I've been watching these various auctions over the last 4-5 years and I have yet to see any XK's but even Jaguar's. Maybe an E-type but none of the later models. Considering the large depreciation hit on these cars along with lack of on the road visibility I doubt they would draw any more money then on ebay or the other car sale sites. Just look at at the various used car values and you won't get any more at the auctions.

 

What SinF said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

I have a lot of respect for Mazda based a simple fact. They have always thrived to give the average person that which the cookie-cutter manufacturers did not care to give. Sure today we can cite many cars in the category better than the Miata. However, when the Miata was launched, there was no one else, everyone else had abandoned the category or never produced it. Mazda is also an innovator not satisfied with combustion engines from 70 years ago. You should see their new combustion process. 45% more efficiency!

 

1972 Honda Civic CVCCs got 40-48 MPG with bad gas, poor machining, lousy oil and inferior materials (compared to nowadays). Where is all the superior technology now? Forget about mandated safety and emissions regulations, that can't possibly make it that horrible, comparatively. It's been forty five years since then, for cryin' out loud. Fuel mileage/gal should be over 100 easy.
Sorry for going so far off-thread.

 

2Cv from the 1940's got 64MPG.....

And went 0-40 in 40 seconds.

Explained beautifully here: The Citroen 2CV: cleantech from the 1940s - LOW-TECH MAGAZINE

 

Goat Carts got 22 leagues on a 1/4 bushel of grain and a gallon of water.
NOW what?

 

I saw an ad for a Corolla of about the same vintage...it claimed you could drive from New York City to LA for $20 in gas...

And today we get excited when a hybrid breaks 40MPG... We've lost something over the years...

 

I can go about ten miles on a Big Mac...

 

No, we've gained a lot.

Look at deaths/serious injuries per accident.

Look at the comfort of a car.

Also something to think about, MPG is speed dependent. Taking that old Japanese car wound out at speed it isn't getting 40MPG...where as a modern car can cruise at 80MPH with reasonable MPG.

 

And $200 in Listerine and a lifetime of therapy.

 

Gas was 35 cents per gallon too.

 

Exactly, holistic thinking takes time.
I own a 70's Toyota in mint condition, it gives 6 MPG, and I suspect it would be more like 2mpg on the highway, because it has the aerodynamics of a brick. But I dont know because it cannot travel at highway speeds. So the actual mpg may even be 1. And its a 12 gallon tank. p.s. Speed limit in the 70's was 55mph.

 

Very well said... even if I am partial to the XK. Shouldn't we have started a brand new thread with Michaelodnell's theme??? XK150 versus FType?

 

True...but a buck back then is worth about $5.51 today, based on inflation, though that $0.35 gallon of gas would retail today for ~$1.90/gallon.

 

I have to frequently illustrate a gap between conventional thinking measuring the usefulness of a light bulb in power input, and a more realistic approach of measuring the usefulness of the optical output. Which in itself has several different attributes that would define how useful something is in a given situation.

In a similar manner, the EPA must update to account for real world conditions changing, speed limits, road design, and the intentional planning to bring cars to a stop by off sync stop lights in shopping areas.

These changes have resulted in a need for a different testing standard, and the standard changes.

This means you cannot apples to apples compare the rated MPG of a 2015 in 2015 to the rated MPG of a 1972 in 2015.

Especially some of the smaller engined cars(Such as the 2CV) that can't even make it to the speeds a modern EPA test subjects cars to. (70MPH last I looked at it.)

The first time I ever saw a 2CV was a beautiful example in Monte Carlo, it was parked in a row of more modern "expensive" cars; and its age yet perfect condition caused it to stand out from the Ferrari's, Bently's, and Lamborghini's that was surrounded by.

Another factor is the performance, you can get better MPG by narrowing down the power band to just enough power to maintain cruise speed, but not enough power to accelerate beyond that. By running unrestricted at full throttle, efficiency is increased. Of course this results in anemic acceleration.

Even a modern Ford Van can go 0-60MPH at a rate to match former vintage sports cars.

I see that automobiles have come a very long way since the 1970's. Comfort, speed, performance. When I start up my X150 there isn't the same smell of an older car that doesn't have catalytic converters either.

Should Cee Jay wish to have an average speed of 15MPH, then he could be getting over 5,000MPG based on results in the Shell Eco Marathon.

MPG improvements are to some extent being lost in the standard of our high speed congested living.

http://www.shell.com/energy-and-inno...s-gasoline.pdf

From 42MPG in a not very crash safe civic to 5,000MPG in a not very crash safe prototype. Yes, I'd say the modern crash safety and our desire for comfort plays a big role in things "not advancing", they have advanced; just we use those advances to also see increased performance, safety, and comfort. Strip those away, and you find out just how far we've come.

 

A friend of mine had the original Honda Insight. It drove like you should bring it to MIT for service, not the Honda dealership. If anyone has ever driven one; they'll never forget that experience! Was a hoot to drive, but did not feel so safe.

 

Well now, if you going to apply logic, then game over man.

 

I am convinced after 2 decades of designing holistically and unconventionally, folks actually prefer the easier approach of excelling in one parameter, even at the cost of failing in all others. In your world an example would be a flashlight that has twice the lumens over 1/10th the area. Where the extreme contrast actually makes you see less.

 

It is much harder to achieve that double lumens over 1/10th the area btw. An open light source is fairly easy compared to a narrow one.

However the real difficulty lies in a zooming fixture that continues to provide a pleasing source across a variety of beam angles.

In a similar vein this is why high quality cameras come with fixed or narrow zoom lenses. The cost of keeping that quality across a wide range of focal lengths is monumentally expensive from the precision multi piece optics required.

However, rather than your exact example being true, there is another in that recent LED house and architectural lights have put a premium on raw output over getting the light where it is actually wanted, and keeping it from where it isn't. Ideally in a house light you do not see the source at all, otherwise known as glare. Most of what is out there is taking a high out put fixture and inefficiently cutting off source rather than creating a source that focuses output within the desired area to start with.

In a 50 foot convention center ceiling, imagine how badly dazzling it would be you saw every single light fixture in the ceiling. Instead a narrower set is desirable to keep the eye on the exhibition instead of competing with the ceiling.

That high power flashlight is going to be harder to achieve. I suppose this is part of what drives its desirability even if it is a sacrifice of usefulness in most situations beyond shooting.