Cynth, you're still completely wrong on this, no matter which thread you try to jack it with.

I've changed, most other haven't. Instead of being happy with the hp available in my car, I've improved the hp/mpg ratio considerably. Can you imagine what would happen if everyone in the US did this? The Ford Mustang GT gets about 17/25 mpg with 300 hp. Imagine getting more horsepower and getting 29/32 mpg. It's about being more green by making your car more efficient. My car is more efficient.

What have you done to make your car more efficient, Cynth?

/threadjack

Yes, I drive it less. It's 100% stock, 2001 Plymouth Neon with 36,000 miles on it. I have averaged 5,142 miles per year on the vehicle.

So why isn't this 95 Eclipse electric? Something you're suggesting that Psycho Dad do...

But what Psycho Dad is stating is that he needed more towing power and the ability to haul cargo and people. This is something that larger SUVs were designed and used for. He found something that fits his needs, and your suggesting that he put more money into something that may not exactly fit his needs. It "may" fit based on your "torquey" comment, but that's not the same as knowing what hauling capabilty he has to do what he requires.

Driving less does not make a car more efficient. I'm sure you'd like it to, so you could excuse trying to call me out, but it doesn't.
I was in Santa Barbara a few weeks ago visiting my step-brother, who goes to college there. I visit there maybe 5 times a year. 300 miles is beyond current, reasonably priced electric conversions. Not only that, but I have to drive on highway 17 pretty often and the extra weight from the batteries would have a seriously negative effect on my suspension.

Trust me, I did look into the electric option. Should my driving situation change, I will reevaluate the conversion. For the time being, it's simply not feasible.
He basically asked:
I'm letting him know it's an option. Do I need your permission to do that? No. Am I guilting him into it? No.
There are electric engines and batteries set up to pull large boats and even large camping trailers. The Tesla Roadster has 211 lb ft of torque at zero rpms. If that's not enough, there are electric motors out there that can do 5 times that. The biggest Expeditions have about 360 lb ft of torque. That means about 9,000 pounds towing. Imagine 600 lb ft of torque, and an even power band from zero rpms.

I'm not telling Psycho he must do this. I'm not even saying it's necessarily a viable option. I just want to make sure people know the options are out there. And if I could do that without you on my back about it, all the better.

Right. And it isn't feasible for most applications. Were it feasible the automakers would be doing it seeing as they are going to lose in SUV and truck sales.

And Cynthetiq's reducing how much he drives is as good or better than increasing the efficiency of his Neon. If he ultimately uses less fuel then it works. We are ultimately going to be driven financially in this matter more than environmentally.

Everyone's situation in this is different. Some drive vehicles that are not efficient, some waste fuel with needless trips. I'm reminded of a car forum I was on once. They younger people felt that SUV owners were to blame for fuel prices (way back when it was approaching the astronomical price of $1.75/gallon. They failed to understand that it is an individual's usage as much as the vehicles size that uses fuel.

Cynth - Will's just getting a little mean again.:grumpy:

We have had this discussion and he said he was on the list for a trendy Smart Car. But yet it won't work on his road. I'm all confused. We're all doomed!! :eek:

I'm on the list because I don't know how it drives yet. I want a chance to really take one to task, and see if it can handle 17. If it can't, then oh well. If if can, then I'll consider getting one.

You talk 17 up like it is Rubicon the trail of trails and marker of performance for 4x4 vehicles but for performance.

note... does it get from point A to point B? Yes? then it should be able to handle 17. Will it perform and handle like your 95 Eclipse, 96 Z3, 02 MINI? Oh do you mean it needs to be able to perform and handle like a go kart on twisty roads? doubtful.. Even a Geo rolls 17 just fine... it's not like it is such a special road that only a certain class or type of vehicle can "conquer" the road.

please stop with the disingenuine...my stock 85 4 door Corolla drove 17 fine on a regular basis.

Wait, are we talking rt 17 near Harriman?

no, talking about California State Route 17 from San Jose to Santa Cruz...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...etiq/17map.png

and busses seem to make the journey on such a regular basis, so I don't know what kind of special suspension they've done to those busses...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...SC_970_MAP.gif

and they run about 25 times a day...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...etiq/17bus.png

On average, how many accidents do you suppose are on 17 in a given year? How well do you think a 1985 corolla would handle an SUV or semi suddenly changing lanes without signaling? Have you ever hit a deer going 60? Have you ever hydroplaned near a cliff during a light rainstorm?

Let's stop pretending that you know what highway 17 is like in 2008. It's one of the most dangerous stretches of highway in the entire state. And my family lives on the other side of it.

My Eclipse is basically designed for two things: improving its efficiency considerably (I've managed to do so to the tune of 50%), and being able to drive on even dangerous roads like 17.

If you'd like to discuss this further, there is a thread for it. I won't continue to threadjack just to satisfy your fixation on this point.

So then in saving the planet and all... a bus ride with a pick up from your family doesn't sound so unreasonable. I mean, that reduces your total fuel usage of your Eclipse by 1 round trip and you use public transportation... or do you also worry that the bus doesn't handle so a SUV changing lanes so well, or hydroplaning near a cliff... (so dramatic) All those conditions you state including fauna, are issues that don't differentiate an Eclipse from a Neon from a Corolla or a bus. It is so disingenuous of you to continue to tout it as so.

Your Eclipse isn't special nor a specially designed choice, I guess when faced with being wrong, you'll pull the "We'll have to agree to disagree" card...

Threadjacking is probably okay for a few posts, or for people new to the forum:
This is the thread where we've already had this conversation. Bring it there or be ignored.

excuse me, but what the fuck are you talking about?

Should we lower the speed limit? Maybe. Should we continue a discussion in this thread that was going on in another thread? Absolutely not.

WE are not lowering any speed limit; that's up to our state legislators...

is this discusion really being carried on in another thread?

went there ,and i don't think so...

..

If the road is so bad tell us the actual stats rather than blathering about. Also, I used to drive through the most dangerous intersection in the country - Flamingo and Pines in Pembroke Pines , FL - so I've seen danger in a small vehicle and lived to tell about it.

If this highway is so dangerous than how is it an Eclipse will fair well? I mean, it is a small car although I sure don't think it's some fancy sports car with better than average suspension. Of course, I'm sure you've modified the thing into something incredible.

I think this thread is kind of fun and has regular activity but I can see you'd rather back off and try to force people someplace else. Cynth is right: you do want to control people and you are right/they are wrong!