239 MPG Car 757
Kozmik writes "VW/Audi has a history of being a leader in creating super fuel efficient
vehicles. They currently sell the most fuel efficient car in the world, 3L
Lupo and the
Audi A2,
and the most fuel efficient station wagon (Jetta
TDI Wagon). Now VW is experimenting with something along the lines of the
Honda Insight ( a 2 person vehicle ). The
1L VW concept car
can achieve .89L/100kms or 239MPG. With
Biodiesel and
Ultra low
sulfur diesel becoming available, hopefully more of these vehicles will come
to North America. These fuels are already available in Europe and combined with
the new catalyst technology they use, these new engines produce very low
emissions." It's nice to talk about alternative fuels, but I have yet to see a gas station selling one of them.
Ask and yea shal recieve.. (Score:3, Funny)
Its allllll one big conspiracy..
VW is doing great work on practical cars (Score:5, Interesting)
You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called supply and demand. If no-one is driving the cars, why would they stock the fuel?
It's exactly the same problem that faced unleaded petrol.
Why did unleaded take off? Well, in the UK a government mandate was passed forcing all cars sold after 1st April 1989 to run on unleaded. An EU directive, 98/70/EC, made selling leaded leaded petrol in the UK after January 2000 illegal.
Until goverments give manufacturers and fuel suppliers a swift kick, errr, benefit to promote new fuels, no-one will bother. (Cue the usual comment about oil companies owning the US goernment here).
Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel (Score:2, Informative)
There are plenty of alternative fuels and engines, and with this comes a loss of profit for oil companys.
How do you think G.Bush got in?
Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway- this is almost off topic, except to state that George Bush has some very well known and reasonably advertised links with the Oil Industry (understating). Remember how Ford bought the EV1 and shelved it. Before people troll about how useless it was to have to leave it plugged in those eight hours a day you are sleeping and dont use it, or those eight hours a day you are working and dont use it - it might not be for everyone but for some of us it was a great alternative.
There are two main reasons that petrol is the most widely used vehical fuel: 1) The oil/petrochemical companies are the richest economy in the world - yes even more than Bill Gates. There are economies that would collapse if a safe, clean, cheap and efficient alternative presented itself overnight. These peole's livelyhoods and entire reputations are at stake. Why would it seem so odd that they would go to extreme lengths to preserve their legacy.. As much as I am an idealist- if I was in that position i would probably do the same - who wants to have to go back down....
2) The American public. Yes call me what you like but they drive the biggest cars, the move the least on environmental issues. The American nation decided to ignore, abstain or even counteract many environmental treaties while the whole world - even China - signed them. The British public have slightly better attitudes, and drive smaller cars which are slightly more fuel efficient. The germans have some excellent concerns. In fact on my short stay (coding contract) almmost everything in the four companies I was visiting was recycled. Stinking petrol cars- I dont think so. Most people either cycled, or grouped together in deisel cars. Public transport was much cleaner and safer than any I have seen with a notable security presence and much more efficient trains. Even on a friday night at rush hour in city locations in munich you could get on a train without being force to placce your cheek in a fat guys armpits. I am sorry- but on environmental issues - Americans embaress the rest of the world.... George W most of all...
Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel (Score:5, Insightful)
The 'one-liter car' is powered by a single-cylinder diesel engine...
So how many places in the world is it impossible to get diesel? Given that this is the fuel *all* (bar none!) trucks use. The story poster had it right - there's new diesel fuels around which are less polluting, which makes this even better. But it'll still run just fine on plain old diesel.
The only trouble is selling diesel cars to the US market. Or in fact selling *any* fuel-efficient car to the US market.
Grab.
Diesel Cars (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Diesel Cars (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, well-tuned diesel engines are about as common as hips on a snake...
Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel (Score:5, Informative)
Using biodiesel, you stabilize CO2 level in atmosphere.
With gazoline, you increase it.
The US needs tax breaks (Score:3, Informative)
Now they are doing the same with LPG which you can now get in quite a lot of gas stations - maybe 1 in 10 (and more in cities) and most public service vehical fleets have already been converted.
I drove a VW Diesel (Score:3, Interesting)
Their diesels always got good gas mileage... It was the perfect car for a high-school kid (which I was at the time... I realize that I'm dating myself here), got around 40-50mpg, damned good for that time. I could afford to be magnanimous and not bug my friends for gas money... it was nice.
I hope they have solved the problems with diesels, at least from the consumer perspective.
1. They are noisy, and dirty.
2. Finding fuel used to be a pain in the ass
3. You are constantly tightening things (diesels vibrate like nobody's business)
4. You can't shut them off if they overheat (I think modern diesels have a fuel cutoff. If not, they should!)
If the numbers are accurate, That's one amazing little commuter vehicle. Good for VW... might have to put them back on my "vehicles to buy" list.
Re:I drove a VW Diesel (Score:3, Informative)
Not anymore. For example, the TDI diesels from VW are so smooth that just about only time you know it's a diesel, is when you are refuelling it (that is, you put in diesel instead of gasoline)
I don't know how it is in US, but in Finland (and rest of Europe I guess) 100% of gas-stations sell diesel as well.
Fixed. Maybe they vibrate marginally more, but in reality they do not. Modern diesels are smooth
Ummm, this I don't know a thing about (Like I said, I don't drive diesel myself)
Re:I drove a VW Diesel (Score:5, Informative)
Ummm, this I don't know a thing about (Like I said, I don't drive diesel myself)***
well, when they were all mechnanical, you didn't need electricity to run a diesel engine once started(no need for spark)).
this is more of a myth though.. at least been for the last 20 years.
the modern diesel engines use injectors to inject the diesel directly into the cylinder afaik.. these injectors work with electricity. the modern diesel engines are very nice to drive, especially those turbooed vw's, they're very much like normal 'gas' engines to drive when compared to 80's volvos for example. i don't think anyone would even consider a suv-sized car without diesel around here anyways(unless they've got shitloads of money to gas, i don't think they even sell a non-diesel starcraft van around here.. or any non diesel van that's big enough to be a real van).
Today's diesel engines are WAY better (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me address your concerns one by one.
1. The engine being noisy and dirty are things of the past. Modern computer design has improved diesel engines to the point that the clattering sound you hear from old-style engines no longer exists on a 2002-manufactured diesel engine. As for the air pollution problem, the use of modern fuel-delivery systems and modern particulate traps/exhaust catalysts will eliminate the unhealthy exhaust of diesel engines of the past. The only reason why diesels aren't common in the USA is the fact Diesel #2 fuel sold in most of the USA has sulfur compound levels of around 2,000 parts per million, which will quickly corrode fuel-delivery and exhaust emission control systems on European market diesel cars in very short order. Fortunately, with the EPA mandating low-sulfur diesel fuels very soon, we will see clean-burning diesel engines in the US market in a few years.
2. Finding diesel fuel pumping stations is fortunately not as bad as it used to be, thanks to the fact diesel engines are very popular for pickup trucks.
3. Because modern diesel engines don't have the vibrations of older-style engines, you don't have to worry about engine vibration causing long-term structural damage to the car. The current 90 bhp TDI engine on the VW Golf/Jetta is quiet enough that you really for the most part can't tell if it's a gasoline or diesel engine. I can't wait for VW to bring over the PD 130 diesel engine with its 130 bhp output and massive initial starting torque.
4. Modern diesel engines have pretty much cured the problem of not being able to shut them off on high temperature conditions, thanks to modern fuel delivery systems that have automatic cutoff.
I for one want to see Toyota build a Prius with a 1.0-liter turbodiesel engine instead of the 1.3-liter gasoline engine. Instead of getting fuel mileage around 50 miles per US gallon try getting fuel mileage in the range of 70 miles per US gallon!
Re:I drove a VW Diesel (Score:2)
Diesels operate without the benefit of spark plugs. They use a heating element called a "glow plug" to start the engine running, but once running, they operate without any sort of a spark... they simply use heat and high compression to ignite the fuel.
One can immediately see what happens here if such an engine overheats. Unless you cut off the fuel supply, even if you take some measures to decrease the compression, the engine might be hot enough to continue running. In theory you need to cut the juice to any electrical element in the fuel system.
Diesels used to be notorious for running without much electrical power (dead battery, almost-dead alternator). You used to see Semi trucks going down the highway with headlights as dim as candles.
Looks I'm behind the times on the subject of modern diesel technology.
Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel (Score:3, Insightful)
Many gas stations sell ethanol. in fact in northern climates it's really hard to find a station in america that doesn't have ethanol mixed in already.
ethanol is an alternative fuel, and it's the fault of the car manufacturers that we cant use more than a 5% solution of this stuff. if they replaced the rubber parts with stronger or ethanol tolerant versions and made slight metalugrical changes to their manifold design (add a bit more nickel to that aluminum to make it not corrode in the presence of ethanol) we could be burning 25 - 50% concentrations... the problem lies in the fact that with today's driver inabilities the extra flamability of ethanol will cause more car-fires. but we cant expect people to actually obey the traffic laws and drive safely now can we....:-)
Ethanol has been around for a really long time, and granted it doesnt reduce the vehicle emissions anywhere near what biodesel does but it works better in cold climates than any desel fuel does.
Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel (Score:2, Informative)
Nope. You can still buy 4-Star leaded, just not in very many garages.
It's intended for classic cars that can't be converted to unleaded.
By the way, my Triumph Spitfire (garaged since 1998) still has a half-full tank of leaded. Friends say it's worth more that the car;-)
Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds familiar... (Score:4, Funny)
It's nice to talk about alternative fuels, but I have yet to see a gas station selling one of them.
It's nice to talk about alternative OSes, but I have yet to see a hardware store selling PCs with one of them.
I wonder if some of the same factors are responsible.
Re:Sounds familiar... (Score:4, Informative)
Clarity (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong country (Score:5, Interesting)
And you're probably not going to any time soon. You've got a government hell-bent on keeping the flow of cheap petroleum open at all costs. The US simply isn't interested in this type of stuff...typically you're probably 20 years behind where Europe is with this type of thinking and technology. Enjoy your dumb Detroit 5.0 litre pushrod V8 engines while you can...
Re:Wrong country (Score:4, Interesting)
Comparing fuel costs in the US to those in Europe is just short-sighted. I agree that the US has interests in keeping oil petroleum prices down, just as every other country in the world, but Europe has chosen to tax their fuel very heavily, making non-gasoline options more attractive. It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison, as those taxes subsidize all kinds of other efforts and don't really reflect the true cost of driving on the consumer.
Re:Wrong country (Score:4, Insightful)
Europe has chosen to tax fuel very heavily IN ORDER TO making non-gasoline options more attractive. Many European countries are -- contrary to your statement -- interested in keeping the fuel prices up. To protect the environment and to force the car manufacturers to invent motors with more reasonable fuel consumption.
It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison, as those taxes subsidize all kinds of other efforts and don't really reflect the true cost of driving on the consumer.They are intended to reflect at least part of the true costs -- also counting damages to environment and health, building of new roads, traffic management. Unfortunately, some means of transportation like trucks or planes are not taxed as heavily as others, which is IMO the wrong way.
SebastianRe:Wrong country (Score:4, Interesting)
USA
Population: 280,562,489
Land Area: 9,158,960 sq km
Population Density: 30.63 people per sq km
Europe
Population: 567,355,034 (202.22% of the United States)
Land Area: 5,372,251 (58.66% of the United States)
Population Density: 105.61 (344.76% of the United States)
Europe (excluding former Warsaw Pact and Yugoslavia)
Population: 469,328,309 (167.28% of the United States)
Land Area: 4,425,959 (48.32% of the United States)
Population Density: 106.04 (346.17% of the United States)
When you have three and a half times the population density, you really have to get creative in how you handle transportation. To match this kind of density, the United States would need a population of 971,000,000. I imagine we'd come up with something in that case, too.
Re:Wrong country (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong country (Score:4, Informative)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't SUV's not part of the CAFE? Which (of course) means that car-makers can still push those gas-guzzling monstrosities and not worry one bit about fuel-economy.
Iraq (Score:3, Interesting)
The alternatives to war are 1) maintain sanctions that have killed thousands and thousands of children since 1991, 2) remove sanctions and give free reign to a regime to threaten millions with nuclear or germ-war death, including you in Europe, a regime that has a proven track record of willingness to use chemical weapons, 3) hope that "Cowboy Bush's" threats of war will get Iraq to cooperate with UNMOVIC and avoid war.
You all in Europe need Middle Eastern oil more than the U.S. does -- your policy, however, is appeasement.
Why I like Canada (Score:5, Informative)
Its funny - I work at a gas station (no, really), and as such, I consider myself something of an expert of fuel availability. The only "alternative fuels" mentioned in the post are biodiesel and ultra low sulfur diesel. Now, while I haven't seen biodiesel anywhere, I do know that every Shell gas station in Canada changed to ultra low sulfur diesel some time last year - there was no hoopla, no media coverage, just a small yellow sticker added to the corner of the diesel pump stating that this fuel is indeed "Ultra Low Diesel". Every Canadian diesel owner who regularly fill up at Shell are helping to reduce airborne particulates in our country by several tens of thousands of tons a year or more. Shell as a multinational corporation is an example of everything I hate about big business, but Shell Canada Ltd. seems to be doing everything in their power to at least limit the damage we're causing to the planet through our use of fossil fuels.
And another advantage of Shell is... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And another advantage of Shell is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Alternative Fuels (Score:5, Informative)
Bio fuels are gaining ground in public service vehicles ( Busses etc ) and LPG is a viable alternative that can be found in a growing number of service stations. In fact the UK Govt. currently offers a grant of up to £1500 towards the cost of converting a vehicle to LPG.
From this side of the pond it would appear that the stumbling blocks for these fuels gaining greater acceptance in the US are the low price of conventional fuels and the Oil Co. lobbiests who dont want to see competition from cheaper, more efficiant fuels.
For good or ill the price of fuel in the UK is blamed on the oil companies and not the govt. This means there is far less public support for the fuel companies and a much greater demand for changes that mean lower fuel costs to the consumer.
Re:Alternative Fuels (Score:2, Interesting)
Veg-Oil-Car.com - -Welcome [geocities.com]
Re:Alternative Fuels (Score:2)
In Sweden, bio-diesel is basically purified oilseed rape oil. This should not be confused with "Green Diesel" (which is Ultra-Low Sulphur) or green diesel (actually dyed green, which is tax-exempt and only for use in tractors. There're stiff fines to the tune of $1000 if They catch you running green diesel in a regular car).
Re:Alternative Fuels (Score:2)
Re:Alternative Fuels (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Alternative Fuels (Score:2)
On the other had Bio Diesel is the alternative Fuel. We have a "Honge" tree in india which produces a non-edibal oil similar to fuel oil. After refinement the oil can be used as diesel. But currently OIL company lobby is strong and this is not really picking up, but since the oil lobby is not yet completely privatized they are not really blocking it. I really hope that the fuel comes up before the baddies wake up
239 MPG car (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:239 MPG car (Score:2)
Sure, gas isn't insanely expensive, but that doesn't mean it's free. Sure, there's less of an incentive, but it's still an issue.
If a 500MPG car came along, everyone would be interested. If the pricetag is very high, and it falls apart every 100,000 miles, of course it wont sell at all.
Re:239 MPG car (Score:2, Interesting)
There's isn't one, which is why it won't sell. Hell, if I lived in the US I wouldn't care about fuel economy or pick up friends to split the costs of fuel when driving across the country for xmas. But since the fuel price is so high, I buy a small car(there are better things in life to waste money on, than fuel) and make arrangements so the car is filled up with people for those long trips in the holidays.
I the price of fuel was half of what it is, I would have a car that uses twice the amount of fuel and we would all own a car and drive by ourself.
Re:239 MPG car (Score:3, Interesting)
Some of the initial investigation is done using sounding from a boat to check out the sea bed and the underlying geology, and they usually return four reels of tape that contain more than a terabyte of information each. This is then run through computers to determine the true geology to great detail, and if it looks like there's a possible profit to it, further work is done to investigate whether a drill rig should be put into place. This is not a lightly-made decision by any means; these rigs can take more than a year to construct and are very expensive to operate. Every single one of them uses the latest available technology, so no two platforms -- even in the same field -- are quite alike because they are usually started at least a few months apart, and the state of the art advances even in that short time. Rigs are left in place until the very last possible barrel of oil has been extracted, and sometimes longer than that if a possibly promising new technology that can be refit to an existing rig becomes available. These rigs also are the endpoints for more and more wells, sometimes covering hundreds of square miles for a single rig with wells going off at all angles, decreasing the cost for tapping a given field.
Once a rig is no longer useful and there's no immediate hope of re-use, its wells are capped (though the caps can, of course, be removed later), the rig abandoned, and either scrapped or scuttled. If scrapped, the materials get reused, and if scuttled, the fish get a new home and place to play.
Much research is now going into investigating the heaviest crude oils. This stuff is thick beyond belief, and almost impossible to pump with current technology. Oil companies have been investigating how to do this for the last 25 years or more, starting around the energy crisis of the '70s when OPEC flexed its muscle, and have made some progress, but it's still not a profitable field at this point. I remember reading an article long ago that suggested that the US is sitting on a virtual sea of this ultra-thick oil that could allow for total domestic consumption, but because it can't be pumped, it sits there, waiting for the day when we get advanced and/or desperate enough to do something with it.
Population control device (Score:4, Funny)
You Americans are funny sometimes... (Score:4, Informative)
seriously though it's all about *encouraging* uptake - over here in Europe where we practically get taxed in body parts for our fuel, Diesel's been readily available on forecourts for decades and these beauties are overtaking conventional petrol engined cars in terms of sales because you get much more out of them both in terms of economy and (certainly in the case of my JTD Fiat) driving pleasure
commuting 30 miles to and from work each day is *so* much more fun when you get to do the clear stretches at 80mph and still turn in 55-60mpg
Re:You Americans are funny sometimes... (Score:2)
Re:You Americans are funny sometimes... (Score:2, Insightful)
take the time to read bvefore reacting next time? and chill out.
Never make it to the US (Score:2)
However, I have *VERY* serious doubts that it will ever make it to the US in its current form.
*Perhaps* a version modified to seat 4. With an extra 300lbs of "safety" features that arguably cause more injuries than they prevent. And after all the wonderful emmissions control features (that don't apply to things like SUVs and pickups because they apparently don't make pollution at 10mpg), perhaps a "really good but not amazing" efficiency of 60-70mpg.
Hell, if I could have gotten one in the US, for my last car I would have bought a Mini. Good luck finding and registering one, though.
Not to nitpick, but... (Score:2, Funny)
That said, this is seriously awesome technology. Except that it looks so fragile
Here in Scotland, UK... (Score:5, Interesting)
Jon.
economics (Score:5, Insightful)
When I went on a trip to the US 2 years ago, I remember everyone freaking out at prices that were less than half of what we pay here...
My current car (an opel Tigra) uses approx 10litres/100km (I do a lot of city traffic plus the car had heart surgery 5 months ago and never fully recovered in terms of fuel usage) making me refill for 40euro every week or so. I could save 36Euro per week, or 420 per year.
Assuming fuel prices will go up in the future (anyone remember anything else ?) I think I can safely say that such a car can save me 5000Euro in 10 years. That's Half a VW Lupo.
Great news technically, but ... (Score:2)
The thing is, that the car has good figures due to being very very light, kilogram wise. This is done by molding the car in lightweight aluminium, which unfortunatly is very expensive compared to steel. Therefor my guess will be, that the car will be expensive, so much that the econmics are in favor for a normal car + normal gasoline.
As for the environment, the new gasoline is a good thing, but if my memory serves me right, aluminium is not!! Therefor it might be better for the environment just to make ordinary cars.
Re:Great news technically, but ... (Score:2)
That said, to quote the article "Developed in the wind tunnel and built entirely from composite carbon-fiber reinforced material"
another direction.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Opel has developed the eco speedster concept. Top speed 238Kmph and 39Km/litre of diesel. With petrolium reserves exausting and even right now becoming a hot political topic.... Biodiesel is the answer, however I wish the tech gets cheaper and we have sensible fast cars which do not drink fuel like water.
Biodiesel is a short-term solution (Score:2)
However, I still hope that we'll one day ride fuel-cell cars running on something like methanol. With electric motors, I would guess that the acceleration might be downright staggering in the sports models.
Alternative fuels are like veggie burgers... (Score:2)
- Big companies don't want to sell them.
- They are better for you than the "alternative".
- Tree huggers love them.
- Everyone knows their popularity will increase in the future.
Just to name a few.Re:Alternative fuels are like veggie burgers... (Score:2)
(except tree huggers)
Change is going faster in Italy. (Score:2)
This just in. VW Plant in Germany bombed to hell (Score:5, Funny)
The VW corporation had no comment at press time though it is assumed that the new Volkswagen 1-liter concept vehicle along with all the engineers assigned to the project were within the building at the time.
In other news, stocks rallied at close with Exxon/Mobil leading the pack.
Maintenance cost of a car in US (Score:2)
Cost not MPG is what people use. (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people I know judge fuel consumption on the same basis. Cost, not MPG. We buy fuel by price, not volume.
Does anyone actually use MPG figures as an every day referance anymore?
Re:Cost not MPG is what people use. (Score:2)
Long Live the States! (Score:2)
Ultra low sulfur diesel? (Score:2)
<asbestos_suit>I suppose I'm just begging for flames by making the GNU/Linux analogy, but I think it's the best one considering the situation and the audience.</asbestos_suit>
some figures for the metric-impaired ;) (Score:2)
Fuel efficiency: 100lm/l (235 mi/gal)
Top speed: 120km/h (74.5 mi/h)
Weight: 290kg (639lb)
Trunk capacity: 80L (2.82 cubic ft) (err, i think i converted this one right)
this is an effin cool car
no side mirrors--uses cameras and twin dash-mounted displays. it has a flywheel too.
my only question (besides when can i get one in the u.s. and for how much) was about the use of magnesium for various components (including the fuel tank i believe). i thought magnesium was highly flammable or something... clearly i haven't retained anything from chem.
Re:some figures for the metric-impaired ;) (Score:2)
No, not necessarily [simson.net]. :-)
Depends where you look (Score:3, Funny)
The guy behind the counter at the local Sunoco sells crystal meth, does that count?
About this concept car (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a small article about it here [you.com.au], and the Sueddeutsche Zeitung has both this picture [sueddeutsche.de] and this article [sueddeutsche.de] (with more pictures). The car ran on diesel (not any alternative fuel) at an average speed of 75km/h, or about 46mph. Some sections of Autobahn have a minimum speed of 80km/h (50mph).
This was a concept car which isn't much more than a motorcycle on three wheels with a cockpit rather than a fairing. However, VW is a big name in fuel efficiency. The Lupo, a production car, needs less than 5l/100km, or close to 50mpg, and that with a top speed of 199km/h or about 120mph. In Europe, with fuel about three times the cost of the US (for many reasons including taxes and ecological concerns), this is important.
Bio-diesel is gaining acceptance and outlets in Germany, as is LNG (liquid natural gas), but this car wasn't using them. DaimlerChrysler is still working on hydrogen power, a much more sensible fuel.
Is it really "News" in December when this car ran in April?
woof.
Re:About this concept car (Score:4, Informative)
The top speed of the Volkswagen 1L car was reported as 120 km/h (75 mph during its 230 km (140 mile) cruise.
Volkswagen offers a 3L TDi [volkswagen.de] version of the Lupo right now, which uses standard Diesel fuel [volkswagen.de] available at almost all gas stations in Europe.
You can bet that security was a top concern for the designers of the 1L Volkswagen as well as for the Volkwagen Lupo 3L. Germany is a country the size of Utah, but with 80 million people living in that area. Also, because there is no general speed limit, speed differences on german Autobahnen are extreme as there are only two lanes per direction and there is no cruising as in the US.
Instead vans and transports crowd the outer lanes at 100 to 120 km/h (60-75 mph), while the inner lanes are occupied by personal vehicles running from 160 to 250 km/h (100-150 mph). If you have been learning driving in Nevada or Utah, you might be in for quite an experience.
Germany requires you to have at least 12 hours of theory (attendance required) and 12 hours of practice before even allowing you to take the drivers exam. After the exam, you are on probation for two years, about any recorded offense within the probation will see you at a drivers retraining... The cost for the aquisition of a drivers license in Germany runs at about $1000 to $1200 at the moment.
some info about biodiesel (Score:5, Interesting)
Cute, but impractical (Score:5, Informative)
Let's face it -- the average rolling tonnage of vehicles in the US is greater than that in Europe. What works there doesn't necessarily mean it will work here. What is really needed is a rolling steel cage, truly indestructible, with lots of energy-absorbing panels. I can't imagine trading away personal safety for environmental conservation.
Re:Cute, but impractical (Score:3, Insightful)
Along with the McLaren F1 (also very safe at 2400lbs) it's the only car to be drivable after the front collision test.
You don't have to make cars heavier, just more intelligently.
Re:Check out Cato Funding (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, I'm sorry, that was an ad hominem attack. Okay, well then...
Of course Cato gets funding from car and oil companies. Cato lists as the title on its home page The Cato Institute: Public Policy Analysis, Limited Government, Free Markets. If they're engaged in a shadow conspiracy with the oil companies, they're not covering it up very well.
So...let's hear some criticism of the actual report. What? You can't tell a regression analysis from a Subway sandwich? Color me surprised.
Re:Check out Cato Funding (Score:3, Informative)
Having said that... A quick read of the "article" indicates that they did a regression analysis of different light truck percentage use against number of fatalities. Of course, there were almost no light trucks at the beginning of the 80s and so many light trucks now.
Regression period 1994-1997.
The Cato article does state that other sources do show that light trucks increase the fatalities of other drivers in head-on and side-impact collisions, and that light trucks have an higher incidence of roll over. They seemly ignore this and suggest that the improvement in overall traffic fatalities is due to the stiffer construction, vehicle weight, more safety features of SUVs!
The study is doing what good studies do: present the counterarguments first. The confusing thing is that the study concludes that while both of the above statements are true, the increase in fatalities they contribute is outweighed by the decrease in fatalities due to the construction of SUV's:
The strong light truck effects in the case of single-vehicle fatalities imply that the stiffer frames and greater weights of light trucks are protective of life in collisions not involving other vehicles. Moreover, the light truck effects substantially offset any fatalities from increases in single-vehicle accidents associated with light truck use. The multiple-vehicle fatality equations imply that the protective effects of light trucks to their occupants outweigh any increase in fatalities associated with an increase in multiple vehicle accidents due to light truck use and any increase in fatalities to occupants of other vehicles.
They even suggests more SUVs! This ignores two decades of vehicle improvements (air bags, anti-lock brakes, side impact beams, superior crush zones, increased vehicular weight) and improvements in driver behavior (more DUI stops, seat belts, child safety seats, etc...). By concentrating on percent light truck versus traffic fatalities a really incorrect picture is drawn. Just crash various light-truck versus various cars and cars versus cars from the current years and look at the results - oh just wait the NHTSA and insurance institute equivalent have done that comparison and guess what they reported.
Once again, 1994-1997.
It's amazing that a think tank that does such a shoddy analysis can reject years of actual crash tests by governmental organizations and private insurace research groups. I'm not saying that my critique is perfect, but their methodology is pretty goofy. I tend to trust actual research.
Take a look at the controls in this study:
and a bunch more I'm too lazy to list. These are two Ph.D's in Economics at Rutgers; we're not talking community college here. You're saying we shouldn't trust academic research? I realize I didn't make it perfectly clear when I posted, but Regulation was simply the magazine that published the study.
Consider the study. What if it's right? If it's right, then opposing SUV's can cost lives. Of course, any choice that anyone makes can potentially "cost" lives; the point is, what public policy goals are we going to pursue, and do the choices we make further them?
Alternative Fueling Stations information (Score:4, Informative)
VW Jetta vs Rover Montego (Score:3, Informative)
Rover (Austin previously) used to make an estate car (station wagon) which was the same size as the Jetta, called the Montego. The diesel version had a 2.0litre Direct Injection Turbo diesel engine, made by Perkins.
These used to return 75mpg at 56mph and 55mpg at 75mph. They were light years head of anything else at the time - at a cost of increased engine noise because of the direct injection.
At the time, Ford, Vauxhall, Peugeot were all churning out indirect injection diesels which were at least 10mpg worse, and generally slower. The Ford Escort / Sierra diesels were crap.
The Montego Diesel came out around 1988. Now of course they all use direct injection, but are still only nipping at the heels of the Montego in terms of economy. Somewhat ahead of its time.
Shame we make retrograde steps. A bit like the latest windows feature is in fact old hat for any other OS.
Who Says We Are Not Ready? (Score:2, Insightful)
These are locations that are registered as selling biodisel:
http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/retailfu
Now, the big question is: Are we as CONSUMERS ready? We americans love our big 12mpg SUV's...
Fuel stations selling them... (Score:3, Interesting)
Kristian
unobtanium? (Score:2)
I believe the exhause was made of titanium, and so is the chassis. btw have you SEEN how small the passenger compartment (there is no trunk) is?
I mean... for the same trouble and inconvenience, not mentioning the cost for all the exotic materials and their manufacturing (sorry but steel is about two hundred thirty eight times easier to work with compared to titanium), I would much rather bank on something that sparks the imagination [moller.com].
Not a car for the claustrophobic... (Score:2)
Insight == Crap. (Score:2)
is about to fall apart. First of all, the acceleration sucks, it is almost like a
bicycle: I gave it a few rounds around town and the cars behind me constantly honked
at me because the thing wouldn't speedup whenever the speed limit changes (but it sure
can brake.)
Also, the body totally sucks; the rubber alignment around the inside of the doors started
to crack, but the their credit, Honda has an excellent customer service and most of the
vehicle is warranted for quite some time.
If you want a fuel efficient car, the Civic, which is the biggest bang for the buck out
there, just keep it real and DON'T even try to make it look sporty.
--
[1] The "friend" is actually my girlfriend, but you know hateful slashmods.
Alternative fuels in the US (Score:4, Interesting)
I work in the DC area, so reducing emissions would seem to be a priority here. Except that someone apparently removed funding for BioDiesel. Someone who, I think, currently lives in the White House. Someone who, I think, has more of an interest in preserving oil company interests (being something of an oil man himself) than protecting even his own health.
Anyway, here's a couple of useful links:
BioDiesel.Org [biodiesel.org]
US Government's Alternative Fuels Data Center Homepage [doe.gov]
The last link is particularly nice. While I will fault the US government for doing anything substantive, they at least have provided a lot of interesting research on the topic.
more diesel tech (Score:5, Interesting)
Diesels are cheaper to run, not just because the mpg but also because they break down less often. The stories about vibration are old hat, that is like saying Linux only works from the command prompt. If you try a VW TDi you would not know you were in a diesel, they are as fast and as smooth as a petrol car. You can hear the difference from out side but I tend to sit inside my car. Most car breakdowns are caused by engine electrics and diesels do not have that.
Also, if biodiesel gets off the ground all those poor whining farmers can grow fuel instead of having to survive on subsidies. It is corn oil based so we can grow our own and forget the middle east !!! That is ecologically and economically sound.
So it is cheaper, more reliable and gets us away from the reliance on the current monopoly...
Re:more diesel tech (Score:2)
America will never put up with 8 HP (Score:3, Insightful)
People do not understand power to weight ratios or torque. I can not tell you how many people thought there were faster than my 500 LBS 1.1 liter Honda CBR. I would say things like, "Look 500 pounds and 160 HP. Let me get you a calculator. I do not care if your car has 400 HP, I will cream you."
Now if you were to market the car as the "The 0-60 in 8 seconds / 200 MPG car" then you would have something! But you could never advertise 1 liter - 8 HP. No no.
Trade 50 more MPG for your life? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nevertheless, simple physics seems to dictate that if you were in a head-on collision with an Escalade, well, I think I'd rather be driving an Escalade myself than one of these 150 lb hybrid tupperware-mobiles.
Speed limits going up, car weight and size going down. There's all of 4 inches between your forehead and the windshield in an Insight. Eeek. Are you okay with your 16 year old daughter in a tinfoil 2 seater doing 75 on the interstate just to be the only person in your town to save some gas?
SUV's are *NOT* safe! (Score:5, Informative)
Your low-tech, oversized SUV has a ladder frame chassis. This does not compress when in an accident. A car with crumple zones (invented by VW, BTW) will absorb a huge amount of the collision impact leaving only a minimum amount for the human occupants to absorb. Whereas your BODY will absorb this force in an SUV collision.
Guess what is the leading cause of high speed collision deaths? Nope.. not intrusion into the passenger cabin - Its your internal organs coliding with your skeletal system - This force is magnified several times when in a ladder-frame SUV, so you guessed it - your dead, while your buddy who is driving a CAR in the same accident would survive. Food for thought.
Also consider the government warnings on the sun visor of your new SUV? Yes, they are true - your SUV *WILL* flip over (and probably kill you from being crushed) if you make sudden turns or collide with a curb. Again, in the SUV - your dead. In a car, your alive.
An SUV derives all it's structural integrity from that antique ladder from chassis, while a car gets it's strength from the design of the unibody shell. With newer supercomputers working to design more rigid monocoque car bodies, it's no wonder a car is so much safer in an accident than an SUV.
And lets not forget that 50% of safety is *AVOIDING* the accident to begin with. Who do you think can avoid an accident better? An SUV with very antique primitive suspension, and therefore awful handling (and prone to flipping over) and brakes that are not very effective because they have to stop such a large mass, and huge blind spots that prevent you from seeing smaller cars around you -or- a car with a modern suspension so it can handle well, brakes that can stop it in a shorter distance, and good visibility in all directions? Sorry buddy, you lose again. In an SUV, your dead, in a car you'll live.
Not safety related, but any self respecting slashdot geek should appreciate modern technology. An SUV does not deliver in that department either folks. That live rear axle was invented around the year 1900, while that leaf spring suspension came unchanged, from the covered wagons of the 1860's. It's like paying $25,000 for a 286, 8 Mhz, with 160 KB of RAM! Guess all those shoddy american car makers must have much better marketing departments than engineering departments. Probably why the Germans have always been 30 years ahead of the Americans in automotive technoloy...
Re:Trade 50 more MPG for your life? (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously. And I bet you haven't looked at crash test data for SUVs, either. Or actual accident records, which are even worse.
The "simple physics" you allude to isn't that simple, either. If it is, then how can a 1500 LB open wheel race car can hit a wall at 200 MPH, and its driver walk away?
Biodiesel and fleets (Score:3, Informative)
Biodiesel will have great success in a fleet situations. Where all the busses or delivery trucks at a central garage fuel up at the same place. Later, when it becomes more affordable and/or more popular, you'll see it at truck stops.
85% Ethanol Gasoline is appearing in large cities. Not a lot, but I've seen one or two in Chicago (and I haven't been looking). Look for more pumps, particularly in the Midwest Corn belt, where the states are pushing Ethanol as a market for excess corn.
Of course, the Hybrids are the most immediate 'wave of the future'. They use gas, the reduce gas emissions, and they get better gas mileage. Sure they're more expensive, but I think I read somewhere that the big three are planning on reducing that cost through mass production. I'm guessing by 2008 we'll have more hybrids on the road than you might think.
Hybrid vehicles, using gasoline, are safer than fuel cell vehicles using Hydrogen. I've seen those vehicles, and the precautions needed for hydrogen fueling are crazy: Hydrogen burns almost invisibly in daylight, so if you're not careful, you can walk right into merry little hydrogen fire.
Biodiesel... But does it scale? (Score:3, Interesting)
You might also want to check out his other article on alternative fuels [denbeste.nu] which covers solaris, geothermal, wind, fusion, tides, fission, and solar satellites.
I'm not saying he's 100% correct, but he definitely brings up some points that need to be considered when having an intelligent conversation about alternative fuels.
Alternative fuels at filling stations (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, we're in the midst of liberal city AND very near Motown, so it's not too surprising this stuff is around here. However, it does show that there's willingness to put in the pumps if there's demand. The LNG station is at a Meijer's (large supermarket/we sell everything chain).
Biodiesel as an alternative fuel for diesel cars (Score:3, Informative)
Biodiesel is much better for the environment, the motor itself and for the public health of all. And the motor makes much less noise
Biodiesel can cut pollution up to eighty percent compated to oil-diesel. We mustn't forget that Dr. Rudolph Diesel designed the diesel motor to run on vegetable oil and not on filthy oil products.
In German and Austria there are already 2000 service stations which sell biodiesel (www.biodiesel.de and www.biodiesel.at). Germany and Austria are serious about cutting CO2 levels.
Sadly, in the Netherlands where I live, the government and even the Dutch Green Party could care less about biodiesel.
Good biodiesel site/book
m.
Don't think Robert Redford reads Slashdot ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Did anyone notice... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Picture in the article (Score:3, Funny)
Dr. Ferdinand Piech, Chairman of the VW Board of Management and test driver for a day, probably forgot to turn them on, since he is used to being driven around by a designated driver in a VW Phaeton [pistonheads.com]. Or, he just couldn't reach the switch after the techs poured him into the car.
Re:Picture in the article (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Looks like a "3rd World country" is beating US (Score:2)
Re:Too bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you disagree with what I've written (I have no problem with that), why don't you reply to my post instead of giving a "-1, Overrated" right from the start? Too bad "Overrated" mods are not caught in M2, I consider this to be serious shortcoming of the Slashdot moderation system.
Re:Is that conversion correct? (Score:4, Interesting)
264.34 miles per US Gallon
317.46 miles per UK Gallon
but either way that's pretty good