he same HEAVY materials that made-up The ‘65 Ford Mustang’s body
The 65 Mustang was not made of heavy materials. It was (at the time) modern unibody construction made of thin guage sheetmetal. I’ve owned a few. The 65 200ci mustang I had in my teens was one of the lighter cars I’ve every owned; 2400lb / 1100kg or something like that. It was very easy to push, which you occasionally needed to do because Mustangs were godawful piece of shit cars. I did for a while own a early production 65 289 K-code 4 speed. It was one of the rarer early Mustangs, but still a total piece of shit. The body panels were flimsy and dented easily, the bumpers would bend if you stared at them too hard.
I recall cars of the 40s and early 50s all seemed to use a heavier guage sheetmetal, and body on frame construction. I’m not sure that’s a good thing, but they were heavier and sturdier.
Also, if you look at solar panel production and EV energy consumption, I’m not sure that powering an old, unaerodynamic design is realistic with body mounted panels. It’s something like 3 miles per KWh to push a tesla model 3 down the road, and the big house panels are 400w panels. You can kinda do the math from there.
GreatWhite_Shark_EarthAndBeingsRightsPerson@piefed.social 1 day ago
“ It’s something like 3 miles per KWh to push a tesla model 3 down the road, and the big house panels are 400w panels. You can kinda do the math from there.”
That is obviously wrong statement, when old Mustang conversion happen a lot, I was even watch a TV show about a company that did them & they did worst aerodynamic automobiles, with good enough performances.
French75@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
The numbers aren’t wrong. You can verify them yourself instead of spouting nonsense.
GreatWhite_Shark_EarthAndBeingsRightsPerson@piefed.social 12 hours ago
It is a horrible inaccurate exaggeration of what I am talking about! I never mentioned mobile & solar powered houses! Thanks the waste of time replies & attitude over BS!