http://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com/200/TechZone/Accumulators/Article/False/ 11985/TechZone-Accumulators
or http://tinyurl.com/y2db2j Nothing like using good old fashioned hydraulics to help get over the poor acceleration/torque issue. Tom Bejma 69 Cutlass S Convertible [H/O Reproduction] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Joe Vahabzadeh Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 8:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: OT: thoughts on fuel economy [SNIP] Kenneth wrote: >My thought is that the engine was so underpowered to begin >with that adding 200 pounds to the vehicle would have made it >completely unsafe to operate in traffic. There is more to the >equation than just economy numbers. Remember the last time you got >behind a Moped/scooter in traffic? I imagine those things get >very high MPG, but they can barely keep up with traffic and it >would be absolutely suicidal to attempt to operate one on the >highway, which is why it's illegal to do so. Joe wrote: Ah, as I understood it, they would've made the engine bigger or otherwise increased power in some way to compensate for the extra weight. At least, that's the basis I was using to assume a 40% drop in fuel economy. Again, though, this was with 1982-and-earlier technology. I see things like the Smart car, an egg-like 2-seater that uses a turbo 3-cyl and gets around 50-60 MPG. Also, there was some sort of other vehicle that was being designed (by a German company?) that ran on a small diesel engine, seated 2, weighed around 1000 lbs, and could get notably over 100 MPG highway, and I think 70 or 80 city? Can't recall, but I did read that one.
