[geeks] What is Microsoft planing with this?

[R. Lonstein]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 09:51:30PM +0000, wa2egp at att.net wrote:
	[snip]
> Maybe if they were a little more aerodynamic the mpg might be significantly
> higher. 

Yes. My CB750 with its aftermarket windshield is like a barn
door. Wrap it in some sleek bodywork and it would probably gain seven
or eight mpg.

> It's a little disheartening to realize a car can get better mileage
> (Honda CRX CVCC engine before the govenment had them put on the damn
> computer..  ...62 mpg average, on road test, not EPA estimate!)
	[snip]

I didn't believe that. I'd heard it before but didn't believe it.  So
I looked it up and it was even BETTER. According to the 1984 EPA
report (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/84guide.zip), the Civic
Coupe- I'm guessing they mean the CRX- with a 1300CC engine beat the
estimated mpg of 51 by a wide margin, posting 57 City/67 Highway in
one test and 54/64 in another.

One thing I always wondered about was why Honda never went beyond the
EXP2-Tech prototype desert racer they fielded around '96 or '97. A
clean-burning, fuel-injected two-stroke seemed promising. I guess they
looked at the cost of ramping it up and how far they could take it in
light of all the work they already had on four-strokes and figured
that the risk of running afoul of future regulations wasn't worth
it. Oh, well.

- Ross