Haha, what're you smoking diemaster?
|
I like the screwdriver...
I like the screwdriver by the firewall.
But seriously, Honda made an official announcement about a hybrid that was going to be smaller than the Civic and priced much less in 2009 |
Oh well, 2009...
|
Quote:
Too much time on your hands... |
Here's my idea:
Re-issue a few updated versions of the Z600, one as an affordable, high-performance, fuel-efficient sports car capable of seating 2, another as an affordable, high-performance, fuel efficient compact car that can seat 4, and another as a minitruck that seats 3. What powerplant? All of them will use the 140 HP 2.2 i-CTDi diesel, tuned to run on petrol diesel, B100, and any mix in-between. It will be mid mounted as low as possible behind the passenger area, rear wheel driven, and air-cooled. All cars will share the same transmissions. All of them will share the same chassis. A wheelbase around 100-110 inches or so. Where the cars are different is the body. All of them will have a similar theme in appearance or looks, with some modifications between them. Think of the differences between the Corvair sedan, Corvair Monza, and Corvair Rampside. All car bodies will share the following: rounded LeMans style front end with covered lenses(think Jaguar E-Type, Porsche 550 Spyder, ect.), Honda Insight rims and tires, shaved door handles, aerodynamic driver/passenger mirrors, rear wheel skirts, full smooth underbelly, small gaps to allow engine cooling via air(think GM Precept, so minimal drag penalty is created), rear boattail where appropriate(depends on which of 3 car styles), roll cage, driver and front passenger both approxamately in the center of the vehicle, fiberglass body wherever appropriate, a frame built to withstand being loaded to 3,500 pounds. The trunk in all cars will be in the front. Sort of like Porsches and similar cars. The sports car will only need to seat 2 people, and given what it is, it will be lower in ride height than the other cars. Ground clearance will be about 3 inches, total height from ground to roof around 45 inches. Keep it down low. Since it only needs to seat 2 people, the rear can be tapered back to perfection to minimize drag. Target weight around 1,800 pounds, target drag coefficient around .18, and target frontal area around 16 square feet. This would yield a sports car that did around 0-60 mph in 6.5 seconds, and appropriately geared, could top 170 mph. Fuel economy would be somewhere around 80-90 mpg US, judging by the figures achieved with the diesel Accord. The compact car will be built like the sports car. Same exact front end and design, up until the passenger area starts. The passenger area will be slightly taller, and the car will be shaped more like GM's Precept. The front section will seat two adults, rear section seat 2 adults. The rear area will be hatch, with a partial boat-tail. Ground clearance around 6 inches, roof height around 54 inches. Target weight around 2,400 pounds, target drag coefficient under .20, target frontal area under 19 square feet. 0-60 mph would be about 8.5 seconds, top speed ~150 with proper gearing, and around 70-80 mpg. The pickup truck will be like the compact car, only with no rear seats, and a straight cutoff right after the passenger compartment with the bed being above the engine. Target weight around 2,000 pounds, target drag coefficient under .35(Offer an attachable aeroshell as an option to reduce that to under .20), same frontal area as compact. This would give 0-60 around 7 seconds, top speed around 125(with aeroshell unattached), and around 55-60 mpg(with aeroshell unattached). The truck bed itself will be steel, while the rest of the vehicle body would be fiberglass. It would be the only sports car/pickup crossover around, and it would fill both roles very nicely. So a farmer might have a tool to use around the farm on the weekdays, fuel it up with biodiesel he makes himself, and then take it to the track on the weekends and kick ***. Since all of these vehicles would be built on the same sporty platform, manufacturing costs are greatly reduced. I could see such a vehicle being made and sold at a profit around $13-15k. It would basically be an updated, multi-platform Honda Insight with a diesel engine instead of the pricey hybrid drive. |
Yup, but "platform" engineering doesn't go far enough. Just try to buy a pickup truck with anything better than a 3.73 axle. Optional axles now go higher to 4.11 and such!
Providing optional FE axles is such a trivial design exercise that all auto manufacturers should be mandated by the government to do it. Even better, they should mandate the easy FE options such as Atkinson cycle cams, electric fans, LRR tires and wheel spats. |
Quote:
My entire idea is to keep things relatively simple. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
With the mid-engine design, you don't need a grill or airflow to the front of the car, things which add lots of drag. This makes obtaining an ultra-low Cd feasible. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Aero drag makes a big difference at those speeds! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The Ranger and S10 in the 1990s ballooned into overweight hunks of pork. The people that bought small trucks no longer had any available to purchase, as those models no longer delivered them that. They took their cash and kept it. There are a lot of people that would love a small, economical pickup. But the auto companies won't make them. They would rather sell more profitable vehicles. Quote:
Quote:
The Rangers aren't wanted, for instance, precisely because they have become oversized, overweight trucks. The small truck market does not want a full size truck. Had the Ranger been kept small as it was in the 80s, it would probably still be selling as it has. But industry would rather have the small truck market buying larger and more profitable vehicles. We are seeing two things at work: a) Market manipulation b) Price discrimination It's no surprise what the end result is. The small truck market simply quit buying trucks after what they wanted wasn't available anymore. Quote:
But the auto industry wouldn't do that anyway. It would take away from sales of other larger, more-profitable vehicles. But it's still a nice idea to ponder. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But like you said, it's no deal killer. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What's interesting is that cars today have gotten much heavier than the cars of the 60s and 70s, and that weight isn't all because of safety devices, either. Cars have all sorts of crap now days that often goes unused. Interiors of cars are often loaded with hundreds of pounds of sound deadener and other dead weight to reduce road noise caused by poor suspension geometry, tire selection, and other factors, and to make the car feel more 'heavy' when it is cornering in effort to lure people into thinking they are buying quality. Then this extra weight is used as an excuse to inflate the price of the vehicle. I know of two cops that got into an accident. The dashboard of their Ford Crown Victoria fell and crushed their legs. That's quite a large bit of useless weight to lug around. Addressing this interior weight could easily shave 400+ pounds off of most of today's cars, and racers often shave off 200-300 pounds of this crap from 90s model cars. Quote:
Quote:
I know of electric car conversions that use LRR tires, and still manage ~.85 G on a skidpad. That's comparable to many $40,000 sports cars. Quote:
Consider that I'm under the assumption that Honda's diesel possesses consistent reliability compared with their other products, and if not that. If that assumption turns out incorrect, then yes, the sealed hood is a very bad idea. Quote:
But economical doesn't just mean low fuel usage. It also means low maintenance. That power steering, power windows, power brakes and all that other crap adds to maintenance costs. Unlike the older models that were easily repaired, newer models usually require the service of a mechanic when even the slightest problem arises. They don't make 'em like the used to. |
Quote:
|
Itb N600 Ftw!
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.