Random Thoughts.....

awheelterd said:
Yes, we heard you the first time
Click to expand...
Shhhh don’t tell him CAFE debuted in ‘75..was extended by W…..then widely expanded by BHO….and yet again expanded by Trump 1
 
Ron said:
Shhhh don’t tell him CAFE debuted in ‘75..was extended by W…..then widely expanded by BHO….and yet again expanded by Trump 1
Click to expand...
The changes in 09-11 are the reason why cars today are all enormous crossovers.
 
shawn said:
The changes in 09-11 are the reason why cars today are all enormous crossovers.
Click to expand...
I tend to think that is more market/consumer demand driven, personally.
 
Ron said:
I tend to think that is more market/consumer demand driven, personally.
Click to expand...
Very reflective of the bland even across the board mentality. Or the I need it to do everything poorly like my lifestyle. Not a slight but pointing out to many folks pursue everything instead of being really unique and good at one thing, even if it's their personality.
 
benXJ said:
yep. minivans and station wagons are cheaper to build, get better mpgs, and are far better for family usage, but highlanders outsell them.
Click to expand...
Thats bc of all of us guys making fun of people driving minivans and station wagons before we realized how practical they were.
 
jeepinmatt said:
How you figure a minivan is cheaper to build? 3 rows of seats, 2 of which fold up, and power sliding everythings ain't free!
Click to expand...
no but cheaper than solid frame rails.

Obviously doesnt apply to all suvs or crossovers....but general point is we think of how expensive bells and whistles are...its all a scam.
A single rasberry pi can automate everything in a car and costs under $60.

A friend of son recently graduated with a ME degree. Part of their senior project involved determining cost savings available with a manual crank window vs a power window.
Turns out with manual windows the operator actually has to be more robust thaan the electric version, because of the deflection of the force on the crank handle. Then you have the tooling of various handles to fit a multitude of interiors and color matching etc.

Where as the electric operator is much more stationary and the black button is universal. The take away was it was actually cheaper to produce power windows today than manual windows.
 
Ron said:
no but cheaper than solid frame rails.

Obviously doesnt apply to all suvs or crossovers....but general point is we think of how expensive bells and whistles are...its all a scam.
A single rasberry pi can automate everything in a car and costs under $60.

A friend of son recently graduated with a ME degree. Part of their senior project involved determining cost savings available with a manual crank window vs a power window.
Turns out with manual windows the operator actually has to be more robust thaan the electric version, because of the deflection of the force on the crank handle. Then you have the tooling of various handles to fit a multitude of interiors and color matching etc.

Where as the electric operator is much more stationary and the black button is universal. The take away was it was actually cheaper to produce power windows today than manual windows.
Click to expand...
A big part of this also is that the mfr process for motors, buttons, etc is way cheaper and more efficient than it used to be.
 
Ron said:
I tend to think that is more market/consumer demand driven, personally.
Click to expand...
Cafe rules are tiered based on the area the car covers at the ground with a bonus for high approach/departure angles. If you tried to build an 87 Ford Ranger today, it would be required to get at least 62mpg by federal law.
 
shawn said:
Cafe rules are tiered based on the area the car covers at the ground with a bonus for high approach/departure angles. If you tried to build an 87 Ford Ranger today, it would be required to get at least 62mpg by federal law.
Click to expand...
That sounds like my kind of DD
 
shawn said:
Cafe rules are tiered based on the area the car covers at the ground with a bonus for high approach/departure angles. If you tried to build an 87 Ford Ranger today, it would be required to get at least 62mpg by federal law.
Click to expand...
that's an amazing and oddly specific statistic.
I'd love to have the time to dig in and check the math and challenge it....but don't.

Curious the source for that if you remember - I'd love to put it on a night time reading list
 
I asked ChatGPT how CAFE laws influence vehicle design:

CAFE laws — Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards — have a significant impact on vehicle design, especially in the U.S. These regulations, enforced by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), aim to improve the average fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks sold by manufacturers. Here’s how they influence vehicle design:
1. Vehicle Weight Reduction
  • Why it matters: Lighter vehicles require less energy to move, improving fuel efficiency.
  • Design impact: Automakers use lightweight materials like aluminum, high-strength steel, and carbon fiber. Interiors, frames, and even engine components are redesigned to be lighter.
2. Aerodynamics
  • Why it matters: Improved aerodynamics reduces drag, which increases fuel economy.
  • Design impact: More streamlined body shapes, smaller grilles, active grille shutters, underbody panels, and spoiler designs to reduce drag coefficients.
3. Powertrain Innovation
  • Why it matters: Engines and transmissions directly impact fuel economy.
  • Design impact:
    • Downsizing engines (e.g., turbocharged 4-cylinders replacing V6s or V8s).
    • Increasing use of hybrid and electric powertrains.
    • More efficient transmissions (CVTs, 8- to 10-speed automatics).
    • Start-stop technology to reduce idling emissions.
4. Vehicle Size and Classification Gaming
  • Why it matters: CAFE standards differ between passenger cars and light trucks.
  • Design impact: Manufacturers redesign vehicles to fit into more lenient truck categories — e.g., making SUVs larger so they count as "light trucks" with lower fuel economy targets.
    • This has contributed to the rise of crossover SUVs.
5. Tire and Rolling Resistance Optimization
  • Why it matters: Tires influence rolling resistance, affecting fuel consumption.
  • Design impact: Use of low-rolling-resistance tires, often at the expense of performance or ride comfort.
6. Alternative Fuels and Electrification
  • Why it matters: Electric vehicles (EVs) significantly improve a company’s average fuel economy.
  • Design impact: Development of battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. EVs often have completely different platforms and design priorities (aerodynamics, battery packaging, regenerative braking).
7. Material Choices
  • Why it matters: Fuel economy gains from lighter and more efficient materials.
  • Design impact: Increased use of composites, aluminum bodies (like Ford’s F-150), and plastics for interior and structural components.
Summary
CAFE laws push automakers toward more fuel-efficient vehicles through innovation and redesign. The result is leaner, more aerodynamically shaped, and technologically advanced vehicles — but it also leads to unintended consequences like the proliferation of SUVs classified as "light trucks" to skirt stricter regulations.
If you want, I can show you real-world examples of how specific vehicles changed due to CAFE pressures.
 
I then asked it "if a 1993 Ford Ranger was designed today under CAFE laws, what would it's assumed mpg be?":

Great question. Let’s break it down by comparing the 1993 Ford Ranger to what a similar vehicle would look like if redesigned today under the influence of modern CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) laws.
🔧 1993 Ford Ranger – Quick Baseline
  • Engine options: 2.3L I4, 3.0L V6, 4.0L V6
  • Transmission: 5-speed manual or 4-speed automatic
  • Drive: RWD or 4WD
  • Curb weight: ~3,000–3,600 lbs
  • EPA MPG (city/highway):
    • 2.3L I4 (manual): ~22 city / 27 highway
    • 3.0L V6: ~17–20 combined
⚙️ If Redesigned Today under CAFE Constraints
Assume it’s still a small pickup, but redesigned with modern fuel efficiency requirements in mind:
Key CAFE-Driven Design Changes
Design Element1993 RangerModern Redesign
MaterialsSteel-heavyHigh-strength steel & aluminum
AerodynamicsBoxyStreamlined body, underbody panels
PowertrainLarge NA enginesSmaller turbocharged engine or hybrid
Transmission4–5 speed8–10 speed or CVT
TiresStandard all-seasonLow rolling resistance tires
Idle techAlways-onStart-stop or mild hybrid
🛞 Modern Comparable Truck: Ford Maverick (2022–)
The Ford Maverick (a modern compact pickup designed with CAFE in mind) is a great proxy. It shows what a modern “Ranger-sized” truck would achieve today.
Ford Maverick Hybrid (FWD)
  • 2.5L hybrid I4
  • CVT transmission
  • EPA MPG: 42 city / 33 highway / 37 combined
  • Curb weight: ~3,600 lbs
Ford Maverick 2.0L EcoBoost (AWD)
  • Turbocharged I4
  • EPA MPG: 22 city / 29 highway / 25 combined
🎯 Estimated MPG for a 1993 Ranger Reimagined Today
Assuming two modern variants of a redesigned Ranger:
Engine TypeTechnology AssumptionsEstimated MPG (Combined)
Turbo I4 Gas2.0L turbo, 8-speed, RWD, lightweight body25–28 mpg
Hybrid I42.5L hybrid, CVT, FWD, regenerative braking35–38 mpg
Full EVAll-electric (like Rivian R1T scaled down)~100+ MPGe
🚦 Summary
If a 1993 Ford Ranger were designed today under CAFE laws, its fuel economy would likely increase from ~20 mpg to between 28–38 mpg, depending on powertrain. A hybrid version would be the most CAFE-compliant and could easily reach the upper 30s in combined MPG.
Let me know if you'd like a side-by-side visual comparison or more technical breakdowns (like drag coefficients, weight savings, or engine efficiency ratios).
 
And then because I forgot @shawn said '87 and not '93 I asked it about that:

To estimate the MPG of a 1987 Ford Ranger if it were redesigned today under CAFE laws, we can apply the same logic as before, but also take into account that the 1987 model was even smaller and lighter than the 1993 version. That gives us a slightly different starting point.
🚙 Baseline: 1987 Ford Ranger
  • Curb weight: ~2,800–3,300 lbs (lighter than 1993)
  • Engines:
    • 2.0L or 2.3L I4
    • 2.9L V6
    • Diesel option: 2.3L I4 (limited availability)
  • Transmissions: 4- or 5-speed manual, 3-speed auto
  • Drive: RWD or 4WD
  • EPA MPG (original ratings):
    • 2.3L I4 (manual): ~24 city / 29 highway → ~26 combined
    • 2.9L V6 (4WD): ~15–19 combined
Note: 1980s EPA ratings were more optimistic than modern ones, so adjusted modern-equivalent MPG would likely be ~10–15% lower.
🔧 Redesigning Under Modern CAFE Standards
Key Differences in a Modern Redesign:
Feature1987 RangerRedesign Today
Weight~3,000 lbs~3,300 lbs (more safety gear, hybrid tech)
AerodynamicsVery boxySmoothed front, air curtains, active grille shutters
PowertrainSimple I4 or V6Turbocharged I3/I4, hybrid optional
Transmission4–5 speed8–10 speed automatic or CVT
TiresBasic all-seasonLow-rolling resistance
Fuel SystemCarbureted (early models)Direct injection, VVT, start-stop tech
🔍 Closest Modern Equivalent: Ford Maverick & Hyundai Santa Cruz
These are compact trucks designed under strict post-2020 CAFE and EPA standards.
Ford Maverick (FWD Hybrid)
  • 2.5L I4 hybrid
  • EPA MPG: 42 city / 33 highway → 37 combined
Ford Maverick (AWD Gas)
  • 2.0L turbo, AWD, 8-speed
  • EPA MPG: 22 city / 29 highway → 25 combined
🧠 Estimated MPG of a 1987 Ranger Designed Today
ConfigurationAssumptionsEstimated Combined MPG
Base Gas (Turbo I3/I4)RWD, 2.0L turbo, 8-speed27–30 MPG
Hybrid2.5L hybrid, FWD, CVT35–38 MPG
Diesel (hypothetical)Efficient 2.0L diesel (not common in U.S.)32–35 MPG
Electric (EV)All-electric compact pickup90–120 MPGe
🛠 Design Factors Helping Meet CAFE Goals
  • Downsized turbo engines offer similar performance to 1980s V6s but with 30–50% better fuel economy.
  • Hybridization would offer the biggest leap, especially in city driving, where CAFE rules weigh efficiency more heavily.
  • Aerodynamic efficiency and weight-smart design help offset added mass from safety and infotainment tech.
✅ Summary
If the 1987 Ford Ranger were reimagined today to comply with modern CAFE regulations, you'd expect:
  • 27–30 MPG for a modern turbocharged gas version
  • 35–38 MPG for a hybrid
  • 90–120 MPGe for a full EV
That’s a 30–70% improvement in fuel economy compared to the original, thanks to CAFE-driven changes in powertrain, materials, and aerodynamics.
Let me know if you'd like a table comparing all years (1987 vs 1993 vs modern), or a mock-up spec sheet for a modern 1987-style Ranger.
 
Dimensionally this is probably where it is coming from:
1747752926871.png



Classificationally this would probably be more like it:

1747752958040.png

Track width is 67", wheelbase 108", footprint 50sqft, so about 43-44mpg.
 
If all the US presidents were put into a ring for free-for-all battle royale, who would win?

Key: they are at age/condition as when starting Presidency.
 
RatLabGuy said:
If all the US presidents were put into a ring for free-for-all battle royale, who would win?

Key: they are at age/condition as when starting Presidency.
Click to expand...
I’d put my money on Roosevelt. Probably the last president who did man stuff. Can’t do man stuff now without pissing off a group of fairies somewhere about animals or the environment.
 
Back
Top