Slashdot Mirror

Generally speaking, the Model S is one of the best reviewed new cars ever.

Motor Trend 2013 Car of the Year
Automobile 2013 Car of the Year

Just as importantly, Elon Musk is a truly great man who has not historically been caught spewing unfounded claims. Consider his eventual vindication about Tesla and SpaceX. People said his rockets were too good to be true (cost vs. capability) and wouldn't work. Now he just needs to scale up production, which he is doing, to corner the entire non-secret space launch market.

People said Tesla wasn't going to ever release a car. Then the Roadster was released. Then people said Tesla wasn't going to release the Model S before going bankrupt. Remember when Elon bet that journalist $1,000,000 that the Model S would be released on time? Yeah, he won that.

I'm suprised people haven't stopped criticizing this guy and got on board. If Elon Musk didn't exist, we wouldn't have PayPal, Tesla, or SpaceX. This is just one guy we are talking about! He revolutionized three separate industries by the time he was 40!

The Volt uses electric motors I believe. There is a special extra transmission that engages at highway speeds to allow the generator to directly drive the car, but otherwise the electric motors are doing the job.

linky with pictures of the gearings

Knock yourself out buddy:

http://www.motortrend.com/new_cars/02/wagons/

I also like how you see regulations as fungible tokens.

Where did you hear that the Volt has two electric motors? That's one of the most bizarre claims I've heard yet. It has a single motor and a gasoline engine.

Don't like that site about the Volt? Here's some more. Good enough for you?

You act like there's a ton of Japanese manufacturers out there. Toyota is going induction. Nissan is going brushless. The other two, Mitsubishi and Subaru, are bit players in the EV field with really minimalist vehicles; I don't think Subaru even has anything that can go highway speeds. In the US, we have Tesla, GM, and Ford actually selling highway-speed EVs. Tesla: all induction. GM: induction on sale, with a prototype unveiled that uses a brushless. Ford: assuming it uses the same motor as their Focus FCV, the focus EV is induction (the EV transit connect definitely is). Others: Th!nk: induction. BMW: two "demonstration" EVs, one induction and one PM.

Yes, there were more permanent magnet ones out there than I realized. But the basic point is the same: the concept that rare earths are necessary to EVs is simply false.

The Golf is better than the CR-Z

It's kind of too bad, too: I was really looking forward to the CR-Z before it came out, as I was hoping for the sportiness of the CRX combined with the efficiency of the (first-generation, 2-door aluminum body) Insight. Instead, Honda fucked it up by only managing to deliver a car with the sportiness of the Insight combined with the efficiency of the CRX!

The 2012 Impreza gets 30% better gas mileage than the 2011.

Read the article, but CVT, lighter body, electric steering - 36MPG for an AWD vehicle is nicely impressive.

Technology, it does good things.

This isn't fair. The 2011 impreza has an extra .5L engine. The new model has only 2L. This makes a big difference and the two vehicles are less comparable then a typical model year change.

The 2012 Impreza gets 30% better gas mileage than the 2011.

Read the article, but CVT, lighter body, electric steering - 36MPG for an AWD vehicle is nicely impressive.

Technology, it does good things.

The guys that really know cars don't agree with you. When Motor Trend tested the 2011 Ford F-150 Pickups "the idea was to see whether it makes more sense for buyers to get the twin-turbo V-6 or the 5.0-liter V-8" (their quote). Continuing they said, "From the dyno and track results, the EcoBoost's performance data makes it a better rival for the 6.2 (liter V-8). The EcoBoost F-150 was fastest of the test..." The story is at http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/trucks/1110_2011_ford_f_150_full_line_test/viewall.html. I've owned a variety of big block and factory turbocharged cars including the real good ones -- 427 'Vette, 6.6 Liter Trans Am, 455 Stage 1 Buick, 3.8 liter Buick Turbo-Regal, GMC Syclone 4.3 liter turbo V-6, Volvo 2.3 liter turbo I-5. The turbo cars were better all around performers than the big blocks -- just as fast and better in every other category. One reason is that with a small, lightweight engine the car can be lighter and better balanced. In a direct comparison, I had a hot-rodder friend who owned the following two cars -- '69 Camaro with a transplanted 427 (L88 427 -- the real factory race engine in the late 60's, 7 liters for the metric oriented reader) and an '86 Buick Regal T-Type with the turbocharged 3.8 liter V6. After some garage tweaks the Regal ran a faster 1/4 mile at the dragstrip than the Camaro, both in the 11's as I recall. And I remember guys breaking rods racing naturally aspirated V-8 cars all the time.

Please support your contention that road damage is solely dependent on number of tires that touch the ground. Here is source directly contradicting you. (Thank you, user mdsolar, for finding this.) This would confirm the GP's post that an escalate @ curb weight of 5900lbs (source) getting 10mpg would do more damage than a prius @ 3000 pounds (source) getting 50mpg.

I'm not going to be surprised when dump trucks become the norm...

Already been done http://www.motortrend.com/auto_news/112_news040921_inational/index.html

http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/1010_unbolting_the_chevy_volt_to_see_how_it_ticks/index.html

With pictures for you.

And here is the line from the article I gave you, it was on page 1. So reading might be something you could try doing:

the 4-cylinder gas engine does provide some assist to the drive wheels.

I live in South Jersey. I pump my own gas. Not because I'm anti-service either, but because I don't trust anybody to properly put my gas cap back on. Every time I let someone else do it, they either forget to put it on crooked, leave it unlocked, or forget to close the gas door. I generally get gas at one location (I don't drive very far) and they know me well enough to let me pump my own gas. All you have to do is say, "this thing's a pain in the ass, let me do it." or "save your strength, I got it." and you're clear.

As an FYI, pumping your own gas into any sort of container (gas can, your car's gas tank, etc.) is against NJ state law.

If the gas cap ordeal bothers you so much, you might want to get a car with a self-sealing fuel filler. Ford has made such fuel fillers standard across its product line: http://wot.motortrend.com/6253125/technology/fords-capless-easy-fuel-filler-to-go-standard-across-range/index.html

"Or they could design the train so that people could drive their cars onto it and park.

It'd kill the airlines in a week."

I was thinking the exact same thing. I'd never fly or drive more than 300 miles again and I'd actually take a train for the first time in my life.

This would also help electric cars because you no longer need a car that can drive 400 miles on a tank of gas and be refilled in 5 minutes.

1) Drive electric car 20-50 miles to train

2) drive electric car onto train

3) leave car and go to quarters for sleeping, eating, etc

4) get back in car and depart train to destination

only problem I see is that a boxcar is only about 10 feet wide while a large SUV is closer to 20 feet long so you couldn't drive vehicles on there the easiest way which would be sideways, they'd have to go lengthway like the train. I'm afraid by the time you loaded hundreds of vehicles on the train most people could have already arrived by plane.

Mind you, Amtrak's Auto Train has been pulling this off for a while, albeit in the limited sense of one route departing each terminus once daily. Were they to add more trains (which itself might not necessarily be practical, considering the way rail traffic observes prioritized access and spacing along a given stretch of track -- but if the departures are 11 hours apart, that'd be OK, wouldn't it? Theoretically, at least?) or more routes (like, say, outside Chicago to San Antonio, or to San Fran or Seattle), Auto Trains could prove extremely popular.

Since there's only one route (Lorton, VA to/from Sanford, FL), the transit to either station to travel on the train can vary quite a bit -- I used the Auto Train to move from SW PA to Tampa last summer, and I had roughly a 2.5-3 hour run from my original hometown to Lorton. Were I moving from just outside of the DC beltway, I would've of course used considerably less fuel (not even driving a hybrid, me) for my trip.

"Or they could design the train so that people could drive their cars onto it and park. It'd kill the airlines in a week."

I was thinking the exact same thing. I'd never fly or drive more than 300 miles again and I'd actually take a train for the first time in my life.

This would also help electric cars because you no longer need a car that can drive 400 miles on a tank of gas and be refilled in 5 minutes.

1) Drive electric car 20-50 miles to train
2) drive electric car onto train
3) leave car and go to quarters for sleeping, eating, etc
4) get back in car and depart train to destination

only problem I see is that a boxcar is only about 10 feet wide while a large SUV is closer to 20 feet long so you couldn't drive vehicles on there the easiest way which would be sideways, they'd have to go lengthway like the train. I'm afraid by the time you loaded hundreds of vehicles on the train most people could have already arrived by plane.

The Tesla Roadster Sport would like to have a word with you.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/convertibles/112_1004_2010_tesla_roadster_sport_2011_porsche_boxster_spyder_comparison/index.html

The 2009 Lexus ES 350 that California Highway Patrol Officer Mark Saylor was driving was a "loaner" vehicle given to him temporarily while his car was being repaired.

It has a "starter button" instead of an ignition key, and requires that the bnutton be depressed for 3 or more seconds if the car is in gear, or it may not function to turn the car off at all over certain velocities.

The shifter has a strange configuration which allows it to "emulate" a manual transmission while it is really an automatic transmission. The "N" position is also used to shift up a gear.
You can almost make it out in this photo at http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_1004_2010_buick_lacrosse_2010_lexus_es_350_comparison/photo_22.html .

Article about why the starter button and transmission human interface may have been factors in the officer not being able to get the car out of gear:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/starter-button-a-factor-in-runaway-lexus-es350/

Article about the crash :
http://www.sandiego6.com/mostpopular/story/Santee-CHP-officer-Saylor-killed-Lexus-accelerator/AzYjOhtvFE2mIuxTtxrK4Q.cspx

The 2009 Lexus ES 350 that California Highway Patrol Officer Mark Saylor was driving was a "loaner" vehicle given to him temporarily while his car was being repaired.

It has a "starter button" instead of an ignition key, and requires that the bnutton be depressed for 3 or more seconds if the car is in gear, or it may not function to turn the car off at all over certain velocities.

The shifter has a strange configuration which allows it to "emulate" a manual transmission while it is really an automatic transmission. The "N" position is also used to shift up a gear.
You can almost make it out in this photo at http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_1004_2010_buick_lacrosse_2010_lexus_es_350_comparison/photo_22.html .

Article about why the starter button and transmission human interface may have been factors in the officer not being able to get the car out of gear:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/starter-button-a-factor-in-runaway-lexus-es350/

Article about the crash :
http://www.sandiego6.com/mostpopular/story/Santee-CHP-officer-Saylor-killed-Lexus-accelerator/AzYjOhtvFE2mIuxTtxrK4Q.cspx

http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/112_1003_unintended_acceleration_test/braking_distance.html

According to their testing, 0 to 37 feet of stopping distance were added to normal stopping distances from 60mph. Basically, at 60mph, they hammered both the accelerator and brakes. It is quite clear to me that brakes on any car should be able to overpower the engine.

Respectfully, from page 5 of the Motor Trend timeline that I linked:

December 26, 2009: A Toyota Avalon crashes into a lake in Texas after accelerating out of control. All four occupants die. Floor mats are ruled out as a cause because they are found in the trunk of the car.

That is when the Toyota recalls appear to kick into overdrive, and within a month sales are halted. I think I was reasonable in saying that mat-less incident is what finally provoked a deeper action on Toyota's part: they could no longer deny a problem less trivial than pedals stuck under floormats.

Except as stated here by Toyota themselves:

"November 8, 2009: The Los Angeles Times claims Toyota had ignored over 1,200 complaints of unintended acceleration over the past eight years because NHTSA had thrown out those reports that claimed the brakes were not capable of stopping the car under an unintended acceleration scenario. In the story a Toyota spokesman confirms the brakes are not capable of stopping a vehicle accelerating at wide open throttle."

http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2010/112_1001_toyota_recall_crisis/october.html

The info above is from page 3. It's actually a very good read.

Because regardless of whether this turns out to be more problems with cars or problems with drivers, Toyota's actions in the matter have been surreptitious at best.

Toyota insisted the problem was with floormats until incidents with mat-less cars forced them to dig deeper.

They are on the record as patting themselves on the back for saving money by not issuing a recall sooner.

The way they have handled this is far more concerning than where the fault ultimately lay.

>>Queue the motortrend brake test? http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/112_1003_unintended_acceleration_test/braking_distance.html [motortrend.com]

Which is wrong, if you have vacuum-assist brakes. When you have the throttle open, your manifold vacuum gets eliminated, so you lose power braking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold_vacuu, and from personal experience - the brakes felt like the car was off.

The brakes were in normal running shape (they get inspected when I get oil changes and the pads, etc., were all fine).

If the car isn't already moving, sure, the engine won't overcome the brakes. OTOH, when a ton of metal is already moving at considerable speed, and the brakes are trying to slow it but the engine is applying an increasing amount of energy, I think you will find you are quite mistaken, I don't care how good condition your brakes are in.

Queue the motortrend brake test? http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/112_1003_unintended_acceleration_test/braking_distance.html

If you didn't fade the hell out of your brakes, which really is very easy to do unless you're using pads made out of a racing compound, then the brakes will stop the car if they are not otherwise broken.

Car&Driver did some tests and found that even with the throttle wide open the brakes can still stop a car, even a 500hp muscle car. With a normal car the distance wasn't even significantly greater than with closed throttle.

According to a test done by Car & Driver, brakes can easily stop cars even against full throttle

So yeah, the real problem is between the pedals and the seat.

This is undoubtedly true, but from what I have read people often don't do the obvious and try to stop the car. If someone is cruising at 70 and the car starts accelerating some people will try to break to keep the car going at 70. Whereas if they immediately braked hard they could stop the car with no problem, if they try to maintain speed for a couple of minutes they won't have much breaking at all. They probably only realise their mistake when the car starts to speed up again.

According to a test done by Car & Driver, brakes can easily stop cars even against full throttle

So yeah, the real problem is between the pedals and the seat.

Citations would have been good. Here they are for reference. There could be more.

December 26, 2009: A Toyota Avalon crashes into a lake in Texas after accelerating out of control. All four occupants die. Floor mats are ruled out as a cause because they are found in the trunk of the car.

Read more

Four Jehovah's Witnesses died when a 2008 Toyota Avalon they were riding inside raced out of control and plummeted into a pond on December 26. ...
Speculations had swelled over whether the car's mat had become stuck on the accelerator, which was one of the reason's Toyota recalled the Avalon, along with several other models. But, investigators found the floor mats in the car's trunk after the accident, ruling out the mat theory.
Read more

the car even with the throttle wide open.

Motor Trend's own test of a Camry found that even with the accelerator wide open the brakes can overcome the engine, easily in fact. Better yet, it still stopped shorter than the Taurus with no accelerator problems!

http://forums.motortrend.com/70/8007011/the-general-forum/c-d-toyota-dealing-with-unintended-acceleration-te/index.html

so take the update, its not like your car hasn't already have a program, one declared defective.

All the replacements I've read about were in the $3600 range

Toyota cut their price in fall of 2008.

2002 Jetta TDI: EPA rating was 42 city, 49 highway

Ah, you must have gotten the GLS sedan. Note that that is both a smaller and weaker car than the Prius. Although, reportedly, more fun to drive despite that, due to the handling. :) Toyota really should put more effort into the numb handling of the Prius; it's not inherent to being a hybrid, just the result of various design decisions they've made. It's gotten a lot better with the 2010 over the Gen 1 and 2, although there's still room for improvement.

Overall, the numbers are pretty damned close to my real-world experience driving the car 85,000 miles over 8 years.

As much as people like to rail against EPA numbers, if you go to their site where people can post their real-world experience numbers, you'll find that they average pretty close to the official ratings.

True, but recall that when I purchased the car Diesel was cheaper than gasoline. So I got better fuel mileage in a car that burned cheaper fuel.

If your issue is cost, then yes, it's fair to compare mpgs (a volumetric comparison), adjusted for price at the pump (note that the price at the pump when you buy is *not* the number you should use, since prices vary so much over time; you should average historical prices and then adjust them forward with projected inflation). But if your main concern is the environment or oil depletion, you want a gravimetric efficiency comparison. And of course, non-CO2 related pollution can't be compared at all by mpgs even adjusting for fuel density; you have to look up the pollution scores on each vehicle (the TDI does much worse than the Prius).

and burn used fryalator oil as my primary fuel.

Obviously that will only support a very limited number of users. On the whole, biofuels are pretty bad for the environment. Growing crops of any kind in general is pretty bad, when you look at the huge amounts of water it gobbles and land it consumes versus how much fuel it produces. You get dozens or even hundreds of times more vehicle miles per acre using solar thermal power to run EVs, for example, instead.

Still, I have to say, you seem to be taking a reasoned approach, and I commend you for that.

1972 Super Beetle: 1850lbs http://forum.rigsofrods.com/index.php?topic=5870.0
1977 MGB Roadster: 2416lbs http://www.mgbmga.com/tech/mgb4(2).htm
1965 International Scout: 3956lbs http://www.4wdonline.com/International/Scout.html

2008 Yaris: 2405lbs http://blogs.motortrend.com/6238178/miscellaneous/top-10-slowest-vehicles-recently-tested-by-motor-trend/index.html
2006 Mazda MX-5 2410lbs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_MX-5
2009 Ford Explorer 4460lbs http://autos.aol.com/cars-Ford-Explorer-2009/available-trims

I think these generally compare with the cars you listed. In general our cars are quite a bit heavier then you'd think. The weight is in the frame of the car and has metal to move the force of accidents around the passenger compartment, and to adsorb the force of impacts by crumpling. All of the plastic and fiberglass is in the exterior panels which have never been structural. Thanks to technology gained in recent years, people walk away from pretty impressive collisions in modern cars. The numbers show us that our cars are many times safer today then they were back in the day.

.7 deaths per 1000 vehicles in 1979 to .2 deaths per 1000 vehicles in 2001 http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/p/161.pdf
Over the last 10 years the number of collisions has stated fairly constant between .15 and .18 per 100 vehicles. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

Did you see where they were marketing the camaro to gay men?

Well, for a start, the car you referenced doesn't even have the same engine as mine, and it's also claiming 21MPG combined, not highway, which is what I claimed in my first post. For highway, the 3.8 gets 27MPG, according to your own reference.

According to the EPA rating on the MotorTrend website the 3.4 V6, which is what I have, gets 32MPG highway. That will be 55MPH driving, and pretty damned close to my 35MPG @50-55MPH.

First lesson: don't jump to conclusions, and assume I have the most powerful version of said car.

Now, when I drop down to 30MPH, my fuel economy increases significantly, probably due to the "frontal area of a barn door" I mentioned. At that, I get 50+MPG.

If you want to argue with me, fine, but don't pull out all sorts of irrelevant or apples-to-oranges references to support your point.

You realize, of course, that:

A) The Quarter ton variants of pickups fits that, exactly, and there ARE SMALLER pickups out there, too.
B) Some people legitimately need to haul more than that, which is why some people buy the Half/Three quarters versions (And usually, businesses, I see a lot of construction companies with them. The larger pickup trucks are generally actually pretty unpopular with the general public). Or would you rather that, instead of buying a three quarter pickup, people go around in an International CXT, because you deem hauling the three quarters model excessive, and they need to pull, for instance, a two horse trailer?
C) The difference between three quarters and one quarters version is a LOT more than just the engine (Chassis, suspension, brakes, Transmission off the top of my head)

Right? I mean, I'd hate to have just fed a troll...

So you name a couple of random defects like GM and Chrysler are the only companies with problems like this?

First hit on google for Toyota recalls: http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2007/toyota/sequoia/recalls/index.html

Oh and there are tons of those.

The fact of the matter is: American made automobiles implement a wider range of technologies and vehicle types than most foreign companies. And they still manage similar quality rankings.

That's not a Miata, that's a cheap crossover of a Miata and an Austin-Healey "Frogeye" Sprite.

http://cars.desktopnexus.com/cat/toyota/

I clicked the first image that caught my eye on that page, which took me here.

This is a Toyota concept car, not in production. The first commenter even suggests its a Toyota-copyright-owned image.

Here are some of the images from that series, attributed to a Toyota press release, in Motor Trend.

Now, I think it is rather stupid of Toyota to destroy free PR and goodwill, but this is not a case of people taking pics of their cars in their driveway.

You can even get a stock minivan with 500 hp. See, everything is possible if you don't limit yourself to buying a trendy piece of shit.

Also, everyone evaluates cars as faces, rather than as machines or butts.

Cars *do* have butts, and sometimes you can tell carmakers put some effort in making them look quite curvaceous.

If the results had been real, by now cars would have evolved to have faces painted on them rivaling the toothy grin on the Curtis P-40s of the Flying Tigers.

Shark teeth painted on a war plane are surely acceptable, but in a civilian car you need a measure of... discreetness? So you have headlights, hood and grille as surrogates to play with.

You mean the two-seater? Of course a full size 4-5 passenger car won't have as low a drag coefficient.

The EV-1 had the lowest drag coefficient (0.19) of any production car ever. Even the Camry (0.27) has less drag. The Volt (.29) could have at least tried to come closer. It just shows they're not pushing for economy as much as for PR.

Sure, its' called a Tesla. If you have $100k laying around, go ahead and buy one.

I will if they still make them in 5 or 6 years when I will be able to afford one.

So, a car that will work fine for half the population is no good? There won't ever be a single vehicle type that will fit everyone's needs. And since a lot of commuters sit in stop-and-go traffic, an electric engine that doesn't idle and waste power is perfect. Plus, you can try to charge the car at work to get 80 miles of battery run-time each day.

Good point. But I was thinking in terms of comparing it to an all-electric that would have the range for everyone. Granted this is currently an expensive option, but it wouldn't have been if GM had supported EV R&D in more than a token way.

No, you pay for the first 40 miles, but it is just more efficient and cheaper.

That's why I said it's LIKE a drug dealer, not that it IS one.

So, you are worried about it's looks?

I am not personally worried about the looks, but I'm worried that GM didn't want it to be a runnaway best-seller like the PT Cruiser was in it's day. Granted this is a weaker argument, but YOU try coming up with 10 reasons for anything!

What does he have to do with the performance of the car?

Bob Lutz is the co-chairman of GM. He is responsible for setting the direction of the company's marketing efforts worldwide. He has outright stated that he does not belive in global warming and this 'green' push is an inconvienience for US automakers. I have no confidence whatsoever that he is devoted to reducing oil consumption in any way at all. This car is designed to increase people's perception of GM as a company. It is not designed to move us into alternative energy sources.

150 MPG is much better than the Prius, and 48 is the exact same as the Prius. And the Prius has no 'battery only' driving option. It's gas all the time. And the Insight is expected to only get about 40 mpg http://wot.motortrend.com/6300311/auto-news/take-that-prius-honda-insight-pricing-will-start-near-19000/index.html

Ok, you got me there. I didn't chack my facts. BUT, I was talking about the previous Insight, not the upcoming one. So I was kind of half right.

Wow, so a new type of car that is being produced for the first time that uses expensive batteries will cost more than a mass produced car that has been in production for years/decades? Thanks, Mr. Obvious!

My point was more about the bait-and-switch dilogue about the price over time, not much about the absolute price. Still, This kind of car would have been a LOT cheaper if any of the bigger companies had started actually working on it years ago when the technology became available instead of now racing to catch up. GM purchased the company that made the EV1 batteries and then quickly decided not to use or sell those batteries to anyone after they destroyed all the EV1s.

Why not make it at least as low as the EV1?

You mean the two-seater? Of course a full size 4-5 passenger car won't have as low a drag coefficient.

Today's Electric cars should be going hundreds of miles.

Sure, its' called a Tesla. If you have $100k laying around, go ahead and buy one.

Sure the 'average' drive is only 33, but that means many are going more than that.

So, a car that will work fine for half the population is no good? There won't ever be a single vehicle type that will fit everyone's needs. And since a lot of commuters sit in stop-and-go traffic, an electric engine that doesn't idle and waste power is perfect. Plus, you can try to charge the car at work to get 80 miles of battery run-time each day.

This is like a drug dealer - I'll give you a free taste for 40 miles, but then you'll have to pay.

No, you pay for the first 40 miles, but it is just more efficient and cheaper.

It doesn't look any different than a Malibu.

So, you are worried about it's looks?

Bob Lutz - This guy needs to retire.

What does he have to do with the performance of the car?

GM claims it's as high as 150mpg, and Motor Trend is more comfortable saying it's 48.Either way, this is lower than either the Prius or the insight,...it's in the middle of the pack for average hybrid economy.

150 MPG is much better than the Prius, and 48 is the exact same as the Prius. And the Prius has no 'battery only' driving option. It's gas all the time. And the Insight is expected to only get about 40 mpg http://wot.motortrend.com/6300311/auto-news/take-that-prius-honda-insight-pricing-will-start-near-19000/index.html

various sources are now reporting that it will be more like $40-$45K unless GM chooses to 'subsidize' the price -in which case it will not be sustainable. Not exactly a car for the masses either way.

Wow, so a new type of car that is being produced for the first time that uses expensive batteries will cost more than a mass produced car that has been in production for years/decades? Thanks, Mr. Obvious!

You're pretty lucky, according to Chrylers page, the 2009 Seabring gets 30mpg highway, the Crossfire gets 25mpg highway, the 300 gets 26mpg highway, and that assumes it switchs from running on 8 cylinders down to 4 for efficiecy. There doesn't appear to be a Concorde this model year so I couldn't get a number for it from the Chrysler directly, but if you go look at some other site such as Motortrend or the like, I think its highly likely that your numbers will be shown to be absolute bullshit. According to Chrysler, thier most efficient vehical, the Seabring Sedan, with the smallest engine available (173hp) gets 30, the rest are worse, some into the teens.

According to a review http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/112_9803_chrysler_concorde_lxi_vs_pontiac_bonneville_se/data_cont.html the 2003 low end model gets 19 in the city, 28 on the highway ...

Its pretty cool that your car gets better milage than any of their current production models get.

Next time I suggest not using an inaccurate method of measurement (the cars computer) and base your information on what you actually used between fill ups and the milage you've driven. I'd also recommend not using the 100 miles you drove down out of the Rocky Mountains as your example.

Even more humorous considering that most cars don't ever actually achieve the sticker value for MPG under normal driving conditions, and rarely do so with the added consistency of cruise control.

While House is right, and most people are stupid, most Slashdotters are not that stupid.

Btw, your a horrible puppet for Chrysler, if your going to bullshit, at least get the numbers close enough they are believable.

For reference, my 2008 solstice told me it was averaging over a 100mpg for a 25 mile trip, with the airconditioner running ... I was driving down out of the mountains of North Carolina and never had my foot on the gas, great milage! My bullshit beats your bullshit.

kthnx

I'm not saying the Mazdaspeed3 or Japanese cars in general are bad cars. No doubt stock for stock, the Mazdaspeed3 would totally blow the doors off all but heavily modded TDI Jetta's performance wise. I was just pointing out how your "torque conspiracy" argument was totally flawed.

Diesel cars only make sense here in the US for two kinds of people: ones that drive over 15,000 miles a year who refuse to drive a gas-powered bottom of the line econobox (this could change if US auto makers and foreign subsidiaries bring more appealing economy cars here), or diesel enthusiasts. Show me a gas car available here in the US that can accelerate from 0-60 in 8 seconds or less, has heated leather interior, power everything, stability control; that can manage 42+ MPG even when you accelerate like a banshee and set the cruise at 80 with the A/C on, and I'll ditch my TDI in a heartbeat.

FYI: Honda and Subaru are two Japanese companies that are already bringing their diesels over to the US.

Just get a Diesel and avoid the whole battery mess... Modern Diesels are quiet, don't stink, and have no problems starting in cold weather. VW will beat the Prius in mileage handily: http://wot.motortrend.com/6293714/green/look-out-prius-volkswagen-golf-bluemotion-diesel-concept-capable-of-60-plus-mpg/index.html Current US Diesels get great mileage, and have no batteries to recycle (other than your standard lead acid car battery). Diesels are wildly popular in Europe where gas prices have long been absurd.

I used to leave muscle cars in the dust at stoplights on my bike, however my 0-60 time was, roughly speaking, forever.

0-20 is probably a more important figure for around town driving. 0-60 is what you need for merging from full stop onto the highway.

Fair enough. 0-20 isn't really commonly stated. How does 0-30 suit you? 2000 Honda Insight: 3.4s. Now, I'm not sure what you (or the poster I replied to) consider to be a muscle car, but that's just slow. Check out this list. The Insight is not beating a Kia Rio or a Toyota Camry or even an H1 Hummer. The only way the Insight is winning off the line is if the other guy reacts slower. Yes, it's light. It also only has 80-odd hp, including the electric motor. It's power to weight ain't that good.

Lumpy, don't forget that when non-US countries state their fuel economy they are using non-US gallons. So if you convert their stated "MPG" to US gallons you lose 20% http://www.google.com/search?q=convert+50+miles+per+imperial+gallon+to+miles+per+US+gallon A far better way of getting people to understand the true cost of their purchase decisions would be to go to a consumption model like many non-US countries already have. (See Frank Markus' editorial at http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial112_0605_technologue_fuel_economy/index.html, where he insightfully states the following) "consider changing from "miles per gallon" to "gallons per 1000 miles." Doing so would mean that, when we apply the EPA's latest correction, instead of a 20-mpg rating dropping slightly to 18, it would soar from 44 to an alarming 57 gallons per 1000 miles. The recovering petroholic's Prius, by contrast, will go from 15 to 21 gptm. That would be a more positive affirmation than a plunge in economy from 60 to 48 mpg would be. Want us to lower our consumption? Let's start measuring it."

And to lamely reply to my own comment, this article at Motor Trend has a FAQ about liquid hydrogen in the context of using it to power automobiles.

According TFA, 1 kg of H2 has roughly the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline. The cost per kg is estimated at $3.50 /kg using the natural gas reformation process to create it or $6.50 /kg using electrolysis. This cost is expected to drop if there is widespread adoption of the fuel source.

You think Americans were "good" Germans have the standardization of things down pat.

It's why HPA motorports was able to create a 500 Hp Beetle using nothing more than common VW Parts.

With minor work for engine bay space and engine mounts, you can bolt up a brand new Audi TT engine to a '79 Rabbit. I can't even begin to name all the parts that are common between my '98 Jetta and my '86 Jetta. Heck, 10 minutes with the engine blocks and you'll start to see similarities between the 1.8L Gasser and my 1.9 TDI.

Furthermore, every single part in my VW has a part number. Every one. I'm doing some custom wiring for rear fogs, even a wire has a VW part number. I walked into the dealer and told him I wanted XXX-YYY-ZZZZ and he told me it'd be a few days and $3. If anyone gets a chance to look in ETKA, there is an option to "see what all vehicles this part number fits". It's absolutely mind boggling.

That could also be because taking a Prius for a joyride is a bit of an oxymoron.

"Hey look, we're almost up to 40!!"

Truly spoken by someone who has never driven one. An electric motor has full torque at a stall unlike a gas engine. My car has lots more pep than the Mustang I traded in. The Mustang was a gutless 4 banger with almost as much get up and go as my old VW beetle. The Prius on the other hand will pass people going uphill at freeway speeds. Stock a new Prius will do well over 100 MPH unlike most economy cars.

Here are some drag strip stats for these gutless econo cars.
http://www.dragtimes.com/Toyota--Prius-Drag-Racing .html
http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/car/112_04_coy _win/specs_price.html