Ha. Just switch to an electronic ignition, improved coil, and spark and it's as peppy and efficient as fuel injection.
orbituary
joined 3 years ago
Buying old means not purchasing net new products. It's not fully sustainable, but it maintains the status quo and doesn't contribute to more waste. Keeping something old alive and in good working condition is a lower carbon footprint than buying a new EV or Hybrid.
I have 1974 car, a 1994 4x4 van for snow, and a 1975 motorcycle for summer. All things I do my own work on.
I won't drive anything I can't fix. That seems to be old vehicles only.
My 1975 was tuned for distance. When I drove it from Key Largo to Seattle, it did 35mpg average over the 3500 miles I drove. That car was lost in an accident, sadly.
25 miles per gallon. 30 minutes would be 12.5 miles on half a gallon.
My current one does about 25-30 mpg. It weighs 1950 pounds. So, yes. It can comfortably do half an hour on one gallon or so and have fuel left to get me to a refill.
They have flat 4 two liter VW engines. Extremely efficient if tuned correctly. One top of that, there is a direct 1 to 1 drop-in electric kit for these. When my current engine dies, I have an electric kit I'll put into it to make it an 914E.
This article is idiotic.
$5 cost. 25,000 pounds. BUT OVER WHAT FUCKING DISTANCE?
$5 gets me 23 miles in my Delica. It gets me 100 miles on my motorcycle. It gets me 30 miles in my Porsche 914. But the article says nothing about distance.
"First post" vibes. Winning absolutely nothing.
I don't need attraction, just the illusion thereof.
10 people per site, per incident, at 50-70 hours/week.
It's thankless work and the people in control don't typically take on contractors. They underpay the actual IR staff. That's why I left the industry. It's a big buddy-system network. Really fucked.
view more: next ›
Thanks. That's what I figured. To date, I think only ultralight aircraft that would normally just be high altitude vehicles have viably used electricity for long distances.