Slashdot Mirror

Here are some fun examples of what can happen with the latest generation of proximity based fobs. (Hint: Having them work at a distance that may include places outside the vehicle leads to some interesting use cases.)

Likewise, it matters how many adults can be comfortably seated. I suspect that I, as a pretty tall guy, could very comfortably sit in the back seat of a Model S, even with tall front-seat occupants with the seats back. (That said, the specs aren't that different, with the BMW having more headroom: http://www.teslamotors.com/mod... vs. http://buyersguide.caranddrive... ).

As usual, though, apples and oranges!

They say the jamming 'could and may have had disastrous consequences by precluding the use of cell phones to reach life-saving 9-1-1 services provided by police, ambulance, and fire departments.'"

When people yapping on their cell are a bigger threat than drunk drivers it is great to see them wasting our tax dollars going after a guy who was stopping them.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/20...

http://www.nsc.org/safety_road...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...

I can add as many other citations as you'd like.

Or make it look like this. Why do so many vehicle manufactures think electric cars have to look like crap when if they made them look nice or even just look like a normal car more people would want them. Right now by having the look stupid it basically is a way for smug people to advertise that they care more than you do.

Turns out the law on turn signals is somewhat complicated, but I'm not seeing anything that requires turn signal markers on the mirrors/side, simply that they have to be visible on the side. Wrapping the head/brake lights around so the turn is visible from the side should be sufficient to meet the law's requirements.

You're forgetting that US laws do not apply worldwide. There's a reason European cars all have had side-marker lights for ages; they're required there. Wrapping corner-located light assemblies around does not satisfy that law.

Can you provide a link about them putting radar units in the side mirrors? Never heard of that, thought they generally mounted it on the grill/bumper.

After a bit of googling, it appears to depend on the system. Volvo's BLIS is in the mirrors, but it uses cameras rather than radar. Other systems use radar units mounted inside the front and rear bumpers.

http://www.zigwheels.com/news-...

http://www.frost.com/sublib/di...

http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...

You mean robot, right?

No, a lot of things are still assembled in cars using humans, because they're easy to train to do fairly complex tasks rather than building a robot to do the same thing. For instance, I'm pretty sure installing carpet in cars is probably done by humans.

It's not only for Tesla, and not just on videos either.
Engines are getting more efficient and quieter every year, and cars are better insulated as well. Customers are disappointed when they spend big bucks on a car only to find out it doesn't sound like a big old sport car.
The solution? Manufacturers actually add speakers next to the engine, exhaust and inside the car.
You sometimes get V8 sound out of a V6 car :)

http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...

There is already one production car (sort of) that does away with the side mirrors: the Volkswagen XL1.

(I say "sort of" because they're only making 250 of them, and they are not available in the United States, probably due to the mirror regulations.)

Car and driver, amongst others, differ with you.

http://www.keacher.com/672/tit...

http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...

Or you could, you know, try it in a parking lot. My non-sporty brakes easily overpower my 420 HP engine.

In what car?! All modern mainstream vehicles still use a master cylinder in tandem with a booster and ABS. Even if you lose all engine power, should still be able to apply the brakes. Although it will require more force to push the pedal down, it should still be doable to bring the car to a complete safe stop.

If only the throttle was also required to have a physical linkage!

Unfortunately, once we abandoned the carburetor, there isn't much to link the throttle pedal to any more, and we are stuck with using it pretty like as a mouse. A physical pedal up fuel valve to reduce fuel availability to a level sufficient only to idle the engine might return some measure of physical control. Currently most manufacturers have the computer cut throttle when the brake is pressed, even if the gas is also pressed. (Toyota did not have this during their problem years and added it later). This has the side effect of teaching those idiots who drive an automatic with the left foot riding the brake not to do so. Unfortunately, this functionality is programmed into the same computer, (saving $37), and if that computer has entered stack overflow, it won't help.

But the interesting thing here is that Barr found a situation that (he claims) could in fact cause the engine to receive full throttle, when DOT and NASA could find no such problem and blamed it all on the driver confusing the pedals.

Even if the brakes would have stopped the car (eventually), after applying them fairly firmly for a while (for some values of "while") the car can experience rather sever brake fade. Anyone driving in the mountains has probably experienced this.

Without brake fade, Car and Driver found that from 100mph and up, the braking distance increased three fold, enough to convince the driver that the car was never going to stop. If this occurred after a long downhill, (hot brakes and plenty of fade) and the driver wasn't fully committed to hard panic braking, it seems plausible that a stuck accelerator pedal, or stack overflow, or floor mats, could extend braking distances enough to be deadly. When tested afterwards, the brakes would have appeared to be working again.

If you disallow all of these possibilities you are forced to assume that anyone reporting any unintended acceleration is a total idiot, which, given small the number of events, isn't completely out of the question, but the fact that almost all of these idiots tend to be driving a Toyota is suspicious.
After all, idiocy does not usually manifest itself by a predilection toward a certain brand of car.

In what car?! All modern mainstream vehicles still use a master cylinder in tandem with a booster and ABS. Even if you lose all engine power, should still be able to apply the brakes. Although it will require more force to push the pedal down, it should still be doable to bring the car to a complete safe stop.

If only the throttle was also required to have a physical linkage!

Unfortunately, once we abandoned the carburetor, there isn't much to link the throttle pedal to any more, and we are stuck with using it pretty like as a mouse. A physical pedal up fuel valve to reduce fuel availability to a level sufficient only to idle the engine might return some measure of physical control. Currently most manufacturers have the computer cut throttle when the brake is pressed, even if the gas is also pressed. (Toyota did not have this during their problem years and added it later). This has the side effect of teaching those idiots who drive an automatic with the left foot riding the brake not to do so. Unfortunately, this functionality is programmed into the same computer, (saving $37), and if that computer has entered stack overflow, it won't help.

But the interesting thing here is that Barr found a situation that (he claims) could in fact cause the engine to receive full throttle, when DOT and NASA could find no such problem and blamed it all on the driver confusing the pedals.

Even if the brakes would have stopped the car (eventually), after applying them fairly firmly for a while (for some values of "while") the car can experience rather sever brake fade. Anyone driving in the mountains has probably experienced this.

Without brake fade, Car and Driver found that from 100mph and up, the braking distance increased three fold, enough to convince the driver that the car was never going to stop. If this occurred after a long downhill, (hot brakes and plenty of fade) and the driver wasn't fully committed to hard panic braking, it seems plausible that a stuck accelerator pedal, or stack overflow, or floor mats, could extend braking distances enough to be deadly. When tested afterwards, the brakes would have appeared to be working again.

If you disallow all of these possibilities you are forced to assume that anyone reporting any unintended acceleration is a total idiot, which, given small the number of events, isn't completely out of the question, but the fact that almost all of these idiots tend to be driving a Toyota is suspicious.
After all, idiocy does not usually manifest itself by a predilection toward a certain brand of car.

"The brakes are never adequate to overcome the power of open throttle. NEVER."

Stupidly wrong. Car and driver actually tested this in a disparate group of vehicles, and in all of them the brakes would stop the vehicles even under the worst case scenario they were testing (highway speeds, full throttle in the lowest possible gear). http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...

"Lastly, look at burnout competitions."
This really shows some ignorance. When you're doing a burnout, you apply only a small amount of brakes, this is to stop the vehicle walking forward. Applying the brakes too hard is a common reason people have trouble starting a burnout.

I even found some information for you:
http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...

A 268 horsepower Toyota Camery can stop from 70mpg in 190 feet with the engine at full throttle. Only 16 feet longer than not throttle. At 100mph the stopping different was 88 feet.

When they tested a full throttle stop from 120mph, the car slowed to 10mph before the brakes overheated.

Perhaps you should put your foot harder on your brake pedal.
You are american though, so your Impala is probably an automatic. In first gear with the torque converter multiplying the torque it may be able to slowly move the brakes when they're fully applied.

Luxury car? As far as I can tell, the cheapest Cessna (the 172) costs $275,000 USD... that's as much as a house. And yet, the price of the aircraft when it was introduced, adjusted for inflation, is only about $72,000.

Just to give you a comparison, a Pagani Huayra costs $1.3 million. The Lexus IS 350 is not a luxury car.

Car and Driver seems to disagree with your Lincoln claims, but your Cadillac statement seems to be accurate
2012 Lincoln MKS: http://buyersguide.caranddrive...
2013 Cadillac CTS: http://buyersguide.caranddrive...
Both cars get around 1 MPG less with AWD compared to their 2WD counterparts with same engine. And for the Lincoln, SAME ENGINE is the key word. The AWD Lincoln is able to achieve the same MPG as the FWD one assuming you upgrade to the EcoBoost engine, which, while yes is more powerful, is a completely different engine, so not a proper comparison of MPG from FWD to AWD. Even for the Cadillac it is hard to draw any hard conclusions without more information. There can be a lot of variability between the trims, deeper even than what is presented on the surface. I would not be surprised if the transmissions are geared slightly differently or if there was any weight saving measures taken for the AWD version. You could be correct, though.

Car and Driver seems to disagree with your Lincoln claims, but your Cadillac statement seems to be accurate
2012 Lincoln MKS: http://buyersguide.caranddrive...
2013 Cadillac CTS: http://buyersguide.caranddrive...
Both cars get around 1 MPG less with AWD compared to their 2WD counterparts with same engine. And for the Lincoln, SAME ENGINE is the key word. The AWD Lincoln is able to achieve the same MPG as the FWD one assuming you upgrade to the EcoBoost engine, which, while yes is more powerful, is a completely different engine, so not a proper comparison of MPG from FWD to AWD. Even for the Cadillac it is hard to draw any hard conclusions without more information. There can be a lot of variability between the trims, deeper even than what is presented on the surface. I would not be surprised if the transmissions are geared slightly differently or if there was any weight saving measures taken for the AWD version. You could be correct, though.

But I can tell you that there have been at least 5 times when I was sure the lane next to me was empty but the blind spot light was on. 4 times, somebody had legitimately come into my blind spot from an unseen angle.

Are you sure you have your mirrors adjusted correctly? Many (most?) people adjust their side mirrors so they can see the rear end of their car, but better method is to adjust them so the images slightly overlap with the center mirror - as described here or here or here. (or Google: adjust car side mirror) This method eliminates all of the blind spots.

To adjust mine, I simply park on a long straight road and adjust each side mirror until the image on the inside edge just overlaps the image on the outside edge of the center mirror.

I just buy the little convex mirrors and stick them on my side mirrors. This way I can see anything to either side of me no matter where they are. I primarily got them for towing my boat but they work great for everyday driving.

But I can tell you that there have been at least 5 times when I was sure the lane next to me was empty but the blind spot light was on. 4 times, somebody had legitimately come into my blind spot from an unseen angle.

Are you sure you have your mirrors adjusted correctly? Many (most?) people adjust their side mirrors so they can see the rear end of their car, but better method is to adjust them so the images slightly overlap with the center mirror - as described here or here or here. (or Google: adjust car side mirror) This method eliminates all of the blind spots.

To adjust mine, I simply park on a long straight road and adjust each side mirror until the image on the inside edge just overlaps the image on the outside edge of the center mirror.

Can anybody give me a reason not to have stability control where that reasons does not contain “fun” or “because”? (which might be sufficient – just looking for any other reasons.)

'Cause, uh, it's a sports car designed for racing?

Mid-engined cars are designed solely to get around corners fast, and they're extremely unstable compared to your average Ford or Honda. The problem is that many are bought by people who have no clue, and end up in a ditch the first time they take their foot off the gas in a corner.

I have had several mid-engine sports cars, both with and without stability control, and you're wrong, mid-engine is the most stable engine configuration a vehicle can have, otherwise why would F1 cars all be mid-engine?

Mid-engine is so stable that the mid-engine Porsche Cayman is commonly known to be the best handling vehicle money can buy:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-mid-vs-rear-engine-debate-porsche-cayman-r-vs-911-gt3-feature
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-porsche-cayman-cayman-s-first-drive-review
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/the-best-handling-car-in-america-for-less-than-100k-feature
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Porsche_Cayman/Performance/
http://jalopnik.com/is-the-new-porsche-cayman-still-the-worlds-best-sports-333874537
http://www.whatcar.com/car-reviews/porsche/cayman-coupe/summary/26174-4

http://www.examiner.com/article/porsche-cayman-world-s-best-sports-car


For a good example of why mid-engine is better imagine a shopping cart with a 30 pack of beer in it and pushing the cart from the back. Front engine is equivalent to putting the beer in the very front of the cart and mid-engine is equivalent to putting the beer at the back of the cart. Try both and tell me which is easier to push around a corner.

So what do I think happened? Fluke 1-in-a-million accident that couldn't be repeated if you tried.

Can anybody give me a reason not to have stability control where that reasons does not contain “fun” or “because”? (which might be sufficient – just looking for any other reasons.)

'Cause, uh, it's a sports car designed for racing?

Mid-engined cars are designed solely to get around corners fast, and they're extremely unstable compared to your average Ford or Honda. The problem is that many are bought by people who have no clue, and end up in a ditch the first time they take their foot off the gas in a corner.

I have had several mid-engine sports cars, both with and without stability control, and you're wrong, mid-engine is the most stable engine configuration a vehicle can have, otherwise why would F1 cars all be mid-engine?

Mid-engine is so stable that the mid-engine Porsche Cayman is commonly known to be the best handling vehicle money can buy:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-mid-vs-rear-engine-debate-porsche-cayman-r-vs-911-gt3-feature
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-porsche-cayman-cayman-s-first-drive-review
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/the-best-handling-car-in-america-for-less-than-100k-feature
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Porsche_Cayman/Performance/
http://jalopnik.com/is-the-new-porsche-cayman-still-the-worlds-best-sports-333874537
http://www.whatcar.com/car-reviews/porsche/cayman-coupe/summary/26174-4

http://www.examiner.com/article/porsche-cayman-world-s-best-sports-car


For a good example of why mid-engine is better imagine a shopping cart with a 30 pack of beer in it and pushing the cart from the back. Front engine is equivalent to putting the beer in the very front of the cart and mid-engine is equivalent to putting the beer at the back of the cart. Try both and tell me which is easier to push around a corner.

So what do I think happened? Fluke 1-in-a-million accident that couldn't be repeated if you tried.

Can anybody give me a reason not to have stability control where that reasons does not contain “fun” or “because”? (which might be sufficient – just looking for any other reasons.)

'Cause, uh, it's a sports car designed for racing?

Mid-engined cars are designed solely to get around corners fast, and they're extremely unstable compared to your average Ford or Honda. The problem is that many are bought by people who have no clue, and end up in a ditch the first time they take their foot off the gas in a corner.

I have had several mid-engine sports cars, both with and without stability control, and you're wrong, mid-engine is the most stable engine configuration a vehicle can have, otherwise why would F1 cars all be mid-engine?

Mid-engine is so stable that the mid-engine Porsche Cayman is commonly known to be the best handling vehicle money can buy:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-mid-vs-rear-engine-debate-porsche-cayman-r-vs-911-gt3-feature
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-porsche-cayman-cayman-s-first-drive-review
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/the-best-handling-car-in-america-for-less-than-100k-feature
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Porsche_Cayman/Performance/
http://jalopnik.com/is-the-new-porsche-cayman-still-the-worlds-best-sports-333874537
http://www.whatcar.com/car-reviews/porsche/cayman-coupe/summary/26174-4

http://www.examiner.com/article/porsche-cayman-world-s-best-sports-car


For a good example of why mid-engine is better imagine a shopping cart with a 30 pack of beer in it and pushing the cart from the back. Front engine is equivalent to putting the beer in the very front of the cart and mid-engine is equivalent to putting the beer at the back of the cart. Try both and tell me which is easier to push around a corner.

So what do I think happened? Fluke 1-in-a-million accident that couldn't be repeated if you tried.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-cadillac-xts-vsport-test-review

Granted, that kicked the price up to $65k or so, but it is a very nice car for 15k less than a Tesla, with a widely supported dealer network and a known cost of ownership.

For the 80k of the Model S, you can buy a very nice BMW or Mercedes.

vehicle speedometers are required to read 100km/h when actually doing 95km/h (or your local equivalent)

Source please?

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/speedometer-scandal
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123119286106955181
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/car-tips/why-you-may-not-be-driving-as-fast-as-you-think/article11487709/

In general, German cars are known to exaggerate speed by up to 10% in order to guarantee compliance with European law (ECE-R39).

In the U.S., it's been historically common to "detune" speedometers in rental cars to exaggerate the speed, and therefore clock up additional miles which are then charged to the renter. It's also been historically common to roll back odometers prior to sales of cars coming from rental fleets to increase their market price as used cars. Both of these practices are illegal these days, but as shown in the articles above, you can get up to a 10% exaggeration in cars which are explicitly within manufacturer specifications, which translates into 10% more miles on your rental bill, if you rent a car from one of those manufacturers.

It's always interesting to hear of novel (to me) industrial processes Apple uses to make its product. Case in point: the article mentions Apple has switch to friction-stir welding.

That would cause a pile-up.

Note the massively different braking distances, even in the same car model - braking differences of up to 40 meters

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-power-to-stop

This idea of cars driving bumper to bumper is pure fantasy, extremely dangerous, would cause a pile-up, regardless of how good inter-car communications is etc.

They can do 160km/h safely, bumper to bumper.

No, they can't.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-power-to-stop

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2012/05/best-and-worst-supermini-braking-distances-285596/

Even with the same car, stopping from 40mph, some stops took 40 meters longer than others. 40 meters is not bumper to bumper.

Pile-ups happen because people don't understand stopping distances.

That's the great thing about electric motors: max torque is at zero Km/h.

Then drops off like a cliff so it has no top end.

Like to see your figures behind that. Car and Driver says:

We measured 0-to-60 mph in 4.6 seconds, a quarter-mile of 13.3 seconds at 104 mph, and a governed top speed of 134 mph. That’s similar to the performance of the V-8 German sedans.

and from what I have read, that's typical. The electric motor keeps up the torque across a much wider band, negating the need for a complex multi-speed transmission. Yeah, the torque drops off, but not until you've blown the doors off most ICE-powered cars simply by flooring the pedal (no clutching, no shifting, just go).
Sure sounds fun to me.

Actually, in the US where almost everyone is driving an automatic...

You know, I see this all the time, but then I read articles like this (where it states the U.S. is single-handedly responsible for BMW making stick shifts available in their higher end saloons): http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-bmw-m5-manual-test-review and http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1211_2013_bmw_m5_first_test/ ("North America is the only continent where you can buy the 2013 BMW M5 with a manual transmission...")

More and more higher end European cars (McLaren, Ferrari, Porsche Turbo) are foregoing the stick shift entirely. (Aston Martin seems to be a hold-out, for now.)

As an American who prefers the precise control of a UNIX command line -- er, manual transmission -- I abhor this sea change. (In the 20 years since I've had my license, I've owned two I6/5-speed Jeeps, a 6-speed equipped Porsche cabriolet, and a 6-speed equipped BMW M3.)

Look, studies have shown that driver reaction time while texting and driving is far, far worse than the reaction time for impaired driving (aka driving drunk), which is clearly illegal. In other words, we (your fellow citizens) are a lot safer with you drunk driving than driving while texting. (See this Car & Driver study: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/texting-while-driving-how-dangerous-is-it) So, apply the same logic as you would with drunk driving. Sure, these drivers were stopped at a red light, but would you expect the cop to look the other way if they were swigging from a bottle of vodka at the same red light ("well, the car isn't moving right now, so...")? He's right to read the law literally and also to assume that if they're texting at a red light, they likely won't stop texting once the car is moving. Take away: texting behind the wheel is a serious danger to public health and should be tolerated to about the same extent that we, as a society, tolerate drunk driving - which is not at all. My 2c.

I've heard the Spark EV is the best of the bunch (smaller, affordable electrics). Car and Driver really seems to love it:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-chevrolet-spark-ev-first-drive-review

Who wants to be a pilot and put your butt on the line every day as you enter enemy territory when you can be a drone pilot half way across the world and go home to your wife and kids every night.

Who wants to drive something dangerous like a Ferrari P4/5 when you can drive something safe and dependable like the Mack Terapro garbage truck? The Ferrari is expensive, has hardly any room for passengers of the opposite sex, is difficult to maintain, and says you don't watch your spending. The Mack truck, on the other hand, is much cheaper, has much more room for members of the opposite sex (even if they have to ride in the back), and maintenance is a snap at many conveniently located dealers. Nobody will question your spending habits if they know you turned down a Ferrari for a Mack. You'd be a fool not to go with the Mack.

Air Force Drone Operators Report High Levels of Stress

Non-drone aircraft pilots love to fly, even if it is dangerous: The Thrill of Flying the SR-71 Blackbird

I think it was an issue of article writer not being able to convert.
http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2014-volkswagen-xl1-photos-and-info-news The car can go 31 miles on battery only, so its not a huge battery.
Its advertised to do 100km on 1 liter (which converted is roughly 261mpg).
Other articles state you can get a range of 700 miles. I think possibly the 310 was supposed to be 310km.

You forgot the most important comparison: Lithium Ion = 400 Wh/l

So hydrogen has no better energy density than batteries, and requires an additional (and very expensive... platinum ftw) fuel cell, has much lower cycle efficiency (the most efficient production method is to make it from natural gas @ ~80% efficiency, the cell itself yields around 50%, so your cycle efficiency is about 40%), and still requires fossil fuels... eg: natural gas. It's also stored under intense pressure (5-10kpsi), the tanks have to be replaced periodically due to pressure cycling and hydrogen embrittlement. Oh, and you can't stop it from seeping out of tank seals, so it also "self discharges."

Oh, and don't forget, 30 minutes to fill for a 150 mile range http://www.caranddriver.com/features/pump-it-up-we-refuel-a-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicle-the-half-hour-fill-up-page-2 . The exact same rate as a Tesla supercharger.

I've never understood why anyone ever looked at hydrogen as a panacea to solve electric car ills.

Sam

Speaking of power in the gas tank, it seems that all these tests are conducted with straight gas, but all you can find at the pump these days is 10% ethanol, which immediately cuts your mph by 3 to 4 mph.

Very few new car advertising even mentions the difference.

Yup, this can be verified by looking at the EPA FAQ at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml

To minimize variability due to inconsistent fuel, they use a specially blended fuel mixture and not anything you'd find at the local gas station.
  The EPA has a specialized company manufacture small batches of consistent fuel, which is 93 octane (cars running 50-state certifications get a slightly different, 91-octane “California” blend). http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-truth-about-epa-city-highway-mpg-estimates-measuring-fuel-economy-page-2

In any case, you're best bet for figuring fuel economy is websites that collect real word inputs from users.

Original article: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/why-is-the-epa-so-bad-at-estimating-hybrid-fuel-economy-feature

First the current 5 cycle EPA test isn't limited to 60mph, it goes up to 80 MPH:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

That isn't the real problem. The real problem is that 85% of "EPA Testing" is actually done by the manufacturer themselves. In effect this is a Take home test.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-truth-about-epa-city-highway-mpg-estimates
"While the public mistakenly presumes that this federal agency is hard at work conducting complicated tests on every new model of truck, van, car, and SUV, in reality, just 18 of the EPA’s 17,000 employees work in the automobile-testing department in Ann Arbor, Michigan, examining 200 to 250 vehicles a year, or roughly 15 percent of new models. As to that other 85 percent, the EPA takes automakers at their word—without any testing—accepting submitted results as accurate. "

Since EPA MPG plays a big part in overall advertising campaigns, and potential EPA penalties, there is strong temptation for manufacturers to cheat.

Two years ago Hyundai had an ad campaign featuring how all models of many of it's cars got 40MPG highway without needed special models. Hyundai scored big increase in sales. But later testing a Consumer Reports showed a few of Hyundais models got less than 40 MPG in CR testing. This is ODD because CR testing is more straight forward and the vast majority of cars beat their EPA Highway rating when CR tests them on it's own test. So the CR testing is something of a Sanity check for catching cheaters. Eventually Hyundai was found to have a systemic "mistake" in their testing (AKA cheating). They had to roll back mileage claims across the board and give payouts to customers.

The discrepancy between CR and EPA for Hyundai models before they were caught cheating was 1-3 MPG.

Fords new Hybrids are now falling short by 6-9 MPG and Ford has a new (successful) Ad campaign targeting Toyota, claiming better fuel economy. These new Ford hybrids are the first to make significant sales inroads against Toyota. If anything MPG advertising has even more effect on Hybrid sales.

It isn't hard to see how Fords interests are benefited by high test scores, on a test they administer to themselves, even more than they were for Hyundai before they were caught cheating. It certainly smells like something rotten in Dearborn Mi.

A few years back I remembered reading an article from car and driver about them winning a MGP competition put on for the original Honda Insight. The games they played make the cheating going on here seem like the work of petty amateurs. Of course that was for fun and bragging rights for the magazines that participated so excessive bending of the rules was to be expected. If interested I suggest reading the article "How We Won the Insight Fuel-Economy Challenge. Without Cheating. Much". I am surprised that the car manufactures in the EU also don't try lowering the oil level so that it barely covers the oil pickup tube when running thus keeping the crank from hitting the oil in the sump or have most vehicles gone over to a dry sump setup. Also if they are going to disconnect the alternator why not also disconnect the water pump and replace it with an electric one like the drag racers do? Granted it won't work for an extended period of time (the electric racing ones are fairly low volume) but I would imagine the vehicle would survive the test track with it.

Generally speaking speedometers are accurate to +/-10%. In the US they can have a variation of +/- 5mph at 50mph. This means that at 60mph you could be as much as 3mph high or low. Factors such as tread depth, tire pressure and other variations cannot be controlled by the manufacturer and can cause a variation of 1-2% easily. Interestingly lower priced cars tend to have more accurate speedometers than higher priced cars and speedometers are usually wrong by a bit over 1mph. By international agreement the indicated speed should never be lower than the actual speed. This makes sense since going slower than you think you are is generally a safer situation for most people most times.

Wireless radio systems have been around for about a century now, and Im not aware of anyone ever pulling off a hack of a car radio system or a radio tower through radio transmission.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229919/Car_hacking_Remote_access_and_other_security_issues
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/can-your-car-be-hacked-feature

But you don't have to gain control of a car to do damage. If you can convince a V2V car that the 5 cars immediately ahead just came to a full stop because of a collision, you may be able to trick it into braking hard, causing a collision behind you.

3) A driver is not strong enough to stop the car against the engine

Check your facts. In the late 1980s Car and Driver could not find any kind of vehicle that could not be slowed with the brakes even with the accelerator held all the way down to the floor. An update to this is at the following link: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-deal-with-unintended-acceleration

In any case, drivers that don't know how to put their car in neutral and cars that can't be put into neutral don't belong on public roads.

Both Toyota and Audi have been accused of this before. In both cases, the DOT determined that the cars were not at fault. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/its-all-your-fault-the-dot-renders-its-verdict-on-toyotas-unintended-acceleration-scare-feature Car & Driver published a How To Deal With Unintended Acceleration in December, 2009 which involved testing cars, including a 540 HP Mustang which was able to be stopped in under 1,000 feet from 100 MPH with the accelerator held continuously to the floor. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-deal-with-unintended-acceleration

Both Toyota and Audi have been accused of this before. In both cases, the DOT determined that the cars were not at fault. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/its-all-your-fault-the-dot-renders-its-verdict-on-toyotas-unintended-acceleration-scare-feature Car & Driver published a How To Deal With Unintended Acceleration in December, 2009 which involved testing cars, including a 540 HP Mustang which was able to be stopped in under 1,000 feet from 100 MPH with the accelerator held continuously to the floor. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-deal-with-unintended-acceleration

So their brilliant technician couldn't even come up with the idea to hit the brakes? That makes me thankful Renault's aren't sold in the US if their techs can't even figure out how to push the brakes, put the car in neutral, or simply turn it off. Before you claim "he was going too fast for the brakes to stop him", that's not true at all. Car and Driver tested various cars for this after the claims of Toyota's accelerating on their own and showed that even modified sports cars (like a Roush Mustang) have brakes powerful enough to stop the car when the pedal is stuck to the floor. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-deal-with-unintended-acceleration

Motor Trend named the Chevy Vega the car of the year in 1971. Car and Driver named the Renault Alliance as one of 1983's 10 best cars. In 1985 the Ford Merkur also made this list. You might enjoy this.

Hey, my first car was a Vega and I resent your insinuation. Mine might have been 15 years old the first time I got behind the wheel of it, but it survived that long, and kept on running... I could get over 100 mph (after accelerating about 5 minutes) in that thing, despite parts of it being held together with chicken wire. Just because our nickname for it was "The Green Skunk"... OK, looking back, it might not have been the car it felt like at the time. No wonder my Mom was so quick to pawn it off on me and get a new car.

Motor Trend named the Chevy Vega the car of the year in 1971. Car and Driver named the Renault Alliance as one of 1983's 10 best cars. In 1985 the Ford Merkur also made this list. You might enjoy this.

In the case of the 'vortex' device you link to, the argument is essentially that ~$1 worth of stamped metal could markedly improve the performance and fuel economy of most vehicles without other notable modifications.

What is even funnier is that the swirling effect is indeed effective against detonation in the cylinder and is ALREADY implemented as a "gouge" in the piston head.

Here is an example:

http://media.caranddriver.com/images/12q4/482258/2014-chevrolet-corvette-lt1-v-8-vvt-di-piston-head-assembly-photo-482395-s-1280x782.jpg

My piston heads look different but you can get the idea.

As a Norwegian.... http://blog.caranddriver.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Global-Gouging-Fuel-Prices-Around-the-World-1280.jpg

Model Ts were actually fairly complex to drive. Car & Driver has a piece on it here: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-drive-a-ford-model-t It's actually way more complicated than even a modern manual transmission car. You'll find that both gun and car design over the 20th century has largely focused on making them simpler and more reliable to operate.

Maybe but C&D did a test on a track with other cars and the 2012 Mustang had better much better lap times over the 2012 Evo. The EVO may "handle" better but in the end when the rubber mets the road and you are no longer racing on paper and theory, the Mustang still crossed the line first.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/best-handling-car-for-less-than-40000-370z-vs-evo-mustang-gt-gti-miata-mini-jcw-feature

Honestly I think the ultimate solution is 2 or 4 independent brushless wheel motors. Eliminate most of the drive train components.

That's what I would think. And apparently if you have half a million to spare you will be able to get that configuration soon:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mercedes-benz-sls-amg-e-cell-prototype-drive