Posted on 08/06/2002 2:08:25 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
No. It only seats two. At best, you can pick up chick with it.
LOL! And observe that it doesn't have its lights on while the cars behind it do.
Lights would probably bring the gas mileage down to about 50 mpg.
But what the heck!
Don't know about the rest of the car, but this isn't very impressive. A normally aspirated Ford small block has no problem approaching 1hp/lb.
Let us assume that one can, in fact, impress a chick with the car enough to get one inside. (It's "cute", so it's entirely possible that a cheerleader type may indeed be lured into the vehicle.)
At that point the car seems to offer some advantages, in that ocupants sit tandem, the passenger straddling the driver's seat.
With a bit of creative design, the male may initiate his move with a mere "here, let me show you how to start it."
Very true. This would be a menace to anyone on the road and especially fire fighters and rescue workers. Magnesium for those who don't know it's properties generates it's own oxygen in a fire. On ships if a helo {also bulit with magnesium} caught fire the helo was tossed over the side or it would burn through the decks to the bottom. No one likes a Delta Fire.
An absolutely beautiful specimen. My guess is 1948 or'49 Cadillac, with a flat head V-8. Miles per gallon = "who cares"? Curb weight = a ton! How am I doin'?
".....knees in the dash to save a little gas...
...swerved to avoid a little duck & got smashed beneath the wheels a a very big truck.....
Know why they have rear window defrosters?
So your hands don't get cold when your pushin' it.
Yeah, I think it's a '48 Caddy Fastback (not mine) -- I always liked the looks of that car.
Consider that a cheap motorcycle can carry two passengers at about 70 mpg with no modifications. Consider that _bicycles_ can be made with fiberglass fairings that can be pedaled over 70 mph. (Air resistance is by far the largest source of drag for land vehicles at road speeds. Reducing this drag would shoot up the mileage of a motor vehicle enormously.) So, to make a very efficient car, one could reduce the size of a small motorcycle engine considerably, design a frame that places the passengers in seated tandem position, reduce the height of the vehicle above the ground, add a two-wheel front axle, and then cover the thing in a plastic or fiberglass bubble. None of this requires exotic materials and could provide a vehicle that would surely get well over 150 mpg and could get close to 200 mpg.
But no such vehicles are made because gas is cheap. That is the important fact, not the state of present materials technology or aerodynamics. If people ever drive these project cars it will be because the government _makes_ them, not because these vehicles "finally" become available from commercial manufacturers. And environmentalists know this.
Whether we should be made to get into such cars is the real question. But this question the environmentalists avoid since they realize that the overwhelming answer from the citizenry would be "no". So, for now, we occasionally get green-leaning news articles about clever ways researchers are trying to "solve" the problems of low fuel economy for passenger vehicles. That, at least, will leave people with the impression that there is a problem, and that we have to solve it somehow. *Sigh*
Paging Mr. Lowry, paging Mr. Lowry: your mom has bought you a new car.
Prostitutes? I would imagine so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.