Steven, > very simple...wouldn't sell enough to be profitable.
I agree. Most Americans what their "image" car. Even we to, in our own way. Thunder makes a statement, and so will my other 3 A-bodies when they are finished. > All about $. Yes, it is, without a shadow of a doubt. > The key here is that people love > their suv's and don't care about the mpg's or the $ > they spend. I agree. > It's > us the consumer, they are just providing the buying > public with what it is they want. Don't blame the oil > companies.........but that is a whole nother > conversation!!! I blame the politicians and the lobbyists who give them money. I also blame the Liberal Elite who think only with emotion and have no clue what "logic, common sense, and reason" are. > Is "nother" real word? It would be, "but that is a whole other conversation." > Anyway I've > always thought that a Sterling engine run on a small > flame turning 1000 rpms or so hooked to an alternator > and bumped up to run 4 ac motors at each wheel would > yield a car that would run at hundreds of miles per > gallan. NASA still hasn't got their version of the Sterling engine perfected. There are some trade-offs in using electric motors for each wheel that can cause some problems. In 1976, Dart Truck Company had an electric powered 25 ton capacity front-end loader that was offered to the open pit mining industry. The base power came from a 1500 HP Detroit Diesel running a generator sending electrical power to each electric motor in each wheel. The capacitor bank was huge with a small nightmare of electric control circuits. No one in the mining industry wanted it. I worked for Dart Truck as a test engineer from '76 to '78. Milton Schick 1964 442 Cutlass [EMAIL PROTECTED]
