 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / April 2007Single piston engines
Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? They don't need something that can go over 60MPH and don't need a ton of horsepower either. Couldn't a 1 piston engine be made, no frills, and put in a car? Make the car out of a lot of plastic, keep a frame of metal of course and keep the airbag/seat belt safety the same. Wouldn't this 1 cylinder, 2 speed, 40HP, no frills car be cheap as hell and meet the "needs" of the yuppie in those city jobs where they live like cheap in the city? I'm talking about those, just out of school, kids who are broke. What would a car like that cost? > Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't > it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What would a car like that cost? While small cars can be safe, there is a limit to how small you can make them and have them still be safe. Cars have crumple zones. There has to be room to crumple. A 1-cyl engine would run roughly. Like a 1-cyl lawn tractor. You would need at least 2 or 3 cyl. to make it run smoothly. You can still make a smooth, small engine with 2 or 3 cyl. You can also couple the engine to a generator and drive the car completely by electricity, with the motor just being a a source of electricity. There are several thousand vehicles that do this already in the US. I road in one pulled by one: a train locomotive, which uses a deisel power generator and motors to pull the cars. Of course, even smoother is a fuel cell. Too bad they don't have them yet. Ford and Toyota both small hatchbacks for EUrope (the Ka and AYGO) . They both cost around $15k. There are also smaller cars being developed my DiamlerBenz (actually Diamler Chrysler until Chrysler is sold). So because of safety, performance and comfort requirements, I don't think you care going to see any 1-cyl engine cars. If you want to go that small, buy a used lawn tractor or golf cart. ;-) Jeff >> Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't >> it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >Jeff OK, what about my idea of a 30-40 HP engine? It's not needed to do 80-100mph in the city [imo, anywhere] but wouldn't this help those people I described? What's the MPG on a sub-compact sized car with 40HP city driving only? No cross-coutry/highway driving. I can't think of anyone that would buy one.... and this is the key to the equation. Enough units need to be sold to cover R&D, production and, of course, deliver that pesky profit margin that so many companies seem to desire... These sell these http://www.thesmart.ca/index.cfm?ID=4720 in Canada..... We have one locally - owned by our local "odd-ball"... Go to the city and it will be rare to see one. No market = no car... Few owners will have the car that they "need".... Most will have the car they "want".... Actually most buyer settle for the vehicle they can afford to buy and operate. The truth is buyers buy what they want and/or need. Ask any salesman what is the last question a buyer usually asked before he signs on the dotted line and he will tell you it is; "How much is my monthly payment?" Look at the US sales figures in the real world. There are plenty of vehicles offered by domestics and imports that get great fuel mileage. Most of the midget cars are sold by import brands. What vehicles sell the best? NOT the imports, NOT the midget cars and NOT compact cars, from any manufacturer. The three top selling vehicle in the US are not even cars, they are trucks. Obviously buyers in the US need or want trucks. Thee best selling car is not a midget or small car, it is the mid sized Camry. Even the best selling cars is out sold by the Ford F150, the best selling vehicle in the US for thirty years, at a rate around double that of the Camry. Although Toyota advertises they are the number one selling CAR brand in the US, GM actually sells more cars than Toyota, it is just that they do no have the same brand name on the grill. Like Toyota, Ford, Chrysler GMs best sellers after trucks are not their smallest cars but their midsize and larger cars. Naturally buyers want the highest fuel mileage they can get in the size and type vehicle they choose to buy and they are willing to give up some power and performance to get it. Eight out of ten Camrys sold have only the 4cy engine. The Corolla 4cy actually performs better than the Camry, as well as getting better fuel mileage and sells for thousands less, but apparently Toyota buyers are choosing to buy the larger, safer, more expensive Camry they want and need. mike >I can't think of anyone that would buy one.... and this is the key to the >equation. Enough units need to be sold to cover R&D, production and, of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Few owners will have the car that they "need".... Most will have the car > they "want".... > Actually most buyer settle for the vehicle they can afford to buy and > operate. The truth is buyers buy what they want and/or need. Ask any [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > best? NOT the imports, NOT the midget cars and NOT compact cars, from any > manufacturer. > The three top selling vehicle in the US are not even cars, they are > trucks. What kind of truck is the Camry? More Camries sold this year through march than Rams. Ditto Accords. Same for last year. Either the Camry is a new type of truck or you had better start getting your facts strait. Jeff > Obviously buyers in the US need or want trucks. Thee best selling car is > not a midget or small car, it is the mid sized Camry. Even the best [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> Few owners will have the car that they "need".... Most will have the car >> they "want".... What's you point? Even if only two trucks out sold the Camry, how would that effect the jist of what was posted, that being that buyers do not choose to buy the midget or small cars that are currently available? mike >> Actually most buyer settle for the vehicle they can afford to buy and >> operate. The truth is buyers buy what they want and/or need. Ask any [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >>> Few owners will have the car that they "need".... Most will have the car >>> they "want".... > What's you point? Even if only two trucks out sold the Camry, how would > that effect the jist of what was posted, that being that buyers do not > choose to buy the midget or small cars that are currently available? Point 1: The world is changing. Things are not the same in the car industry as they were when you worked for Ford. Just because GM and Ford were #1 and #2 in car sales for many years, that does not mean that they will ever be again. Point 2: The facts and numbers are readily avialable. It took me 1 minute to double check this. And, that Camry and Accord outsold the Ram last year was posted here a few times. To maintain your argument, you need to check your facts. Jeff > mike > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >>>> Few owners will have the car that they "need".... Most will have the >>>> car they "want".... I'm not going to follow you in one of your circles. The fact is as I pointed out, the best selling vehicles in the US are trucks, not cars and the best selling cars are not small cars. Americans still buy millions more domestics than imports. both cars and trucks. Toyota is millions of vehicles away from being number one in the US. You however are free to believe whatever you chose. mike >> What's you point? Even if only two trucks out sold the Camry, how would >> that effect the jist of what was posted, that being that buyers do not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jeff >>>> Actually most buyer settle for the vehicle they can afford to buy and >>>> operate. The truth is buyers buy what they want and/or need. Ask any [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>>> the best? NOT the imports, NOT the midget cars and NOT compact cars, >>>> from any manufacturer. >>>> Obviously buyers in the US need or want trucks. Thee best selling car >>>> is not a midget or small car, it is the mid sized Camry. Even the best [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>>>>and, of course, deliver that pesky profit margin that so many companies >>>>>seem to desire... > I'm not going to follow you in one of your circles. The fact is as I > pointed out, the best selling vehicles in the US are trucks, not cars and > the best selling cars are not small cars. Americans still buy millions > more domestics than imports. both cars and trucks. Toyota is millions of > vehicles away from being number one in the US. You however are free to > believe whatever you chose. The fact is that you changed my post without indicating that fact. That is intellectual dishonesty. And, I think that getting your facts wrong, especially when they are so easy to check, makes you look like an idiot. Jeff > mike > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >>>>>>and, of course, deliver that pesky profit margin that so many >>>>>>companies seem to desire... You free to believe whatever you choose, I could not care less. What you choose to believe however will not change the fact that the best selling vehicles in the US are trucks, not cars and the best selling cars are not small cars. Americans still choose to buy millions more domestics than imports. both cars and trucks. Toyota is millions of vehicles away from being number one in the US here you believe it or not. ;) mike . >> I'm not going to follow you in one of your circles. The fact is as I >> pointed out, the best selling vehicles in the US are trucks, not cars and [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>> mike > You free to believe whatever you choose, I could not care less. What you > choose to believe however will not change the fact that the best selling > vehicles in the US are trucks, not cars and the best selling cars are not > small cars. Americans still choose to buy millions more domestics than > imports. both cars and trucks. Toyota is millions of vehicles away from > being number one in the US here you believe it or not. ;) Gee, you told us last time. You're like a broken record. And, old enough to know what that means. Don't have a cow man! Jeff > mike > . [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mike It seems you seldom understand what is said the first time, because you are too busy picking through everybody's posts for something with which you can disagree, rather than digesting what was posted, thus requiring others to be repeat things for you LOL mike >> You free to believe whatever you choose, I could not care less. What you >> choose to believe however will not change the fact that the best selling [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Gee, you told us last time. You're like a broken record. And, old enough > to know what that means. > Jeff > It seems you seldom understand what is said the first time, because you > are too busy picking through everybody's posts for something with which > you can disagree, rather than digesting what was posted, thus requiring > others to be repeat things for you LOL I am not disagreeing with an opinion. You get the facts wrong, and I am pointing this out. You've got to take more effective mind-reading classes, man. I understand perfectly well what you are saying. What you offer is rarely worth the effort of digesting. I can tell you used to be a manager. You get the facts wrong, but somehow, it is someone else's fault. Don't have a cow man! (I said that last time, but you seem to have deleted this - another intellectually dishonest move. I mean, gee, don't be so stupid as to remove stuff from a post when I know darn well what I said, and I can easily verify it.) You're just so funny Mike. Jeff > mike > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >> Jeff Semantics, you just like to comment on ever post and gotta have the last word. I bet you were an only child or at least the youngest LOL mike >> It seems you seldom understand what is said the first time, because you >> are too busy picking through everybody's posts for something with which [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> >>> Jeff >I can't think of anyone that would buy one.... and this is the key to the >equation. Enough units need to be sold to cover R&D, production and, of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Few owners will have the car that they "need".... Most will have the car > they "want".... Where in Canada are you Jim? In Ontario, MB dealerships can't keep the smart in stock half the time. We have 4 of em on my street alone, and I see them literally every time I drive anywhere. >>> Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't >>> it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > 80-100mph in the city [imo, anywhere] but wouldn't this help those > people I described? There's another vehicle available that has a 1 HP motor: the bicycle. > What's the MPG on a sub-compact sized car with 40HP city driving only? I don't know. What about the electric vehicles that are already available? > No cross-coutry/highway driving. After the WWII one could buy a Crosley, that meets the criteria for a small fuel efficient, car but because of the low economies of scale ratio, the purchase price was to close to the price of a FULL size Ford. If you want great fuel mileage there are dozens of different vehicles available on the market today that get great fuel mileage, that do not need to meet US safety standards. They are called motor scoters and cycles. One can convert one to tryke, or buy one purposely built as a tryke, and there are even all weather caps available for them. The question is always who will buy them, except as a second vehicle. Who is willing to pay the relatively high cost of buying one and who is willing to ride in something that small to simply to save a relative few hundred dollars a year? mike . >>>> Couldn't a 1 piston engine be made, no frills, and put in a car? Make >>>> the car out of a lot of plastic, keep a frame of metal of course and [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >> No cross-coutry/highway driving. > After the WWII one could buy a Crosley, that meets the criteria for a small > fuel efficient, car but because of the low economies of scale ratio, the > purchase price was to close to the price of a FULL size Ford.... > > mike I think more Crosley engines were put in to boats than to cars... Rob Crosly never made the engine, they like K&F used Continental engines. mike >> After the WWII one could buy a Crosley, that meets the criteria for a >> small fuel efficient, car but because of the low economies of scale [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Rob > Crosly never made the engine, they like K&F used Continental engines. > > mike I have no idea what you're talking about.... Crosleys in boats(inboard & outboard): http://www.ggw.org/~cac/EngineTree/Crosley_Eng_Tree-3.html http://www.ggw.org/~cac/EngineTree/Crosley_Eng_Tree-4.html http://hometown.aol.com/homelite55/index.html Rob >>> After the WWII one could buy a Crosley, that meets the criteria for a >>> small fuel efficient, car but because of the low economies of scale [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> Rob >> Crosly never made the engine, they like K&F used Continental engines. >> >> mike > > I have no idea what you're talking about.... What makes you think Mike has any idea what he is talking about? Jeff > Crosleys in boats(inboard & outboard): > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>> >>> Rob >Crosly never made the engine, they like K&F used Continental engines. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> Rob False. The Crosley C.O.Bra was a totally inhouse fabricated (Copper Brazed steel) overhead cam engine, and the replacement cast iron engine was also a totally inhouse overhead cam design.  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com I stand corrected. mike >>Crosly never made the engine, they like K&F used Continental engines. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Brazed steel) overhead cam engine, and the replacement cast iron > engine was also a totally inhouse overhead cam design. > There's another vehicle available that has a 1 HP motor: the bicycle. Only if you can get a horse to ride it:) Al >> There's another vehicle available that has a 1 HP motor: the bicycle. > > Only if you can get a horse to ride it:) Humans are able to develop about 1 HP. THey can't maintain it for very long. Jeff > Al >>> There's another vehicle available that has a 1 HP motor: the bicycle. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jeff Then it's not 1 hp. Horsepower takes time into account. Rob >>>> There's another vehicle available that has a 1 HP motor: the bicycle. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Then it's not 1 hp. Horsepower takes time into account. Yeah, it is. Another term for it would be peak horsepower. But still, people can develop 1 HP. Period. In determination of power, there is no requirement that the power be maintained for any period of time. Jeff > Rob >>>>> There's another vehicle available that has a 1 HP motor: the bicycle. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jeff The very definition of horsepower is ALL ABOUT TIME...: "33,000 ft·lbs per MINUTE" is one horsepower. A boiler horsepower is used for boilers in power plants. It is equal to 33,475 Btu/h (9.8095 kW), which is the energy rate needed to evaporate 34.5 lb (15.65 kg) of water at 212 °F (100 °C) IN ONE HOUR. There is no measurement of horsepower w/o the time factored in. Rob >>>>>> There's another vehicle available that has a 1 HP motor: the bicycle. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > "33,000 ft·lbs per MINUTE" is one horsepower. Right, and if you do 1/60th of the work (550 ft-lbs) in one second, then you still are developing 1 HP. The ft-lbs is the amount of energy needed to life 550 lbs 1 ft or 1 lb 550 ft. Power is work divided by time. The time is not specified. If a 150-lb person climbs 7 1/3 feet of stairs in 2 seconds, during the 2 seconds he has an average power output of 1 HP (assuming your 33,000 ft-lbs per minute is accurate). Now assume that the same person climbs 220 ft (a 22 story building) in 1 minute. That's a lot. This like 1 story every 3 seconds. He would be doing 33,000 lb ft work working (lifting a 150 lb object 220 ft) in one minute. 1100 lb-ft / 2 sec = 33,000 lb-ft / 60 sec. You don't need to maintain the same power output for a full minute for it to be the same power output. > A boiler horsepower is used for boilers in power plants. It is equal to > 33,475 Btu/h (9.8095 kW), which is the energy rate needed to evaporate > 34.5 lb (15.65 kg) of water at 212 °F (100 °C) IN ONE HOUR. Look at what you wrote. 33,475 Btu/h = 9.8 kW. A watt is also the unit for electrical power. A 100 W lamp uses 100 W of electricity whether it is on for 1 second or 5 years. There is no requirement that a light bulb remain on for particular period of time to achieve a particular power rating. That is because the amount of power developed is not related to the duration of power generation. > There is no measurement of horsepower w/o the time factored in. Correct. The power is the work divided by time it took the work. And I (227.5 lb) climb a stairwell that is 145 ft high in 1 minute, I will do 33,000 lb ft of work, which is one HP sustained for 1 minute. If I climb a stairwell that is 2.42 ft high in 1 sec, I will be doing 1/60th of the work (550 ft lb) in one second. The rate (550 ft lb per second) is equal to 33,000 ft lb per minute (550 ft lb per s times 60 s per minute = 33,000 ft lb per minute). So, I can reasonably sustain 1 HP of work for a few seconds (maybe climb a 7 ft staircase in 3 seconds), but, until I get in better shape, I doubt I can sustain 1 HP for a minute. If I try, I might be riding in the back of a 300 HP vehicle (an ambulance). Jeff > Rob >>>>>>> There's another vehicle available that has a 1 HP motor: the >>>>>>> bicycle. [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Jeff Well, you can't be the 1 hp for that bike, then, of you want to get somewhere, & have your belongings & appointments with you for the work day. Rob >>>> Humans are able to develop about 1 HP. THey can't maintain it for >>>> very long. >>> Then it's not 1 hp. Horsepower takes time into account. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> In determination of power, there is no requirement that the power be >> maintained for any period of time. > The very definition of horsepower is ALL ABOUT TIME...: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There is no measurement of horsepower w/o the time factored in. You're embarrassing yourself in front of the world on an archived forum, that people will be able to read, for some years to come... I'd stop digging such a big hole if I were you. Does my car's engine not put out a true 150 hp on a dynamometer if I only run it for 10 seconds? One second? Or even a handful of crankshaft revolutions? How long do you think you need to produce a particular horsepower reading before it becomes 'real' enough for you? If you think through your answers you might see where you've screwed up. Or else you're trolling and I should take this hook out of my mouth. >>>>> Humans are able to develop about 1 HP. THey can't maintain it for >>>>> very long. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > up. Or else you're trolling and I should take this hook out of my > mouth. Well, how about that 1 hp human powered bike. That's all I'm talking about here, 1 hp just cannot be usefully sustained by a human for practical transportation. 2-3 minutes just won't get you to work on a bike. That's all. Your car's engine can have instantaneous HP way beyond 150. It just won't last long. Rob >>>>>> Humans are able to develop about 1 HP. THey can't maintain it for >>>>>> very long. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > >Rob Has anyone else noticed how cities are building more and more of those 'bike paths' and 'walking paths' that stretch the entire length of the city? I have here and they never really admit the reasons for it. When the CO2 car taxes starts, some people won't have any freedom to drive cars as much as they do now. >There is no measurement of horsepower w/o the time factored in. > >Rob But there is no limitation on how long that power must be produced. A strong human can produce 746 watts of power (1 HP) for 35 seconds to 90 seconds? He has still produced one HP of power. He may sustain only 500 watts for several minutes, or 300 watts for an hour. (numbers may be off a bit, but general range) SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > OK, what about my idea of a 30-40 HP engine? It's not needed to do > 80-100mph in the city [imo, anywhere] but wouldn't this help those [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No cross-coutry/highway driving. I had a few cars in that category. one was a 1980 Civic 1.5 CVCC, 46hp . Top speed on a good day was 85mph. Mileage was only in the thirties highway. A underpowered tin can that everytime you pulled out of a blind city intersection it was a stomp and pray adventure. Same specs for that '64 Beetle I had...... >> OK, what about my idea of a 30-40 HP engine? It's not needed to do >> 80-100mph in the city [imo, anywhere] but wouldn't this help those [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >intersection it was a stomp and pray adventure. >Same specs for that '64 Beetle I had...... My 1961 Morris Mini 850 averaged 49.6 MPG over the time I owned it, putting the last 18000 of 246,000 miles on it. The accellerator pedal was operated as a switch - it was either off or to the floor. Maximum speed in 3rd gear was either 60 or 65 MPH, with top gear 5 lower (It's a long time - can't remember if it was 60 and 55 or 65 and 60 - but it was faster in third than forth due to lack of adequate power) Low gear accelleration (city driving "get out and go") was more than adequate with the gearing and 10 inch tires. Now, my 1949 VW 998 (or 996, whatever - 10 taxable horsepower) (military kubelwagen engine) moved the old bug at a sprightly 45MPH top speed with a gentle tailwind, with all the get up and go of a tired sloth. IIRC mileage ran in the 30MPG range on a good day.(British gallon) (No better than 12km per liter) SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > "B > Ford and Toyota both small hatchbacks for EUrope (the Ka and AYGO) . They > both cost around $15k. There are also smaller cars being developed my > DiamlerBenz (actually Diamler Chrysler until Chrysler is sold). Wikipedia claims Toyota are planning to release the Aygo in the US, but 'with a redesign to make it smaller(!)'. If it gets any smaller it will be a golf cart!!! Sadly they don't give a source, so could be baloney. www.fordaspire.com claims Ford is releasing the Fiesta in the US- it's bigger than the Ka but smaller than the Focus. The basic Fiesta actually gives a better MPG than the Ka though. Just as an experiment, I looked on craigslist for something similar to the 10 year old Fiesta or Corsa a British motorist on a budget might buy. It simply doesn't exist- hardly anything smaller than a Corolla or Escort. I'm glad things are slowly improving. > Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't > it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What would a car like that cost? W/ minimum required Federal emissions & safety equipment, about $13,500.00. Rob >> Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't >> it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Rob Probably less. You can get a Yaris for < $12,000, a fit for <$14,000, Hyundai Accent for <$11,000 and a John Deere Utility vehicle with four-wheel drive, 3-pt restraints and a 4-cyl engine for just $9500. Jeff >>> Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't >>> it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Hyundai Accent for <$11,000 and a John Deere Utility vehicle with four-wheel >drive, 3-pt restraints and a 4-cyl engine for just $9500. I still can't get anyone to explain why young people will buy a brand new car, make payments for 5 years? I'm talking about people with jobs that pay just around $10-12 an hour. What happened to buying within your budget? The same person could buy a 10-15 yr old car dirt cheap and be able to actually save money for a house or health care insurance? I actually have known several people who worked full-time ay Taco Bell, McDonalds, places like that, who bought new cars and made outrageous payment and high car insurance payments. They complained all the time about being broke. I had at least $400 per month more than they did, they'd ask me when I was going to get a new car. I'd always answer "In never years." >>>> Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't >>>> it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > than they did, they'd ask me when I was going to get a new car. I'd > always answer "In never years." I think it's all about appearances... I have a kid working part time for me that pays $240 a month for her Hyundai Accent, and pays about the same again in insurance... I make about 8 times what she does, and my newest vehicle is 10 years old. But my cars aren't nearly as shiny as hers :) >>>>> Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't >>>>> it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > in insurance... I make about 8 times what she does, and my newest vehicle is > 10 years old. But my cars aren't nearly as shiny as hers :) Being an accent, even if yours was a ford escort it would still be better :) >>>> Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't >>>> it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > than they did, they'd ask me when I was going to get a new car. I'd > always answer "In never years." These people don't care... i drive old junk, and combined my wife and i make more than friends i have living alone, buying bikes, trucks, partying all the time. Mind you 20% of both our salaries goes to rrsp's, and about 10% goes directly in to home improvements (for now) >> Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't >> it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >W/ minimum required Federal emissions & safety equipment, about $13,500.00. Since I don't buy new cars, how much cheaper is that than a comparable sub-compact car that is 4 cylinder? >>> Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't >>> it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Since I don't buy new cars, how much cheaper is that than a comparable > sub-compact car that is 4 cylinder? It isn't. Economies of scale dictate that a comparable sub-compact car that is 4 cylinder, & Federally compliant(Suzuki,Hyundai,Daewoo,etc.), would cost less. Rob If the only cars sold were the midget cars, you can bet they price will need to more than doubled ;) mike >>>> Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't >>>> it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Rob >>>> Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't >>>> it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Rob The Japanese manage to do it quite well with "kei cars". They are limited to about 600cc engines, small, fuel sipping, agile little cars, trucks, and vans. And most sell for under 750,000 yen (under $7500 roughly) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car >Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't >it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >What would a car like that cost? Actually there was a car almost exactly as you describe with a one cylinder engine. It was the "King Midget" and was made from the 50's until the mid '70's. Google "King Midget" to find out about them. Doug Forget 1-cyl. They have balance/vibration problems making them unsuitable for autos. I doubt there are even any serious mot'cycles with 1-cyl anymore (there were years ago). The closest I've seen to what you describe was the NSU Prinz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSU_Prinz 'Twere a -very- tiny german car with a 2-cyl. 600cc air-cooled 'cycle engine (RWD). I drove one in '64: it rattled a bit but was perfectly functional around town. I 'spect the reason such a car is now totally impractical is because of the grand proliferation of "The Great American Pigmobile": no visibility from such a tiny car, and they'd likely kill ya. It has become a "cultural" thing. Al >Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't >it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >What would a car like that cost? "The monkey and the baboon was playing 7-up. The monkey won the money but he scared to pick it up. The monkey stumbled, mama. The baboon fell. The monkey grab the money and he run like hell!" - from "Dirty Motherfuyer", Roosevelt Sykes, around 1935 >Forget 1-cyl. They have balance/vibration problems making them unsuitable >for autos. I doubt there are even any serious mot'cycles with 1-cyl [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >'cycle engine (RWD). I drove one in '64: it rattled a bit but was >perfectly functional around town. Or the Honda N360, Honda 600, Subaru 360,Subaru FF1, Toyota UP7 (Seven UP), all of which there are examples of in both Canada and the US. Or even the Fiat "little mouse" 500 and 600. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>Forget 1-cyl. They have balance/vibration problems making them unsuitable >>for autos. I doubt there are even any serious mot'cycles with 1-cyl [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >UP), all of which there are examples of in both Canada and the US. >Or even the Fiat "little mouse" 500 and 600. None of which I've ever seen. Come to think of it, the Renault Dauphine was likely in the ballpark. They sold 'em in the E. US in the early 60's. Before Honda exported their Moped+ stuff to the US, if I'm not mistaken. Al "The monkey and the baboon was playing 7-up. The monkey won the money but he scared to pick it up. The monkey stumbled, mama. The baboon fell. The monkey grab the money and he run like hell!" - from "Dirty Motherfuyer", Roosevelt Sykes, around 1935 >>Or the Honda N360, Honda 600, Subaru 360,Subaru FF1, Toyota UP7 (Seven >>UP), all of which there are examples of in both Canada and the US. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Al The Dauphine was a 750 to 850 cc - 19 to 32 HP 1956 to 1965, 4 cyl Water cooled. Only the 850 came to North America. (including the Dauphine Gordini sport. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>Or the Honda N360, Honda 600, Subaru 360,Subaru FF1, Toyota UP7 (Seven >>>UP), all of which there are examples of in both Canada and the US. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Water cooled. Only the 850 came to North America. (including the > Dauphine Gordini sport. Friends had one with the small engine.. It wouldn't go up hill with a full load of passengers - even if the passengers were 8th-graders. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>Or the Honda N360, Honda 600, Subaru 360,Subaru FF1, Toyota UP7 (Seven >>>>UP), all of which there are examples of in both Canada and the US. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Friends had one with the small engine.. It wouldn't go up hill with a full >load of passengers - even if the passengers were 8th-graders. Pert near what I expected. They had a big marketing campaign in my home town around 1961. Sold a bunch 'cause they were cheap. By '67, it was rare as hens teeth to see one on the road. Al "The monkey and the baboon was playing 7-up. The monkey won the money but he scared to pick it up. The monkey stumbled, mama. The baboon fell. The monkey grab the money and he run like hell!" - from "Dirty Motherfuyer", Roosevelt Sykes, around 1935 The poor Dauphine, it was like the French Army, it 'surrendered' rather quickly. The 2CV was worse, when one considers their selling price in the US vis a v its competition. LOL mike >>Come to think of it, the Renault Dauphine was likely in the >>ballpark. They sold 'em in the E. US in the early 60's. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Water cooled. Only the 850 came to North America. (including the > Dauphine Gordini sport. > The poor Dauphine, it was like the French Army, it 'surrendered' rather > quickly. The 2CV was worse, when one considers their selling price in the > US vis a v its competition. LOL > > mike But the 2CV endured. I don't know if they're still in production today but they were built under license in various countries well into the '80's. I've driven a 2CV. And I've passed them on the freeway while riding a moped. >>>Come to think of it, the Renault Dauphine was likely in the >>>ballpark. They sold 'em in the E. US in the early 60's. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> Water cooled. Only the 850 came to North America. (including the >> Dauphine Gordini sport. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > The poor Dauphine, it was like the French Army, it 'surrendered' rather > > quickly. The 2CV was worse, when one considers their selling price in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But the 2CV endured. I don't know if they're still in production today but > they were built under license in various countries well into the '80's. No, production ceased in 1990 >> > The poor Dauphine, it was like the French Army, it 'surrendered' rather >> > quickly. The 2CV was worse, when one considers their selling price in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > No, production ceased in 1990 I wonder what car has been in production the longest. Reportedly, the Peugeot 504 is still in production in Kenya. It start production in the early 70s or late 60s. Jeff > <ryou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Peugeot 504 is still in production in Kenya. It start production in the > early 70s or late 60s. Wikipedia claims production stopped in November. Would really depend what you classed as the same car. For instance the Fiesta has been going over here since 1976. However it shares little in common with the orginal but the name. The British mini was bascially the same car from 1959 to 2000, but now the same issues as with the Fiesta. Ditto the Beetle. On 29 Apr, 11:51, ryou...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Apr 28, 11:09 pm, "Jeff" <n...@googlemail.com> wrote:> <ryou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > bascially the same car from 1959 to 2000, but now the same issues as > with the Fiesta. Ditto the Beetle. Offtopic (although it is a Ford owned company) but I think I've managed to answer my own question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover_Defender It really depend on how one defines "car." The Corolla is mostly the one sold with the same name, but the Corollas sold today are not the same vehicles that were sold in the past. In fact current ones sold as a different car, depending on which county one finds one. There are two that I can think of that were sold as the original vehicle, on the same basic chassis, for many years and they are the Ford model "T" and the VW Beetle, with the Beetle selling in larger numbers and the "T" selling for more years, as I recall I'm sure if one really wanted to know a search could lead to the definitive answer mike >> Would really depend what you classed as the same car. For instance the >> Fiesta has been going over here since 1976. However it shares little >> in common with the orginal but the name. The British mini was >> bascially the same car from 1959 to 2000, but now the same issues as >> with the Fiesta. Ditto the Beetle. > It really depend on how one defines "car." The Corolla is mostly the one > sold with the same name, but the Corollas sold today are not the same [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and the VW Beetle, with the Beetle selling in larger numbers and the "T" > selling for more years, as I recall The 21,529,464 VW Beetles were made over a period of 65 years (1938 to 2003) vs. 16,500,000 Ford Model T's over 19 year (1908 to 1927). VW made the Beetles alongside new Beetle in Mexico until the end. In addition, VW made them in Brasil for a long time, until around 2000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bestselling_vehicle_nameplates > I'm sure if one really wanted to know a search could lead to the > definitive answer Although I wouldn't call Wikipedia definitive, I think in this case, it is accurate. It is hard to keep this sort of list updated and many vehicles are missing. I think the AMC Concord/Eagle, Ford Contour/Mercury Mistake/Ford Mondeo, Dodge Ram, Ford Econoline, Chevy C10/Silverado & GMC pickup series, Renault R5/Le Car (in US), as well as some odd vehicles like Thomas Built Buses (Saf-T-Liner series), maybe some Mack Trucks or International/Navistar trucks, WWII Jeeps, and many other vehicles are missing and should be in the list. Jeff >>> Would really depend what you classed as the same car. For instance the >>> Fiesta has been going over here since 1976. However it shares little >>> in common with the orginal but the name. The British mini was >>> bascially the same car from 1959 to 2000, but now the same issues as >>> with the Fiesta. Ditto the Beetle. I know somebody would do the search, but the site used is well know for inaccuracies or for not being up to date. I.E. There were "Ts" before 1908 and the F150 has been number one seller for 30 years not 23 ;) mike . >> It really depend on how one defines "car." The Corolla is mostly the >> one sold with the same name, but the Corollas sold today are not the same [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >>>> bascially the same car from 1959 to 2000, but now the same issues as >>>> with the Fiesta. Ditto the Beetle. >I know somebody would do the search, but the site used is well know for >inaccuracies or for not being up to date. I.E. There were "Ts" before 1908 >and the F150 has been number one seller for 30 years not 23 ;) Perhaps you will learn to in-line post to make it easier for people to follow the thread. So some respect for the other readers. http://www.thehenryford.com/exhibits/showroom/1908/model.t.html This site says the first production model was built in 1908. Jeff > mike > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >>>>> bascially the same car from 1959 to 2000, but now the same issues as >>>>> with the Fiesta. Ditto the Beetle. You need to expand your searches. If you do you will find there were "Ts" before 1908. Go to the Ford Museum and you will see an early sixties model Mercury convertible with the WRONG model year on the information referring to it. ;) mike >>I know somebody would do the search, but the site used is well know for >>inaccuracies or for not being up to date. I.E. There were "Ts" before [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >>>>>> bascially the same car from 1959 to 2000, but now the same issues as >>>>>> with the Fiesta. Ditto the Beetle. > You need to expand your searches. If you do you will find there were "Ts" > before 1908. Go to the Ford Museum and you will see an early sixties > model Mercury convertible with the WRONG model year on the information > referring to it. ;) Why? I have found information that is accurate enough, for me. And if you carefully read what I wrote, I said production models. Even Ford Motor Company agrees with me. Just why are you so rude as to top-post? I find it easier to in-line post, because I don't have to scroll to the top. In addition, I find it much easier to follow the thread, especially in posts that address more than point in a previous post. IMHO, it is extremely rude and disrespectful of you to readers of these messages to top post. Jeff > mike > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >>>>>>> bascially the same car from 1959 to 2000, but now the same issues as >>>>>>> with the Fiesta. Ditto the Beetle. >> You need to expand your searches. If you do you will find there were >> "Ts" before 1908. Go to the Ford Museum and you will see an early [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Even Ford Motor Company agrees with me. Sorry, I forgot the link: http://www.ford.com/en/heritage/history/default.htm > Just why are you so rude as to top-post? > > I find it easier to in-line post, because I don't have to scroll to the > top. In addition, I find it much easier to follow the thread, especially > in posts that address more than point in a previous post. Now, see how much easier it is to follow what I posted when it is inline compared to if I were a rude a.shole and topposted? Jeff > IMHO, it is extremely rude and disrespectful of you to readers of these > messages to top post. [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> with the Fiesta. Ditto the Beetle. You are free to believe whatever you choose, but the fact remains there were "Ts" before 1908 and the F150 has been number one seller for 30 years not 23 ;) mike >>> You need to expand your searches. If you do you will find there were >>> "Ts" before 1908. Go to the Ford Museum and you will see an early >>> sixties model Mercury convertible with the WRONG model year on the >>> information referring to it. ;) >> >> Why? I have found information that is accurate enough, for me. > You are free to believe whatever you choose, but the fact remains there > were "Ts" before 1908 and the F150 has been number one seller for 30 years > not 23 ;) I believe that the first production model T was made in 1908. The Ford Motor Company is likely to know more about this than you: http://www.thehenryford.com/exhibits/showroom/1908/model.t.html. I also believe that you are intellectual dishonest person. I can see that by the way you fail to do simple things, like indicate that you deleted lines in other people's replies without indicating that. I also believe that you are rude to others. I see then when you fail to show respect to others by in-line posting instead of top-posting. In-line posting shows respect to others by making it easier to follow threads, especially when the comments involve multiple areas of the previous post. This, I believe, is also part of your intellectual dishonest. I believe that an retired engineer is smart enough to figure it out. In fact, I find it much easier to respond to a post with inline posting than top posting, because I am able to see exactly what part of the post I am replying to. Finally, I believe these qualities that you have: rudeness, laziness and intellectual dishonesty, indicate that you are no longer worth my time to reply to. Bye-bye. Jeff > mike > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> >>> Why? I have found information that is accurate enough, for me. I think you are deceiving yourself, you simply can not resist replying to ANYBODIES posts, in any NG. LOL mike >> You are free to believe whatever you choose, but the fact remains there >> were "Ts" before 1908 and the F150 has been number one seller for 30 >> years not 23 ;) < redundancies deleted> > Finally, I believe these qualities that you have: rudeness, laziness and > intellectual dishonesty, indicate that you are no longer worth my time to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jeff > "Mike Hunter" <mikehu...@mailcity.com> wrote in message > The 21,529,464 VW Beetles were made over a period of 65 years (1938 to 2003) I'd fancy the Land Rover Defender (59 years and counting) to beat that, although the sales are obviously much smaller. Again it would depend how strict one was, as the Land Rover has developed slowly over the years. But it's still the same basic shape from the same factory. >> "Mike Hunter" <mikehu...@mailcity.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > depend how strict one was, as the Land Rover has developed slowly over > the years. But it's still the same basic shape from the same factory. I don't know if there were major differences between the VW Beetles made before and after WWII, but after WWII, the VW Beetles were pretty much the same until they stopped production 4 years ago. Same basic engine and parts. I don't know if you could say that for the Land Rove or not. But, either way, this speaks to the durability of the vehicle, built by Ford (now). Jeff > <ryou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I don't know if you could say that for the Land Rove or not. No, in that case they have changed more than the Beetle did, but if you put a 1948 and a 2007 Land Rover side by side and removed all the badges etc, you would tell straight away they were the same vehicle. The chassis and bodywork are very similar. You couldn't say that about a Corolla, for instance. > But, either way, this speaks to the durability of the vehicle, built by Ford > (now). Indeed. >> <ryou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > bascially the same car from 1959 to 2000, but now the same issues as > with the Fiesta. Ditto the Beetle. The Peugeot 504 that is pictured as still for sale at www.peugeot.co.ke looks identical to the one that I learned to drive in in 1981. According to wikipedia, the 504 is the 53rd best-selling car of all time (tied) - I know because I just added the entry. The wikipedia article says in some places that it is still being made and other places says that it ceased production in 2006. So who knows? I would guess that the Peugeot 504 that was last produced was the same basic design as the original, but with a new engine and transmission, but probably the same body and 4-wheel independent suspension as the original. So it is an updated version of the original model rather than an all new model like the Fiesta. Jeff > Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't > it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What would a car like that cost? Yamaha XT-450, only one cylinder, used probably can be had for under $3000, dirt cheap insurance. Small, fuel efficient, nimble and goes most places modern SUVs cannot. I think they get between 40 to 50 mpg. http://www.microcarmuseum.com/tour/kingmidget3.html >Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't >it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >What would a car like that cost? Big problen is emissions. A 3.5HP 4 stroke lawn mower produces more polution than a current 3.8 V6. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't >>it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Big problen is emissions. A 3.5HP 4 stroke lawn mower produces more > polution than a current 3.8 V6. While that is true, there is no reason why a 3.5 HP engine has to produce more pollution (NOx and SOx) than a current car engine. There is no reason why you can't put the same pollution controls on a 3.5 HP motor that are on a 3.8 V6. Ditto a 40 HP engine that would power a small car. Jeff >>> Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't >>> it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > no reason why you can't put the same pollution controls on a 3.5 HP > motor that are on a 3.8 V6. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/apr/18/epa_proposing_limits_lawnmower_emissions/ >>Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't >>it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Big problen is emissions. A 3.5HP 4 stroke lawn mower produces more >polution than a current 3.8 V6. Who runs a lawn mower the equivalent of driving a car 30K miles per year? > Since yuppies tend to live real close to the area they work, wouldn't > it make sense to offer a car that did what they needed? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What would a car like that cost? Even a honda fourwheeler 420cc, even the 350, is around $8k (CAD)... could it really be cheaper than that? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.