My idea to radically increase mpg

walterj wrote: BAH! Introduce legislation that penalizes vehicle weight. Tax by the pound. Oil isn't the problem... excess is. Everyone in america could drive cars with very high power to weight at full throttle all day long and still save gas if they weren't trying to accelerate 5000lbs. They could save all the pollution caused by excessive brake dust and tire rubber particles too... If automakers had customers demanding a 2000lb car they would deliver one.

I like the way you think!

Could I get my vehicle weighed after modifications and submit the paperwork to show that my 2350lb car is now only 2150 lbs?

walterj wrote: BAH! Introduce legislation that penalizes vehicle weight. Tax by the pound. Oil isn't the problem... excess is. Everyone in america could drive cars with very high power to weight at full throttle all day long and still save gas if they weren't trying to accelerate 5000lbs. They could save all the pollution caused by excessive brake dust and tire rubber particles too... If automakers had customers demanding a 2000lb car they would deliver one.

Wow...imagine how that would affect people who use vehicles for working. Freight trucks? Delivery trucks? Concrete trucks? Even if you ignore commercial trucks, what about people who need a tow rig. I don't imagine you'd appreciate paying $500 in taxes every year on your $500 truck that you drive 2,000 miles/year to pull your race car around. I know I wouldn't. It seems to me that gas prices alone are doing a FINE job of getting people to buy smaller vehicles. Have you seen any media lately? Truck and SUV sales have come to a crawl without any weight penalty legislation. Small cars are actually appreciating in value.

Bryce

I would have gone the other direction, instead of taxing based on weight I would put on a bar code and link a thumbprint or PIN# to every dirver's license and ration the amount of gas each person can buy. First 40 gallons a month at $0.15 a gallon tax, next 10 gallons at $0.75 a gallon tax, next 10 at $1.50 a gallon taxes, etc. Add in "rollover gallons" to allow for summer vacation and track days and whatever.

Scan a commercial driver's license, enter appropriate thumb print, then scan the VIN bar code of a registered and insured commercial vehicle and procede to purchase fuel required for said vehicle without additional penalty.

Special needs, that is exceptionally large families or what-not can file for an adjustment on the cap for their particular license. Since each person has to scan their license and offer up a thumb or secret code before purchasing, drive-offs will be a thing of the past as well.

Then, over time, reduce the amounts or raise the taxes to help encourage fuel economy and reward fuel thriftiness.

oldopelguy wrote: Then, over time, reduce the amounts or raise the taxes to help encourage fuel economy and reward fuel thriftiness.

Ha! So your idea of rewarding thriftiness is to penalize people that use more fuel? That seems like it does nothing for the guy who's already conserving, unless of course you're going to start giving money to people who don't drive places from the taxes you collect from those who do drive. Well, that is what would happen eventually, you'd have bums and bicyclists standing at the pump taking your money to give you a fuel discount with their thumbprint. I can't stand having people pump my gas here in OR, I can only imagine adding another guy waiting at the pump to ask if I need his thumbprint for a buck.

You guys sure have some crazy ideas...we "motorsports" fans don't have much room to talk about wasting fuel/fuel rations/vehicle sizes. Imagine the tow rigs, race cars, etc. at your typical race weekend....seems pretty wasteful to an outsider, couple that with the fact that many race classes don't have emissions controls and the greenies really start to build up a head of steam. If a fuel ration came into play, racing would be one of the first targets.

Bryce

Yeah, we are full of crazy ideas. I'm not so concerned with gas usage... I just liked walter's idea because it reduced the average weight of vehicles... making my car comparably safer than it would be otherwise. Also, it reduces congestion when everyone drives small cars/motorcycles.

ProDarwin wrote: Yeah, we are full of crazy ideas. I'm not so concerned with gas usage... I just liked walter's idea because it reduced the average weight of vehicles... making my car comparably safer than it would be otherwise. Also, it reduces congestion when everyone drives small cars/motorcycles.

I dunno, driving the smallest thing on the road can be entertaining sometimes.

When driving the lowered Miata, I frequently have to resist the urge to stick my hands up over my head and make sock puppets in the passenger window of the SUV next to me at lights.

ProDarwin wrote: Yeah, we are full of crazy ideas. I'm not so concerned with gas usage... I just liked walter's idea because it reduced the average weight of vehicles... making my car comparably safer than it would be otherwise. Also, it reduces congestion when everyone drives small cars/motorcycles.

It didn't decrease vehicle weight, it increased taxes for those who keep driving heavy vehicles...you're assuming people will stop driving heavy vehicles. What's more likely is that instead of getting hit by a space cadet in a minivan, you'd get hit by a space cadet in a minivan that stopped paying for car insurance this month so they could make the payment for gymnastics class and the cable bill.

If you outlaw big rigs, only outlaws will have big rigs. Salanis, that's a good one...I'll have to try that in the Fiero!

Bryce

LOL @ the sock puppets!

With traffic around here (or any other congested area in the country) driving something small can scare the piss out of you.

I totally understand the need for minivans and suvs... I just wish there was an easy way to differentiate between those who just like driving those behemoths down the road, and those who need them. The way I see it, they are a safety hazard, and also a large factor in the congestion equation.

hell, what happened to the good old days of when vehicular excese meant driving an overpriced, gas guzzling performance vehicle.

ProDarwin wrote: LOL @ the sock puppets!

thats about all I can add

what if the government was to give dealerships gas discount cards for cars that get, lets say 28mpg city. make it a 5 cents a liter/ 25 cents gallon tax discount. that way when a person buys a car they will be aiming for the one with the good millage and discount card.

and if you want to help the American economy make the card only available on American products.

and of course we need lower weight cars. i drive the ultimate in low weight low hp gas efficient cars.

It sure seems like there is a lot of fuel wasted because of how the street lights are programmed. A small amount of better programming would make very big savings.

Portland has nearly all of the lights programmed, it's shocking when I go to other big/growing cities that don't have them, it really does make a huge difference. It can be fun if you get them timed right, it's a challenge to memorize how fast to go on which streets at what time of day and try to hit them perfectly.

geomiata...the government doesn't have to give out gas cards, Chrysler is already doing that. It's actually way more than 25 cents a gallon, it's over a dollar a gallon IIRC. Chrysler still hasn't managed to break any sales records.

Bryce

Nashco wrote:

oldopelguy wrote: Then, over time, reduce the amounts or raise the taxes to help encourage fuel economy and reward fuel thriftiness.

Ha! So your idea of rewarding thriftiness is to penalize people that use more fuel?

Uh, yes? Aside from the further incursion into having govt monitoring of our habits etc, I can't argue with the idea- sugar was rationed during the second war, why can fuel be rationed during these tight times? I don't think anyone's advocating higher prices or taxes for commercial usage, as this wouldn't help the public at all, but yes, if you use more, you are creating a higher demand that we all have to pay for in the form of higher pump prices. Quite honestly if you want to be fair higher usage would get taxed more heavily.

Tell me about personal freedoms and that you have a god-given right to burn as much damn fuel as you like, while arguably driving up the cost for everyone else (simple supply/demand economics here), warming the climate, dirtying the air, and clogging the roads. That's your bag, and your hell will be fueled 87 octane (please take this as a joke and not as a religious baiting or something). My hell will (as always) be fired by barley, malt and hops.

Wouldn't it be cool if the gas prices escalated to the point where racing became what it was like in the 50's? No tow vehicles, just take your bumpers off and race with what you drove to the track.

You going to the brewfest this weekend (or next?) Bryce? Look for the guy in the mullet and Elvis shades with all the beautiful ladies around him.

Nashco wrote: Portland has nearly all of the lights programmed, it's shocking when I go to other big/growing cities that don't have them, it really does make a huge difference. It can be fun if you get them timed right, it's a challenge to memorize how fast to go on which streets at what time of day and try to hit them perfectly. Bryce

Did you know that lights sync'd to work at 35 mph also work at 70 mph?

Except that MPG should be weighted relative to passenger load. That Econoline van getting 15 MPG with eight passengers is getting 120 MPPG (Miles per person/gallon). Prius Boy will have to take at least two passengers to do better.

Somehow I just doubt the fella screaming along 85 mph is going to be concerned that others realize he isn't optimizing is fuel mileage.

Brust wrote: My hell will (as always) be fired by barley, malt and hops.

No. No. No. No. No. No.

Malt is grain. Barley is the most common grain turned into malt.

Your hell will be fired by Water, Malt, Hops, and Yeast.

Geez...

ProDarwin wrote: Yeah, we are full of crazy ideas. I'm not so concerned with gas usage...

EXACTLY. I don't give a rat's azz about consumption or conserving fuel. I don't care that you personally don't want to be penalized for your tow vehicle, RV, or whatever. I want a whole laundry list of cars to choose from that weigh less than an Exige. I want the roads filled with motorcycles. I want average consumers gutting their cars and drilling holes to save weight.

I'll promote whatever nonsense that brings that home!

Kramer wrote: Did you know that lights sync'd to work at 35 mph also work at 70 mph?

140 too

Brust wrote:

Nashco wrote:

oldopelguy wrote: Then, over time, reduce the amounts or raise the taxes to help encourage fuel economy and reward fuel thriftiness.

Ha! So your idea of rewarding thriftiness is to penalize people that use more fuel?

Uh, yes?

My point was that penalizing group A does not reward group B. Rewarding group B would be rewarding group B and would be completely independent of group A. Perhaps I'm not following your concept, but all you mentioned was making things harder for large consumers, but not easier for small consumers. If Joe doesn't have a car and rides his bike everywhere he goes, he will have exactly zero reward if Sally pays an extra $15 for the fuel she burned to take the basketball team over the mountains for a tournament on Labor Day weekend. That's a penalty for consuming, not a reward for conserving fuel....right?

I will be at the Brewer's Fest/races next weekend, this weekend I'll be at Pikes Peak watching crazy people burn fuel to race up a hill at ludicrous speeds just so they can drive back down to the bottom. Three weekends in a row of racing, sweet! If you really are going to be in an Elvis getup with some eye candy following along, I'll keep my eyes peeled, maybe we can continue the discussion over a beer. Topics for discussion:

• Fuel consumption does not always correlate to emissions output
• Fuel consumption per driver does not always correlate to fuel consumption per person
• Fuel consumption does not always correlate to road traffic density
• The man and taxes
• The man in my bidness

Bryce

two words: Ozone Injection...

injecting ozone into the intake will increase efficiency and create a cleaner burn. having an inline ozone generator in your intake tubing will also produce small amounts of NOS. once burned, you also end up with a cleaner exhaust. I actually have an experimental unit, which i saw no positive results with in my truck, but I was able to determine the unit couldnt produce enough ozone to effect the burn in the 3.5 liter, and had to install it too far upstream of the intake manifold. I haven't had time to work on it in a few years, but my 78-924 may become the test mule for the next go around.. The us government actually did quite a bit of research on this in the mid-late 90's, funding was cut and program canceled before they could release definitive results, however what they did come up with was very promising, So its not snake oil..just not viable on a mass scale (yet) , and has in testing achieved up to a 30% increase in economy, and 10-15% increase in power output... If you decode the molecules in ozone, its pretty clear... ;)

Oh boy here we go again with free energy and the violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics...

ProDarwin wrote: Oh boy here we go again with free energy and the violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics...

The 1st law of thermodynamics deals with conservation of energy. The 2nd is entropy.

Both will be proven wrong when I get this Tornado hooked up to my intake!