report last August, and it found that CAFE kills between 1,300 and 2,600 people per year due to its constraining effect on producing larger cars. For a program that?s been in effect for more than two decades, that?s a huge number...
  
  ...There is simply no question that in single vehicle crashes, larger, heavier cars are safer...
  
  ...When the two cars that are involved in that multi-car collision are pretty much identical, larger mass helps the occupants of both cars...
  
  ...But whatever that multi-car effect of mass is, it?s totally outweighed by the protection offered by added mass in single car collisions. And for that reason, in Dr. Evans? words, ?CAFE kills. More stringent CAFE standards will kill even more.?
  
  ...Joan Claybrook appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee, and gave a huge diatribe on how the CAFE-safety tradeoff was a myth propagated by industry. But in 1977, she appeared before that same committee and she said ?There are going to be tradeoffs.? The exact opposite.
  
  Why have these folks taken this view on this position? Because for them, the line all along has been: You want more safety? You need more government. You need another government regulation if you want a safer product.
  
  With CAFE, all of a sudden, it?s exactly the opposite...

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: Ornery
What about the rotory? That put out a hell of a lot of power for it's displacement. The IC engine has been around for quite a while. It's been improved over the years, but I think we're reaching a point of very diminishing returns. The durability is fading as the complexity increases. Well, they are still capable of lasting a while, but how much futzing do you have to do the the gadgets attached to it, to keep it running? I prefer simple, even crude, brute power over some buzzy, high RPM, basically overclocked screamers. You start putting in more than two valves per cylinder and you're just looking for trouble. A nice, simple, cast iron, 350ci, V8 with electronic ignition is good enough for me.

I prefer two stroke motors but those damn eviromentalist nut jobs won't let me run one in my truck. They are the most powerful per ltr.

For example my KX500 has 65HP and it's displacement is only .5L. Imagine if my 7.3L could be two stroke, you do the math.


And I know Tom would'nt mind sitting next to me at a stop light blowing 4" blue clouds out to him because that's capitalism at work. Most power/great fuel economy

Sorry, but me and my old RD400 would leave you gasping for breath! Coffman pipes, DG heads and I stripped all the emission control stuff and put 30MM Mikunis on it.

I raced a Kaw triple for a couple years. H2 750 bored to 1080. Stretched frame, wheely bars......there will always be a soft place in my heart for 2 strokes....Those were the days....Damned exhaust emmission standards killed them!

Another thing is that... Even though 2 cycle engines have less mechanical parts, they're far less reliable than a 4 cycle engine... Even with advancements in lubrication.