Slashdot Mirror

I suspect the biggest impediment is actually mass. Diesel engines need a substantially stronger cylinder, specifically a cylinder wall which resists vibration, because of the way they function. My 1992 Ford has a 7.3 liter International engine (designed in 1978) with a problem in this regard. Originally the motor was 6.9 liters and IT has the problem too, but much less so. The cylinder walls flex enough to where the piston develops tiny cracks on the water passage side, which then are enlarged by cavitation. The fix is to add an additive to the coolant which prevents air bubbles from forming, thus preventing cavitation; it also has additional corrosion-resisting properties, again, to prevent corrosion in that area from making the problem worse. Plenty of these engines (which have been used liberally in school buses, box trucks, and other areas; this is a "light heavy-duty engine" according to International) have been run well over one million miles. But this is by far the biggest and heaviest engine ever installed in a light pickup truck, except for the Powerstroke engine which comes right after it, and which uses more or less the same block (derived from the same block anyway, bolt locations change) but with more and heavier (and drastically more expensive) parts on top.

Subaru has a diesel-electric hybrid prototype and is rumored to be bringing out a car for 2012, which could even come to the USA. But might not. FTFL, "Currently Subaru sells its 2.0-liter 4-cylinder boxer diesel in Europe where it makes 145-hp and 258 ft-lbs of torque and gets around 34/41 mpg (city/highway) in vehicles like he Forrester 2.0D." The hybrid uses the SAME engine, and it's a performance car; it's designed to compete with the WRX, not a base model. They replace the TC (torque converter) with an electric motor; down side they have to use the full powertrain which involves some loss since it's AWD, up side the electric motor drives all wheels and can be used at all times either as a power adder or battery charger. Also zero gearbox changes (except for software) make for probably the cheapest hybrid conversion on the market. We could see this car on the market in a couple years, though I wouldn't hold my breath.

Personally, I'd like Subaru to bring out a 1.6 or 1.8 liter diesel and put it into the old Impreza GC5 body, though of course they won't because you don't go backwards in style until retro hits, and 90s retro is only just beginning now. (Too soon, but I guess the urge to move past 80s retro is overwhelming. Having grown up in the 80s, I can't imagine why anyone would want to go back there, unless they're a big fucking cokehead. Everything in the 80s was about cocaine; food, music, style, you name it.) That was the smallest and lightest Impreza body and they only bloated them from there, to the tune of some 500 pounds per massive step up. A WRX weighs about 500lb more and the latest STi is almost 1000lb more than a 1993 with AWD.

Apparently the AMG SLS has explosive bolts designed to trigger in the case of a rollover, making it the first car that can blow its own doors off. How cool is that? XD

A really honest cop would ticket himself for a traffic infringement. That's two cops that do honor to the badge and uniform that they wear. Now we just have to find two more.

Notice that the threat is real - the Finnish air force did get engine damage on their F18:s when they were flying through the cloud. Just take a look here: Finnish F-18 engine check reveals effects of volcanic dust

And we must blame Top Gear for the eruption too.

Having a camera didn't work out so well for this guy in Maryland:

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/19/motorcyclist-arrested-for-recording-cop-brandishing-gun-with-hel/

He ended up having his computers confiscated as recording the officer is considered a felony.

Long story short - unit body construction saved hundreds of pounds of structural steel from car designs. It raised gas mileage. But the whole car - crumple zones and all - simply folds up like a tin can in an accident. Accidents which used to be survivable are now deadly, thanks to the weakening of car frames designed primarily to boost fuel economy.

So you'd rather be in a crash in a 1959 Bel Air than a 2009 Malibu?

"I'm sceptical of anything which proposes to simply double the amount of energy extracted from that gasoline, because, well, physics is physics."

Agreed, but the real question is how are they testing? Downhill with a tailwind? Anyone can achieve 98mpg given the right conditions (downhill in neutral), and since they don't come out and say "we achieved 98mpg using the same technique as fueleconomy.gov" it sounds like BS.

Another reason this sounds like BS: billions of dollars are being invested to meet the 35mpg CAFE standard by 2020. When Congress was talking about requiring 32mpg by 2015 it was estimated it would cost $47 billion dollars to reach that goal: "For the auto industry, it will be costly; the Transportation Department last year estimated that requiring the industry to meet 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost nearly $47 billion."

So a magic fuel injector that achieves 98 mpg would literally be worth billions of dollars, not to mention win the xprize and $10 million dollars. Any engineer that designed this could join any auto manufacture and write his own ticket. The idea that a startup in California just happened across this technology outdoing the greatest minds in GM, Toyota, Honda, and the academic community just sounds like snake oil, just like the car that runs on water, 130mpg car, 110mpg 0-60 in 3 seconds Mustang. If any of these technologies were real GM or Honda would be announcing it or at the very least they'd be xprize competitors.

Have we forgotten the Perpetual Motion DeLorean scammers already?

I have a camry. Sometimes when I tap the accelerator after coasting or while stopped it unexpectedly accelerates harder than I expected despite pressing the pedal just a little bit, forcing me to take my foot off the pedal to avoid rear-ending the car in front of me.

Interesting. Apparently most people get the opposite effect:

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/10/17/camry-ecu-wont-let-drivers-give-it-the-boot/?CFID=8341797&CFTOKEN=25439153

my honda engine does not fit in that ford chassis

ANALOGY FAIL.

There is a fallacy hidden in there: that world hunger is due to not producing enough food.

Here's the production of the top four biggest US corn producing states, as of 2006, in thousands of bushels:

• IA: 2,244,400
• IL: 2,088,000
• NE: 1,319,700
• MN: 1,120,950

Total: 6,773,050 thousand bushels

A blog comment cites 134,400 calories per bushel (couldn't find a better source for this). So the total calories produce from all the corn above is:

6,773,050 * 1000 * 134,400 = 910,298,592,000,000 calories

On a 2000 calorie / day diet, a person eats 2000 * 365 = 730,000 calories / year

Production of just those 4 states can therefore feed a population of about 1.2 billion people. Of course, you'll be nutrient deficient on a corn-only diet, but hopefully the rest of the planet can pick up the slack for that and the remaining 5.3 billion people. And it's not like those states are only corn producers, anyway.

If production isn't the underling problem, then we need to look elsewhere or else we'll accomplish nothing in solving the problem. One of the prime places to look is how the food often gets stopped in harbor because the right palms aren't being greased, or how local warlords hijack shipments and use food as a weapon.

For certain, corn ethanol was never going to cover even 10% of US energy needs. But the hunger argument isn't a very good one.

A rule change in the F1 league requires Kenetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) systems for all F1 cars in 2010 and is pretty much the main driver behind the technology. LeMans is also requiring hybrid systems, though they've banned anything with a flywheel. Williams developed the only flywheel KERS and AFAIK is the only team which developed any system in-house & without a partner in the auto industry.

Here's some better info explaining the technology:
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/02/11/videos-porsche-911-gt3-r-hybrid-uses-williams-f1-flywheel-kers/

All drive by wire VW/Audis are setup this way.

Electric bicycles are setup that way. Talk about a no-brainer.

One thing that always makes me wonder: after more than a century, they still haven't standardized the controls in cars. Every time you get into a new car, you have to learn an entire new set of controls. Except for the steering wheel and two (or three) pedals, everything else is different between makers and between models in some cases. Meanwhile, if I go from an old tape player to the latest MP3 player, I find the same controls in use. Maybe it's time for a little sense in the auto industry.

...or skis. Or something like this.

According to AutoBlog, the problem with these Toyotas is a mechanical part in the drive by wire pedal assembly (and so it's not really an issue with the car being drive by wire). The pivot point that the pedal rotates on has a bushing that is apparently wearing out and causing the pedal stick. I'm a little skeptical as it seems much more plausible that it would be an electrical (or software) gremlin, but that's apparently what they're blaming it on.

There is still no excuse for Toyota not coding the ECU to cut throttle when it senses that the driver has BOTH the throttle and the brakes on simultaneously. All drive by wire VW/Audis are setup this way.

Ford received a bunch of money to fund experimental development of an engine I believe they call the Bobcat. It is a twin-turbo gasoline engine, with E85 directly injected in. It develops massive power. It's a sink hole. Too expensive to utilize and just a reason for Ford to get some of that government teet. Ford fans are making fun of GM fans these days but it's not entirely fair. Figured slashdotters may or may not be aware...

For the Bobcat experimental engine, the longer-stroked 5.4 was used in combination with a smaller bore that provided thicker cylinder walls needed to withstand the high internal pressures of the boosted 750 pound-foot engine. According to Harrison, the Bobcat was part of a Department of Energy funded research project and there are no current plans for a production engine based on the technology. He also tells us that the extra cost of the dual injection systems and more robust block and heads negates much of the savings from not needing a diesel after-treatment system.

Other than that I do believe they got some government loans, effectively gifts, to fund restructuring. The difference between Ford and GM was timing, Ford figured out sooner what the fuck was going on and they're reaping the benefits now.

Now, the discussion of governments helping companies, as being socialistic in nature is probably a fair discussion - and also a fair analysis. However, the better discussion is why we have not punished our civil leaders for putting us into this system where there is NO protectionism of the American economy and production system. Taking down tariffs at every turn is very harmful. We are bowing to the pressure of libertarian think-tanks that live in a dream world. Granted, we may need to have "free-er" trade than we had in the 1800s, but to just take tariffs away completely? This is especially harmful when other countries keep their tariffs up or somewhat up. Also, what happens to our "neighbours" ... our FUCKING neighbours! Flooding Mexico with our governments subsidized corn has repurcussions. We cannot turn our back from these issues, and we cannot remain silent.

It is my viewpoint, that so many of the current ills of the world are being "funded" by cheap petroleum. Once shipping costs go back up we should once again return to some basic and appropriate levels of protectionism, local food production, etc. The powers that be just saw an easy way to further widen the wealth and power gap and proceeded to do so.

Volvo is making a diesel hybrid for 2012:

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/01/volving-announces-diesel-plug-in-hybrid-for-2012-w-video/

What about this: Piaggio MP3 Hybrid?

I talk with people who create Solar cells. I hea r all about the industry, and my brother works in a cutting edge company. I can say, with the utmost confidence, that your head is in your ass.

I can't comment on your NimH claims, but based on the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about regarding PV development and jump to wild conclusions based on yuor ignorance I feel I am safe to assum you donty know what your are talking about either.

A brief seardh turns up the fact that Toyota is opening a new NiMH plant in 2010.

http://green.autoblog.com/2008/05/27/toyota-announces-plans-for-new-nimh-battery-plant/

Toyota out out this little know vehicle called the Prius that uses NiMH. Of course they hardly advertise it so I can't expect you to know that~

I don't see anthropogenic global warming as a condemnation of civilization.

That humans — especially the wealthy humans — are destroying the planet with their consumption is explicit in many "save the Earth" pieces, and implied in nearly all of them. I'm going to believe here, that you aren't feigning your ignorance of this wide-spread opinion and give you some examples...

This recent video attempts to instill guilt in people flying by showing bloodied polar bears falling from the sky. Each passenger, we are told, causes the amount of CO2, that's a weight of a polar bear. It is implied (with plausible deniability, of course, because the idiotic connection would only work on a weaker mind), that each passenger is thus responsible for a dead polar bear... Every time.

For another example, here is criticism of Ford's recent ad, that shows Ford's SUV among polar bears. The critic states, the ad "might upset a few people". Now, it might not be upsetting to you, but it is evidence, that large number of people consider SUVs a crime against nature.

Violent assholes from Earth Liberation Front will happily burn a business to stop it from "destroying the environment". The threat is not theoretical: "If you build it, we will burn it." The ideology has many sympathizers and represents the number one terrorist threat in the US.

More examples exist, of course... I hope, you will be able to find them yourself now.

Now I see why the deniers are so hot and bothered.

I don't think, it is fair to label us "deniers". The burden of proof ought to be on those, who want to make civilization change its ways. For over a decade, we were told "the science is settled" — that not only does global warming exist, there is a significant anthropogenic contribution to it, which ought to be stopped.

Thanks to this whistle-blower (or a hacker, or whoever), we learned, that the consensus in this case achieved in a Marxist manner: through elimination of dissent. We read these "scientists" discussing boycotts against peer-reviewed journals to prevent publishing works of "sceptics". All so that the foot-soldiers on forums such as this one could continue to claim, that "no peer-reviewed journal published anything by this guy, so he must be a fringe lunatic."

We also read, how frustrated they became, faced with the actually lowering temperatures, which their computer models failed to predict. Where I'm from, a scientific theory, that fails to predict what's observed in life, is discarded. But, I guess, these guys stood to lose too much government funding, so they "massaged" their data until they got the pre-determined result.

The answer to AGW will be a combination of adapting ourselves to inevitable changes

Every proposed answer to AGW (which might not even exist) involves large tax increases and increased government control over citizens' lives. The Big Brother watching is Ok, because it is for "a greener planet" (the modern era's "Greater Good" (TM)). Scratch any advocate of AGW, and you'll find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath... That alone ought to turn a reasonable human being into a "denier".

Although voluntary for now, starting 2017, Columbia University plans to have a compost bin in every dorm room. I sure hope, my daughter is not forced to live like that, when she goes to college, over junk science

What a dumbass

I believe there were a number of factors here:

1) He was driving a dealer-loaned car that he was unfamiliar with.
2) This particular Lexus was equipped with a push-button ignition. This means that if the car's in motion the button has to be held for 3-seconds before shutting off.
3) The Lexus power-assist braking system loses power when at full throttle. That seems like the major flaw to me.

Take a look here: autoblog.com.

"The brakes are more powerful than the engine. Always."

If that were so, then how come the crash that prompted the Toyota Floor Mat recall had "[r]otors [that] were discolored and heated, had very rough surfaces, had substantial deposits of brake pad material, and showed signs of bright orange oxidation on the cooling fins consistent with endured braking." [Autoblog: NHTSA releases new info about... (26 Oct 2009)?

Detroit may not use them, but they are all over ebay in the electric bicycle and scooter areas. In addition, michelin has been working on them as well.

Really, this is 2009....citing Detroit as a hot bed of engineering elegance and technical skills is a little passe now....that they _failed_ at some tech or "couldn't get it to work" is nothing new at all. In the US the REAL domestic far out and successful car and truck engineering goes on in autoracing, hotrod shops, modding shops and new startups. Detroit maintains their solid global C-minus rating at all costs...

Here's Detroit, a movie reference-> Fat (unions) Drunk (stockholders) Stupid (management)

That's no way to go through life, son..

  Detroit gets ideas, sure, any place BUT Detroit, then 15 years later starts showing some clunky million dollar prototypes, then 30 years later they enter production at double the cost and half the reliability of about anyone else. Here's my prediction along those lines teh VOLT!!11! ....a few months later.. Auto top headline news..GM was forced to recall all their (now 60 grand) volt models because of problems with the batteries..and computer systems...and paint job..and the small booster engine that catches fire and blows up....and new "mileage performance" tires that shed road gators worse then a semi running on fourth generation retreads..

I'm from Detroit, keyword "from"

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-cars/cool-cars.htm http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1600586/california_will_not_ban_black_cars.html http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/25/california-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-by-banning-black-cars/ Oh that reflective coating for the windows it blocks radio frequencies so anyone with a GPS / cell that doesn't support an external antenna connection will have to buy a new one so it will produce more waste.

ha ha. WRONG.

http://green.autoblog.com/2007/08/21/woz-gets-700-ticket-for-going-105-mph-in-a-prius/ :)

The real questions is, where will the energy come from? What energy source will be used to generate all of that additional electricity that our power grids will require? In North America we already have important segments of the power grid that are under supplied during peak load[...]

Hmm, haven't kept up much, huh. Electric cars can save the grid, not drive it into the ground. The current electric grid has issues at peak loading. Electric cars don't have to charge at peak loading times, in fact, they can deliver energy back to the grid at peak loading times. Google is even into this with grid monitoring software demos . I, of course, wonder how you can keep hackers from emptying your batteries...

Modern cars are much more crashworthy and safer than old cars. But this video is a bit of an intentional misrepresentation of reality. Starting with the 1959 models, GM went to a modified unit body construction, eliminating the two, heavy, car-length frame rails that ran the length of the car, and instead mounting a small front frame to attach the engine and transmission to a newly designed unit-body passenger compartment. The aim was to lower the car's profile and to improve head-on collision crash survivability. In the new design the front end was designed as a crush zone- no more instant stop for the passengers when two rigid-frame cars collided head on. Also the engine would no longer end up in the passenger compartment when it broke loose from the frame in a bad accident; instead the engine would absorb much of the front end impact and then slid slide harmlessly underneath the passenger compartment when the subframe collapsed (that was what the wide "hump" in the middle of the floor of the 1959 car was all about). One result of this new design was to make the 1959 cars more dangerous in one type of accident, a "corner to corner" collision, one where the impact was head on but the two cars overlapped a bit but not enough so that the engines absorbed the impact- it was a design tradeoff. The Insurance Institute, which is, after all, a self-congratulatory lobbying group, reproduced that one type of accident here on purpose to showcase the results it wanted you to see. The Institute moved the impact point so that only 40-45% of the cars would overlap (see the overhead view at 1:16-18 in the shockwave flash cited- http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/26/pics-aplenty-iihs-reveals-before-and-after-of-malibu-bel-air-cr/ ). This is enough overlap to make full use of the new car's unit front end, roll cage and air bags (note even the windshield stays in and absorbs energy), but the overlap is small enough that the old car's engine and transmission, designed to absorb energy in a head on collision, were just outside the accident zone and did not absorb any of the impact energy. If the institute had shown a real head on collision the results would have been very, very different, with the damage much more equal. And a 1958 Chevy in a corner-to-corner would have performed much better. New cars are nifty, but this is a piece of propaganda designed to "educate the masses".

You mean like this? :)

The pictures with the doors removed are simply amazing. Note how, not only is the Bel Air dummy folded up like a pretzel, but the entire body of the car has twisted such that the rear door no longer fits properly. The Malibu on the other hand is almost untouched from the firewall back. What an awesome demonstration of energy dissipation.

They did: 09 Malibu and 59 Bel Air. RTFA and all that jazz.

They did: 09 Malibu and 59 Bel Air. RTFA and all that jazz.

The next step would be to use video as the data source, or even panoramic video like the Google Street View cars capture. With such a system, simply driving by a building would provide thousands of frames from a range of viewpoints already. Putting all that together would be immensely computational intensive, but the result would be 3D-models of everything the Google cars have ever filmed.

No kidding, I'd much rather have one of these.

I just spent the week on Star Island of the Isles of Shoals in NH and they had something like this donated as a test: http://green.autoblog.com/2007/09/09/1kw-bird-safe-home-wind-turbine-available/ ...it's really a double helix shaped thing (very odd looking) but it was turning up a storm when Hurricane Danny came through the other day. Of course, it almost looks like an actual tornado while spinning... :-P

I don't think I buy your reasoning here.

Do you have any evidence that the car is unsafe? It seems to have done pretty well in EuroNCAP type test. It also probably handles as well if not better than most Toyotas and has better steering feedback as well. It's also rear engined and RWD, so it's just like a Porsche! I'm sure it will suck for hammering down the Autobahn at 250 km/h but then so will a Prius and in any case it's not its intended primary use anyway.

Basically, it seems to be as "good" as a Smart car, but with a reasonable price tag. If you still think it's too dangerous, how safe do you want to make it? S-class safe? If that's good enough, how did you come to the conclusion? Why not make it WRC-car safe? GT-car safe?

Why would you be glad if India decided it's not safe enough? Didn't you state at the beginning that the Nano was good enough for that society? The only thing banning it will achieve now is that fewer people will have access to a reasonably safe four-wheel vehicle. I don't even see how this would create more total deaths as most people would simply be switching from shittier methods of transport instead of just going out and buying a brand new car as their first vehicle.

Diesel is good, but I'd like to see Mazda make a Wankel based Hybrid. It's low weight and excellent fixed speed performance is ideal for hybrid vehicles.

They do: Mazda Premacy Hydrogen RE Hybrid. It's looks like it's only available for corporate lease in Japan though.

"Hydrogen fuel range is twice that of the [Hydrogen RE] RX-8 at 200 kilometers. Not only that, but the rotary mill can switch to running on gasoline if hydrogen isn't handy. The powerplant and its lithium-ion batteries are then mounted in the oh-so-versatile Premacy microvan, which is better known as the Mazda5 on these shores."

although the MPG rating is slightly less than the poster claims. I'm more than willing to bet this 70+mpg car will trounce it in any sort of performance. And you can afford it. http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/28/topgear-com-america-completes-project-sipster-lives-to-tell-the/

They aren't getting the loan for making more Tesla Roadsters... but for their new Tesla Model S sedan. Which is a lot more affordable (and useful) than the Roadster. Still more pricey than a normal car, but it's definitely going in the right direction.

It could even be a hit here in Norway, as it will be exempt from all normal car taxes (which easily make most cars 2 times or more expensive than in the US) - it will even be exempt from the VAT (25%). Exporting US cars again would be nice, wouldn't it?

Indeed. the beeb admitted that the cars never ran out of juice. That scene was faked to "show what would happen if the battery had actually been depleted."

Um, no I didn't Here's the proof jackrabbit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zDvSgg5QIY Thats running 75. With the air on.

Running 60mph to and from work I get better than 46mpg; but taking the hit in traffic my average is only around 43mpg over 15 gallons that is 645 miles to the tank. 775 miles is my record; and if I took the non-highway route to work and ran 45, i'd return 53mpg constantly which = 795 miles to a tank.

Better luck next time. Google "Jetta TDI Guiness world record" (here I did it for you: http://www.autoblog.com/2008/09/30/vw-jetta-tdi-sets-guinness-world-record-for-u-s-gas-mileage-at/ )if you simply can't fathom that cars DO and HAVE had a 600+ miles capability since about 1977 in the United States under the VW brand.

to go through the check list when you take delivery. You don't want to be stuck with a lemon.

It's not just stickers, stickers don't cast shadows like this:

Badge:
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2010-chevrolet-camaro-transformers-special-edition/2159531/

Also, the sill plate doesn't look like it could be made on the cheap:
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2010-chevrolet-camaro-transformers-special-edition/2159534/

I didn't see any mention of interior changes.

Stickers could probably be made privately by a vinyl graphics cutter for less than $100, I don't know about that emblem or sill plate.

It's not just stickers, stickers don't cast shadows like this:

Badge:
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2010-chevrolet-camaro-transformers-special-edition/2159531/

Also, the sill plate doesn't look like it could be made on the cheap:
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2010-chevrolet-camaro-transformers-special-edition/2159534/

I didn't see any mention of interior changes.

Stickers could probably be made privately by a vinyl graphics cutter for less than $100, I don't know about that emblem or sill plate.

Not to pick nits, but SSC have been tinkering with their Aero supercars for more than a decade, and they're producing just 25 cars this year. That barely qualifies as "production," and wouldn't for most racing delegations in the Aero's class (GT-level.) "Nits," I said, I did.

The Audi/Volkswagen and Porsche supercars, for comparison, come from factories that have run GT/GTP race teams for decades. Porsche's supercars are design descendants of their fully-homologated production race cars (necessitating hundreds of race-ready units per year to qualify.) I know which I'd pilot to a win in a one-on-one race versus the Aero TT, heh. The Aero is a fast car, but top linear speed doesn't matter on most courses, not unless it's a drag strip!

The forthcoming Porsche GT1 2009 (*not* the 911 GT1 of last decade) looks to be a potential Veyron- and Aero-killer, with 950 bhp and weighing fully 500 kg less than the two-tonne Veyron - though still more than the ultra-light Aero, so who knows?

More pointless points... fun to watch these mad-fast cars, man. Petrol still King! Maybe in 5-10 years we'll see an entirely electric grand touring group formed.

Why is all the development on electric and electric-hybrid cars going into fancy new systems with lithium ion batteries or hydrogen fuel cells and (for hybrids) complicated switching between a conventional drive train and electric motors, instead of using and improving upon the time-tested diesel-electric technology which has efficiently powered many trains for quite some time now?

Lead-acid batteries do not provide sufficient energy density to make practical electric cars.

Diesel-electric locomotives do not store braking power in batteries because there is too much of it, and so far all attempts to remedy that situation have been gross failures. There ARE various people working on series hybrids though, so your basic assertion is a FAILURE.

Build a simple all-electric car - just a body, steering rack, four wheels with a dynamo on each (there's your propulsion and your regenerative brakes), some circuity to control them all, and a small battery that holds just enough charge to get you up to speed, maybe twice that for a safety margin. Then stick the most efficient diesel or gas generator you've got in it to provide electricity to keep the battery charged.

God, will you please shut the fuck up? You did not invent series hybrids.

the alternator and the standard car battery become redundant with the generator and main battery; heck you could even replace the radiator with a small steam engine for still increased efficiency, turning that excess heat into electricity instead of just disposing of it to the air.

BMW tried the "small steam engine" thing on a gasoline (or was it diesel?) ICE and extended their range by like 10%. On a smaller, lighter vehicle it would be a net loss due to weight.

Yes, it still uses some fossil fuels, but in the end most of our electricity comes from coal anyway

If it's a plug-in hybrid, then it doesn't need to use fossil fuels if you don't outrun the battery-only range.

So why isn't anybody doing it in cars? Is there a good technical or economic reason?

It's harder to get right, EVERYONE is working on it, and you are a dumbass. Your question is invalid because people ARE doing it in cars.

I wonder if anyone will buy Saab now, it has had worse sales than Hummer for a long time.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/02/by-the-numbers-may-2009-gm-and-ford-surprise-edition/

The above link has some sales data.

The real problem isn't that Hummer is sold, it is that the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler have both been shoved down the companies and investor's throats. So they will trot out that they saved 3,000 or so jobs. What about the 100,000 plus jobs lost when all the dealerships are being forced to close, even ones who make a profit? A considerable number, if not the majority, of dealerships being punted are profitable.

This is all about Wall Street and not Main Street. The people tasked with doing these close outs and sales are all Wall Street regulars. If Wall Street had been held to the same standards as Detroit the change might have been something I could believe in. Instead communities are going to face real problems when dealerships close. Yeah, 3000 jobs is nice but it is a nickle on a Cadillac in terms of loss/gain. In other words, who the flip cares?

Hummer. Funny thing is they will survive in the real world and not the alternate reality world the US has become.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/25/california-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-by-banning-black-cars/

Aaron Z

Maybe be some bizarre coincidence you personally really do "see so many Minis and Smart FourTwos on the road," but that is not representative of the entire American car population.

Trucks and mid-size sedans are by far more popular than compact cars. Source: http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009/01/the-top-10-best.html

About 20 to 30 thousand Mini Coopers and FourTwos sold last year. The Ford F Series sold half a million trucks last year. Sources: http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/25/u-s-smart-fortwo-sales-so-strong-penske-wants-15-000-more/ and http://blogs.automobilemag.com/6271167/car-news/2008-mini-cooper-us-sales-hit-a-new-peak/index.html.

The marketing may be honest, but that dosen't mean that there isn't B.S. there.

This should actually be pretty legit, I wouldn't guess that ford would hold the hands on these as they go through manufacturing. As a matter of fact Ford doesn't really have to do much of anything. The Fiesta should speak for itself and is widely regarded as being a good product. Here is a link for reference (I do not work for autoblog.com) This new Fiesta should even (hopefully) arrive on American shores. For once us Americans should have a competitive product compared to our European "friends." As a side note: it is nice to see a car that stays about the same size. It is lighter and stronger than the current Ford Fiesta, with similar dimensions.

They would only be "profitable" because they threw down massive layoffs.