tvashtarkatena Posted November 19, 2007 Author Posted November 19, 2007 My 2000 750cc Honda Nighthawk gets about 55mpg hwy...but only about 22 with Tvashtarketena's wife riding on the back. Note to Brian's wife: You probably deserve more than to have your husband fantasize on a web forum about having another guy's wife on the back of his motorcycle. My sympathies. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted November 19, 2007 Author Posted November 19, 2007 Hmmm. No conventional gas cars rated above 40 mpg. My information was a couple of years old, but it looks as though things haven't changed much. Thanks OW. ____________________________________________________________________ TOP FUEL ECONOMY LEADERS - 2001 MODEL YEAR Manufacturer/Model City/Highway 1. Honda Insight (electric hybrid) 61/68 2. Toyota Prius (electric hybrid) 52/45 3. Volkswagen Golf (diesel, manual) 42/49 3. Volkswagen Jetta (diesel, manual) 42/49 3. Volkswagen New Beetle (diesel, manual) 42/49 4. Honda Civic HX (manual) 36/44 5. Suzuki Swift 36/42 6. Honda Civic HX (automatic) 35/40 7. Volkswagen Jetta (diesel, automatic) 34/45 7. Volkswagen Golf (diesel, automatic) 34/45 7. Volkswagen New Beetle (diesel, automatic) 34/45 8. Toyota Echo 34/41 9. Chevrolet Prizm 32/41 9. Toyota Corolla 32/41 10. Honda Civic 32/39 source Quote
builder206 Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 Is LNG a viable or realistic alternative fuel? I know the U.S. has huge reserves of natural gas. I guess you need such a huge tank only big trucks can use it, is that right? Quote
Jim Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 The sites I saw were listing the Smart for 2 as 47 for combined city/hwy and near 70 mpg for the hwy. http://www.dicomwg12.org/mpg/SMART/fortwo-coup-/50-bhp-175-rear-tyres/ Quote
Off_White Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 ____________________________________________________________________ TOP FUEL ECONOMY LEADERS - 2001 MODEL YEAR Manufacturer/Model City/Highway 1. Honda Insight (electric hybrid) 61/68 2. Toyota Prius (electric hybrid) 52/45 3. Volkswagen Golf (diesel, manual) 42/49 3. Volkswagen Jetta (diesel, manual) 42/49 3. Volkswagen New Beetle (diesel, manual) 42/49 4. Honda Civic HX (manual) 36/44 5. Suzuki Swift 36/42 6. Honda Civic HX (automatic) 35/40 7. Volkswagen Jetta (diesel, automatic) 34/45 7. Volkswagen Golf (diesel, automatic) 34/45 7. Volkswagen New Beetle (diesel, automatic) 34/45 8. Toyota Echo 34/41 9. Chevrolet Prizm 32/41 9. Toyota Corolla 32/41 10. Honda Civic 32/39 Hmmm, I make that six conventional gas cars rated at 40mpg and above. Maybe you're trying to play some semantic/statistical game regarding the term "average"? I live in the country, so my "average" rather resembles the term "highway." Smartcar's website declares "The vehicle is designed to achieve 40 plus mpg under normal driving conditions." Frankly, given the constraints imposed by the size and capacity of the vehicle, the thing ought to offer considerably better mpg performance than a variety of other four passenger conventionally powered vehicles. Given the performance stats offered by the manufacturer, I can only conclude that there is more smoke, mirrors, and marketing hype than actual delivery on claims of impact. Greenwashing, while perhaps an effective sales strategy, is to be reviled no matter who makes the fraudulent claim. You know, it doesn't matter how the product actually performs, as long as the consumer feels good about it. Yes, higher mileage better performing small cars are desirable to a segment of the market, and necessary for a host of environmental & ecological reasons. No, Daimler is not your daddy. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 Hmmm, I make that six conventional gas cars rated at 40mpg and above. Maybe you're trying to play some semantic/statistical game regarding the term "average"? mailboxkong playing semantic games? perish the thought! Quote
Off_White Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 The sites I saw were listing the Smart for 2 as 47 for combined city/hwy and near 70 mpg for the hwy. http://www.dicomwg12.org/mpg/SMART/fortwo-coup-/50-bhp-175-rear-tyres/ Okay, now we're talking. If those are the actual on the ground statistics for the vehicle, 47/70, then that's a whole different class of vehicle than what we've been discussing. Much more effective than Tvash arguing that he can't see your numbers. Maybe Daimler is your daddy? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted November 19, 2007 Author Posted November 19, 2007 (edited) ____________________________________________________________________ TOP FUEL ECONOMY LEADERS - 2001 MODEL YEAR Manufacturer/Model City/Highway 1. Honda Insight (electric hybrid) 61/68 2. Toyota Prius (electric hybrid) 52/45 3. Volkswagen Golf (diesel, manual) 42/49 3. Volkswagen Jetta (diesel, manual) 42/49 3. Volkswagen New Beetle (diesel, manual) 42/49 4. Honda Civic HX (manual) 36/44 5. Suzuki Swift 36/42 6. Honda Civic HX (automatic) 35/40 7. Volkswagen Jetta (diesel, automatic) 34/45 7. Volkswagen Golf (diesel, automatic) 34/45 7. Volkswagen New Beetle (diesel, automatic) 34/45 8. Toyota Echo 34/41 9. Chevrolet Prizm 32/41 9. Toyota Corolla 32/41 10. Honda Civic 32/39 Hmmm, I make that six conventional gas cars rated at 40mpg and above. Maybe you're trying to play some semantic/statistical game regarding the term "average"? I live in the country, so my "average" rather resembles the term "highway." Smartcar's website declares "The vehicle is designed to achieve 40 plus mpg under normal driving conditions." Frankly, given the constraints imposed by the size and capacity of the vehicle, the thing ought to offer considerably better mpg performance than a variety of other four passenger conventionally powered vehicles. Given the performance stats offered by the manufacturer, I can only conclude that there is more smoke, mirrors, and marketing hype than actual delivery on claims of impact. Greenwashing, while perhaps an effective sales strategy, is to be reviled no matter who makes the fraudulent claim. You know, it doesn't matter how the product actually performs, as long as the consumer feels good about it. Yes, higher mileage better performing small cars are desirable to a segment of the market, and necessary for a host of environmental & ecological reasons. No, Daimler is not your daddy. Nope. Not for average mpg, which is what the number I've focused on all along. All of your conventional vehicles, when average mpg is considered (check the site) fall below 40. More than half the population (and increasing) lives in cities, so the city driving mpg would be closer to the mark. Many of the remaining 'rural' population actually live in suburb like settings, with plenty of stop lights, which, again, would produced a more city/highway average. A much smaller percentage of the population live in areas where they drive in only pure highway conditions. There is no semantics in focusing on the average mpg as the most important predictor of fuel economy for these vehicles. Also, you're ignoring the lower embodied energy due to it's smaller size/curb weight and improved recyclability of a Smart Car, which is every bit as important when trying to be green as mpg. Edited November 19, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted November 19, 2007 Author Posted November 19, 2007 Is LNG a viable or realistic alternative fuel? I know the U.S. has huge reserves of natural gas. I guess you need such a huge tank only big trucks can use it, is that right? Well, it's not LNG (just NG), but yes, you can use it in a conventional car. The Honda GX is a NG car. You can only go about 2/3 the distance per fillup, but they are considerably cleaner than gasoline or diesel. There is also a NG pump called Phill that you can install in your home to mitigate the dearth of commercial NG filling stations. Quote
ericb Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 Hmmm, I make that six conventional gas cars rated at 40mpg and above. Maybe you're trying to play some semantic/statistical game regarding the term "average"? I live in the country, so my "average" rather resembles the term "highway." Smartcar's website declares "The vehicle is designed to achieve 40 plus mpg under normal driving conditions." Frankly, given the constraints imposed by the size and capacity of the vehicle, the thing ought to offer considerably better mpg performance than a variety of other four passenger conventionally powered vehicles. Given the performance stats offered by the manufacturer, I can only conclude that there is more smoke, mirrors, and marketing hype than actual delivery on claims of impact. Greenwashing, while perhaps an effective sales strategy, is to be reviled no matter who makes the fraudulent claim. You know, it doesn't matter how the product actually performs, as long as the consumer feels good about it. Yes, higher mileage better performing small cars are desirable to a segment of the market, and necessary for a host of environmental & ecological reasons. No, Daimler is not your daddy. 40 MPG for the US version is pretty unimpressive. The description of the safety features makes me pretty nervous... "Over 10 miles an hour, the tridion safety cell transmits impact over its entire surface to dissipate energy and protect its occupants (assuming a perpendicular impact involving the entire front width). " "You might have noticed that the smart fortwo has a pretty short wheelbase, but you probably haven't thought of that as a safety feature. If you suffer a side impact in your smart fortwo, chances are that the car hitting you will hit the wheels and tires of your car. Those wheels and tires are connected to either longitudinal structural members or axles that help to displace the crash energy. Each door also has a side brace installed." I wonder what happens when one of these things gets hit at an angle....but that just about never happens. Perhaps the steel safety cage remains in-tact, but the forces exerted on the driver would be much greater given the limited crumple zones. The special force-limiting shoulder-belts don't give me much comfort. Tvash would probably fare pretty well given the energy absorbtion inherent in his "standard option peckage", however. Quote
archenemy Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 I'm sure I am not the only person who has been in a serious car accident (got T-boned so hard my front axle broke). Safety is now a consideration whenever I look at a car. I am also a bit of a weenie and don't like driving my pickup on the fwy when it rains. No way in hell would I drive a smart car here in America where everyone else is driving a big car. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted November 19, 2007 Author Posted November 19, 2007 (edited) The description of the safety features makes me pretty nervous... "Over 10 miles an hour, the tridion safety cell transmits impact over its entire surface to dissipate energy and protect its occupants (assuming a perpendicular impact involving the entire front width). " "You might have noticed that the smart fortwo has a pretty short wheelbase, but you probably haven't thought of that as a safety feature. If you suffer a side impact in your smart fortwo, chances are that the car hitting you will hit the wheels and tires of your car. Those wheels and tires are connected to either longitudinal structural members or axles that help to displace the crash energy. Each door also has a side brace installed." I wonder what happens when one of these things gets hit at an angle....but that just about never happens. Perhaps the steel safety cage remains in-tact, but the forces exerted on the driver would be much greater given the limited crumple zones. The special force-limiting shoulder-belts don't give me much comfort. Tvash would probably fare pretty well given the energy absorbtion inherent in his "standard option peckage", however. You're omitting the fact that they also come standard with 4 airbags, which is key during any collision that transfers G forces to passengers. Given the 4 airbag feature, the vehicle seems as safe or safer than my Subaru Outback in the event of a collision. Personally, I would have no problem feeling safe in it. The crash test film posted earlier shows a SmartCar hitting a concrete barrier head on at a slight angle at 70 mph. The passenger compartment survived relatively intact. Pretty impressive. For those who thing bigger is safer, there is a similar crash test involving a dump truck. The cab of the truck is totally obliterated. There are three safety deficiencies of trucks (pickups and SUVs) that owners fail to recognize: 1) They roll much easier than other vehicles, which greatly increases risk of injury or death. 2) You've got the full mass of that big vehicle behind you in a crash. Hit something imobile, like a tree/etc, and you're going to take it all. And 3) truck bodies are not unibody construction, and therefore not designed to absorb impacts by crumpling nearly as well as cars. They are a body tacked to a relatively rigid chassis. This transfers much more of the impact the passengers. One thing that seems to be strangely missing from this thread is the obvious solution to our traffic woes: smaller vehicles. motorcycles and Smart Cars (which are half the length of a conventional vehicle), unlike other conventional, 'roomier' economy cars, seem to be the only privately owned powered vehicles that address this huge problem. When speaking about being 'green', it seems fundamental that a person would choose a vehicle that is more likely to enable roadways to operate most efficiently and with the least amount of emissions per passenger mile. Idling in traffic jams because everyone has maximized the size of their vehicles certainly doesn't help much. Edited November 19, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote
lizard_brain Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 I've been in one motorcycle wreck. I'll never, never ride a motorcycle again. (Got the best drugs I ever had in my life, though. Back when they still used morphine. Mmmmm....) Quote
archenemy Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 I've dumped every motorcycle I've owned. But I have only been afraid of riding since I came to Seattle. Drivers here absolutely fucking suck. So I am not afraid of hitting a wall in a smart car. I am afraid of a passive aggressive seattle shitbag running over me and crushing me. Irrational, I know. Quote
lizard_brain Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 I didn't dump it - I got hit head-on by a guy making a left turn that didn't see me. I went flying. Bike stopped, I kept going. I really went flying after the shot, though. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted November 19, 2007 Author Posted November 19, 2007 (edited) I've dumped every motorcycle I've owned. But I have only been afraid of riding since I came to Seattle. Drivers here absolutely fucking suck. So I am not afraid of hitting a wall in a smart car. I am afraid of a passive aggressive seattle shitbag running over me and crushing me. Irrational, I know. Never dumped my bike in seven years (knock on pavement). I know full well what can happen when you do (seen it). But then again, I know full well what can happen when you get hit by a basket-ball sized rock in the mountains (seen it). Life's always a balance of risk and keeping it interesting. I would think a few road rage shootings might make many Northwest aggro drivers (generally corn fed young bucks in pickups who all seem to be sporting the same goatee) a bit more courteous. You're a decent shot, Archie. Do us all a favor and start the trend. Edited November 19, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote
archenemy Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 I used to drive around with pretty good sized ball bearings and D sized batteries that I would throw out behind me when someone was driving shitty and on my ass. I smashed a dude's windshield on his fancy white BMW. He chased me down and finally cornered me. When I stopped my bike and took of my helmet, he sorta freaked and got back in his car (this was in the 80's and chicks weren't driving crotch rockets much yet). I also kicked a woman's rear view mirror right off her car in exchange for almost running me over (she was on her cell phone). That was when I sold my bike--a coupla years ago. Fuck these people and their terrible driving. Quote
archenemy Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 And plus, I'm not so good with my anger management. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 I used to drive around with pretty good sized ball bearings and D sized batteries that I would throw out behind me when someone was driving shitty and on my ass. I smashed a dude's windshield on his fancy white BMW. He chased me down and finally cornered me. When I stopped my bike and took of my helmet, he sorta freaked and got back in his car (this was in the 80's and chicks weren't driving crotch rockets much yet). I also kicked a woman's rear view mirror right off her car in exchange for almost running me over (she was on her cell phone). That was when I sold my bike--a coupla years ago. Fuck these people and their terrible driving. Note to self: stay clear of Archie and do not piss her off. Quote
archenemy Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 People usually learn that pretty quick. It makes for more peaceful cohabitation. Quote
archenemy Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 But I'm really fun when I'm not mad. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 But I'm really fun when I'm not mad. psycho chicks are hot. Quote
archenemy Posted November 19, 2007 Posted November 19, 2007 crazy in the head crazy in the bed. Proven fact. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.