|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 22 new of 89 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 68 of 89:
| 
Sep 17 04:21 UTC 2003 |
Some states expressly permit motorcyclists to use restricted lanes, in
recognition of their comparable efficiency.
|
gull
|
|
response 69 of 89:
|
Sep 17 13:42 UTC 2003 |
In California electric cars also qualify for the HOV lanes.
|
gull
|
|
response 70 of 89:
|
Sep 17 17:57 UTC 2003 |
Scientists offer fix for SUVs
Fuel-efficient vehicle is based on Explorer
September 17, 2003
BY TOM AVRIL
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
PHILADELPHIA -- Vilified by critics as gas-guzzling road hogs. Defended
by families who crave space for kids and soccer gear.
How to defuse the cultural flashpoint that is the SUV?
Tuesday, a team of scientists suggested a way: Build a big car with the
appetite of a little one.
The Union of Concerned Scientists unveiled a blueprint for the Guardian,
a vehicle the group said would get up to 36 m.p.g. -- a 71-percent
improvement over the Ford Explorer it's based on.
The modifications -- all using available technology -- would cost more
up-front, but would pay for themselves after five years, said David
Friedman, an engineer who codesigned the Guardian.
The better mileage would not come at the expense of engine power, he said.
"All of the technology is in the hands of the automakers," Friedman
said. "The problem is they're not giving it to the average consumer."
An automotive trade group dismissed the report as repackaged ideas that
are impractical or have been rejected by consumers as too expensive.
"Let's see them build it if they can," said Eron Shosteck, spokesman for
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "Their vehicle may look good
on paper, but we have to make vehicles that drive on pavement."
|
gull
|
|
response 71 of 89:
|
Sep 17 17:59 UTC 2003 |
I'd like to see details. Actually, what I'd really like to see is
someone take up the challenge and build a prototype. Eron Shosteck may
turn out to be right, but the condescending tone of his remarks annoys me.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 72 of 89:
|
Sep 17 18:24 UTC 2003 |
Would a manufacturer, like Ford, allow the purchase of as
many of the common components as needed for a production model?
Unique frame, body, doors, windows, etc would add to the cost
of a totally new vechile.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 73 of 89:
|
Sep 17 18:46 UTC 2003 |
SUVs also are also more prone on turning over than "cars". I read that new
rules will require that they be lower, which will also reduce the
disproportionate damage to "cars" in collisions.
|
keesan
|
|
response 74 of 89:
|
Sep 17 22:43 UTC 2003 |
When visiting a friend in a Chicago suburb, his car was averaging 12 miles
per hour going home on the highway. The interurban train was much faster but
cost more. Ann Arbor has plenty of population density and could support a
much better transit system if more people used it.
|
tod
|
|
response 75 of 89:
|
Sep 17 22:50 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 76 of 89:
|
Sep 18 06:34 UTC 2003 |
resp:68 I wonder if that's true for Washington-- I remember that they
could use the express lanes at least in the Seattle area.
|
tod
|
|
response 77 of 89:
|
Sep 18 06:35 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 78 of 89:
|
Sep 18 14:27 UTC 2003 |
Re #72: I think the best course would be to buy a production model
vehicle and then modify it. Yes, the cost will be higher for a one-off,
but that's expected for a prototype. I'm more curious if they can meet
their 36 mpg target figure with a real vehicle.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 79 of 89:
|
Sep 18 23:37 UTC 2003 |
remind me what HOV stands for again? Highway (something) Vehicle?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 80 of 89:
|
Sep 18 23:55 UTC 2003 |
High Occupancy Vehicle lane
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 81 of 89:
|
Sep 19 02:37 UTC 2003 |
thanks-- I knew I did not have that right at all. Makes much more
sense now.
|
russ
|
|
response 82 of 89:
|
Sep 19 04:05 UTC 2003 |
UW-Madison has already gotten about 40 MPG out of a Ford Explorer.
http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~vehicle/moolander.htm
|
gull
|
|
response 83 of 89:
|
Sep 19 14:03 UTC 2003 |
If you read carefully, those are *estimated* values, based on a
mathematical model.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 84 of 89:
|
Sep 19 21:09 UTC 2003 |
I'm not just talking about prototype, but a production model,
to use as much of high volume production model to get common parts
as the best price. Instead of paying for all the engineering on
parts that are not part of the fuel efficency plan.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 85 of 89:
|
Sep 21 19:08 UTC 2003 |
Still at $1.68 at Meijer. It should have gotten back down into the 50's or
even 40's by now. Is this like tidal erosion?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 86 of 89:
|
Sep 21 22:33 UTC 2003 |
$1.46 in rural Lansing-Flint area yesterday. Same in Lansing.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 87 of 89:
|
Sep 22 03:25 UTC 2003 |
I paid $1.52/gal in Garden City yesterday, and saw $1.57 in Ann Arbor today.
|
gull
|
|
response 88 of 89:
|
Sep 23 14:33 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, I noticed yesterday that the price of regular unleaded had finally
fallen back below the cost of diesel. Diesel has been $1.599 at Meijer
on Carpenter Road for around a month now.
(I have a gasoline-powered car and a diesel-powered van, so I tend to
notice both prices.)
|
jep
|
|
response 89 of 89:
|
Sep 24 02:14 UTC 2003 |
When we visited Washington DC last week, I drove from the hotel to the
Metro station, paid $3/day to park, and rode the train to whatever we
wanted to see. This was fabulous for us. I had no business driving
in Washington DC anyway. How would I find parking? I didn't need to
anyway; the Metro went everywhere we wanted to go, within a 3 or 4
block walk. It was a very pleasant way to travel. The next time we
go to DC, we're going to fly or take the train and depend entirely on
the Metro.
It's good we didn't do that this time, since we had to flee the
hurricane while we were there. I expect we'll have better luck next
time with the weather.
In Roanoke, Virginia I bought gas for $1.36. Throughout Ohio and also
back in Ann Arbor, I paid about $1.59.
|