Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Modeled after the Autobahn, Pres. Eisenhower brought us the Interstate Highway System....which after all these years is now falling apart big time. Regardless, it was a huge sucess. A another example of a Social Program that worked here in the USA. It was brought to you by a Republican by the way, and had first and for most Military implications as its original concept. Hitler would have been proud I am sure.
sorry 12GO I don't think a 350 CI/5.7 liter SBC can pull down 30MPG atleast I have not seen it. maybe low 20's but not 30's. the new mustang 3.7 liter V6 makes gets 31MPG without direct injection which is pretty impressive tho'
show me some published stats of a 5.7 liter SBC getting upwards of 30MPG on a regular basis and I will belive you but it just not true.
12GO a modren ford 4.6 V8 in a 2010 F150 gets 15 city and 21 freeway and a 2011 mustang 5.0 gets 17 city and 26 freeway so still not upwards of 30MPG like you said the fuel MPG stats come from:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/***/sbs.htm (broken link)
so feel free to check it out and show me where you are getting these numbers dude
The mustang won't get the 30 mpg, niether will a sbc powered camaro. but you take a car such as my parents grand marquis that does it all the time, or my nephews 99 ls powered formula 6 speed that does get 29-30 mpg all the time, it can be done. As for a sbc, a Pontiac 354 will out power it and get better mpg doing it. And yes, I KNOW ALL ABOUT ALL THE AFTERMARKET STUFF for the various engines as I am very much in the aftermarket. Now another nephew that has a mustang has put in a crown vic computer in his mustang, and was amazed no less power and he is getting high 20's mpg now compared to the mustang's original computer set up getting 18 mpg.
As for the 4.6 ford in a truck, anything over the size of a ranger is not enough engine without the cobra 4 valve or blower set up. Seriously, they just don't make enough torque to pull very well, and that's based on trying to tow with 2 different 4.6 powered F150's. An old 300 6 was about the same except the 300 6 didn't slow down as bad on the hills.
If all cars weighed a uniform 5 tons, the number of people killed in 1,000 head on collisions would be exactly the same as if all cars weighed a uniform one ton. It's the simple physics of deceleration to zero. It is YOUR car that is a menace, because you are intent on making sure that in an accident, it is ME that is killed by the sheer weight of YOUR car. And you want me to trust you to make public policy decisions about vehicle safety.
And don't expect me to accept your ideas on government either. Honestly, we need to get the government out of automotive regulation. MPG requirements is in real life a farce and only power hungry over people morons think there should be mpg demands from government. We all have different taste, likes, dislikes, and I'm gald we do. I love drag racing, you might hate it and like instead what I call f-g ball (soccer, and in rest of the world football), but the point is we have different likes. I enjoy making a low 7 second, 190+mph pass in the 1/4 mile, but it might scare the hell out of the next person. I don't know, but it did make my 10 flat second in the 1/4 street car seem slow. (64 Tempest, 408" Pontiac, hyd. roller cam, CV1 heads, thinking it's time to put the tunnel ram and dual carbs on to get into the 9's easy all on pump gas). Oh, it still gets mid teens mpg.
"Economizing as a nation" is impossible with an open border policy of letting millions of people pour into the United States that need more wood for houses, more clean water, more land, and more automobiles and fuel.
Are you a Democrat/Socialist? Freedom of choice means nothing to you? I guess you think no one ever tows a boat, car, or camper. I guess you think no one hauls firewood for their home. My car is a 3.1L and my wife's car is a 2.4L. Though our engine sizes fall within your stated range, that doesn't matter to me. What matters is the decision to purchase these vehicles was our choice. We could have chosen bigger engine vehicles for better highway acceleration. Perhaps you'd like to talk to BMW, Mercedes, RollsRoyce, Bentley, Audi, Volvo, Caddy, Toyota, and other vehicle makers who produce vehicles that contain a large engine. Parts of Europe, including England, already do the tax for engine size and guess what, people still produce and buy big vehicles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DBCC
Looking at the limitations imposed by State speed limits, I still find it hard to justify motor vehicle engines exceeding 2,5/3.0 liters which would certainly bring down the consumption of gas and valuable resources which are being burned up daily.
Many vehicles on the road today with engines smaller than 3.0 liters amply provide sufficient power, acceleration, comfort and all the bells and whistles of cars normally considered to be of superior categories/bigger engines, meet with safety requirements and because they are considerably lighter do less damage to the communications infrastructure that provides less taxpayer money on road maintenance.
While I know I will be shouted down by the power hungry 0-60's in 3 seconds types, I do believe that a more practical approach should be sought by the Administration and auto manufacturers to support smaller engine use.
Those wishing to have larger cc's/horsepower and etc could either be subject to the following:
For those buying vehicles in excess of 3.0 liters-
a: For fun; - subject to a slight tax increase
b: For work/farm/business vehicles: having justification would not
require additional taxation
c: Collectors: Taxed in Collectors license
d: Government/service vehicles: Not taxed
How does one feel about a proposal or lobbying in the administration for a general reduction in the size of engines for the sedan/wagon/smaller sports car /SUV categories for a real change in fuel conservation measures for the future?
My reasons for suggesting this are that I see so many high cc engines that really have no justification (i.e. the high school kid with the "cool" 5,7 liter V8 that he drives 2 miles to school in and his main use is for weekend "fun" time) that could be amply performed by a very much cooler looking 1,8 liter engine......would be a lot faster in many cases if he is looking for that little extra....
Messing with peoples cubes, could start a knife fight !...OOO very scary indeed. There is little doubt , it takes cubes to produce torque, to tow a trailer, and or Haul a load. One of the reasons I love my Cummins, but for the average Joe, who only drives to work on the freeway , thats a different story.
We have come a long way with our desires, freight got hauled with a 125 HP Mack 50 years ago , same as now, just took longer to get there than now with 600 hp diesels.... Drag racers had just as much fun with a flathead Ford as they do today with nitro powered 1,000 hp sleds....its all in a perspective, but , at what cost ?.... The love for Cars, the open road , and the romance of travel has taken us a long way, some of it sad , some of it glad , but we had fun and a good life all the way.
And don't expect me to accept your ideas on government either.
I don't. I expect you to accept the ideas of the majority of the electorate on government. I don't expect anybody to accept the ideas of he who yells the loudest, nor of he who has the most to gain from manipulating industry output.
Currently, the ideas of the majority of the electorate are along the lines of the auto industry producing stock vehicles that are safe, efficient and reliable, without having to rebuild them with after-market components in their pole barn in order to get what they want. If the industry refuses to produce the vehicles that the marketplace desires, the people, through their government, rightly have the power to influence the otherwise self-serving corporate model. Which is why we have a government in the first place.
Messing with peoples cubes, could start a knife fight !...OOO very scary indeed. There is little doubt , it takes cubes to produce torque, to tow a trailer, and or Haul a load. One of the reasons I love my Cummins, but for the average Joe, who only drives to work on the freeway , thats a different story.
We have come a long way with our desires, freight got hauled with a 125 HP Mack 50 years ago , same as now, just took longer to get there than now with 600 hp diesels.... Drag racers had just as much fun with a flathead Ford as they do today with nitro powered 1,000 hp sleds....its all in a perspective, but , at what cost ?.... The love for Cars, the open road , and the romance of travel has taken us a long way, some of it sad , some of it glad , but we had fun and a good life all the way.
However, through the advance of technology and the desire for speed, today's high power engines are smaller and use less fuel than engines of the past. At one time, car makers put their vehicles on the race track as part of product R&D to see how they could improve their production vehicle's performance and reliability.
However, through the advance of technology and the desire for speed, today's high power engines are smaller and use less fuel than engines of the past. At one time, car makers put their vehicles on the race track as part of product R&D to see how they could improve their production vehicle's performance and reliability.
They did , they also had test tracks.... Most of the racing was, and is , ment to prompte the Brand. Had little to do with actual on the road use or preformance. NASCAR is gone way over the top, and has become a spectator cult "sport". There was not a lot going on during the War and during hard times in Racing. The old days when racing was at the seat of our pants and little more were the best of times, and the most rewarding...personally.
The old days when racing was at the seat of our pants and little more were the best of times, and the most rewarding...personally.
Right, I remember, in the 50's, auto racing was called "stock car racing", and it consisted of gas station attendants racing around the track in used cars with numbers painted on the door. And actually wearing lapbelts, the only mandatory safety equipment.
The big money, the predecessor of Nascar, was guys driving new cars, which could not be converted from showroom floor specs, and if they were nationally-known drivers, the prizes were enough to put food on the table. In a corner of the sports page, would be "Bobby Unser won the Peoria 200, driving a '54 Plymouth at 92.76 miles an hour."
Sports car racing was done in MG-TDs and Triumph TR-2s, also stock, when a town would close all the roads in the county and put hay bales on the curves. On weekends, when the drivers could get off work and drive all night to the race course.
My high school was right on the highway to Elkhart Lake, and that Friday, we'd all be watching out the window, the only day in our lives we'd ever see Jaguars or Porsches.
Last edited by jtur88; 07-31-2010 at 10:46 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seriously, they just don't make enough torque to pull very well, and that's based on trying to tow with 2 different 4.6 powered F150's. An old 300 6 was about the same except the 300 6 didn't slow down as bad on the hills.
