239 MPG Car

Kozmik writes "VW/Audi has a history of being a leader in creating super fuel efficient vehicles. They currently sell the most fuel efficient car in the world, 3L Lupo and the Audi A2, and the most fuel efficient station wagon (Jetta TDI Wagon). Now VW is experimenting with something along the lines of the Honda Insight ( a 2 person vehicle ). The 1L VW concept car can achieve .89L/100kms or 239MPG. With Biodiesel and Ultra low sulfur diesel becoming available, hopefully more of these vehicles will come to North America. These fuels are already available in Europe and combined with the new catalyst technology they use, these new engines produce very low emissions." It's nice to talk about alternative fuels, but I have yet to see a gas station selling one of them.

Comments

Ask and yea shal recieve..

[marcushnk]

don't think its a coincidence that this was posted immediately after "Ask Slashdot: What Makes Great Science Fiction?"

Its allllll one big conspiracy..

VW is doing great work on practical cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the rest of the world is chasing dreams of perfect cars VW has done a lot of work on creating practical cars that are also enviromentally friendly for the meantime. Note that they are also working on ideas that are not yet practical.

Re:VW is doing great work on practical cars

[operagost]

They only drove 75 km/h on the Autobahn, can't be that practical. Okay, it was raining, but I'd like to see what its fuel economy is at over 100 km/h.

I'd also like to see footage of those two guys trying to get out of the car after being shoehorned in for three hours!

You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel?

[blowdart]

It's called supply and demand. If no-one is driving the cars, why would they stock the fuel?

It's exactly the same problem that faced unleaded petrol.

Why did unleaded take off? Well, in the UK a government mandate was passed forcing all cars sold after 1st April 1989 to run on unleaded. An EU directive, 98/70/EC, made selling leaded leaded petrol in the UK after January 2000 illegal.

Until goverments give manufacturers and fuel suppliers a swift kick, errr, benefit to promote new fuels, no-one will bother. (Cue the usual comment about oil companies owning the US goernment here).

Clarity

[Reverb9]

I sure wish that the slashdot editors treaded a little more lightly with their end comments to a story. Just figured I'd point out that, unless I'm misreading the article, the car in question is in fact uses standard diseal fuel, unlike what the end comment implies. Although I can understand the impulse for editors to toss out their little two-cents at the end of the story, why isn't it set-up so that, unless further explainations is required, the editor comments only appear when we click the read-more button (and thus are interested in seeing what other people think about the story). Just my two-cents. (or for that matter don't include them at all).

Re:Clarity

[fobbman]

Better yet, why don't we make them post like the rest of the trolls so we can mod them appropriately?

Wrong country

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to talk about alternative fuels, but I have yet to see a gas station selling one of them.

And you're probably not going to any time soon. You've got a government hell-bent on keeping the flow of cheap petroleum open at all costs. The US simply isn't interested in this type of stuff...typically you're probably 20 years behind where Europe is with this type of thinking and technology. Enjoy your dumb Detroit 5.0 litre pushrod V8 engines while you can...

Re:Wrong country

[marauder404]

The US is actually very interested in fuel economy: Corporate Average Fuel Economy is very much responsible for pushing manufacturers to increase fuel economy. Note that this isn't just American manufacturers, but all auto manufacturers that sell in the US. In fact, this may be a primary reason that BMW launched the MINI brand: to boost the company's overall fuel economy in its largest single market. With talk of it being pushed over 40 mpg, it could be a real race for fuel economy very soon.

Comparing fuel costs in the US to those in Europe is just short-sighted. I agree that the US has interests in keeping oil petroleum prices down, just as every other country in the world, but Europe has chosen to tax their fuel very heavily, making non-gasoline options more attractive. It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison, as those taxes subsidize all kinds of other efforts and don't really reflect the true cost of driving on the consumer.

Re:Wrong country

[Wastl]

Comparing fuel costs in the US to those in Europe is just short-sighted. I agree that the US has interests in keeping oil petroleum prices down, just as every other country in the world, but Europe has chosen to tax their fuel very heavily, making non-gasoline options more attractive.

Europe has chosen to tax fuel very heavily IN ORDER TO making non-gasoline options more attractive. Many European countries are -- contrary to your statement -- interested in keeping the fuel prices up. To protect the environment and to force the car manufacturers to invent motors with more reasonable fuel consumption.

It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison, as those taxes subsidize all kinds of other efforts and don't really reflect the true cost of driving on the consumer.

They are intended to reflect at least part of the true costs -- also counting damages to environment and health, building of new roads, traffic management. Unfortunately, some means of transportation like trucks or planes are not taxed as heavily as others, which is IMO the wrong way.

Sebastian

Re:Wrong country

[10Ghz]

he US is actually very interested in fuel economy: Corporate Average Fuel Economy [doc.gov] is very much responsible for pushing manufacturers to increase fuel economy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't SUV's not part of the CAFE? Which (of course) means that car-makers can still push those gas-guzzling monstrosities and not worry one bit about fuel-economy.

Re:Wrong country

[Munra]

As another reply pointed out, this comment is completely wrong.

The most popular selling type of car in the US is the SUV, which is excluded from the CAFE. These can be as unefficient as 10mpg in certain conditions, and the manufacturers have no incentive to improve this.

Saying that the US is very interested in the fuel economy is absurd: not only will they not make any substantial effort to make sure manufacturer's increase efficiency, they also refuse to look at other factors (such as road surfacing) because large corporations might make a few bucks less.

Re:Wrong country

[marauder404]

Yes, SUVs are exempt from CAFE, which is a huge loophole that many SIGs are interested in closing. There's a big controversey about 6,000 lb trucks and the exemptions that they get.

Re:Wrong country

[marauder404]

Europe uses its fuel tax for all sorts of things, not just related to transportation. As much as 80% of the price per liter that consumers pay goes to the government. That's very high and makes it almost intolerable. Europe could make their fuel much more affordable if they wanted to, but they've chosen to structure their tax system in a manner which makes it difficult. I have admittedly limited understanding of Europe, but all I ever hear is complaints about the cost of driving. I just don't feel that taxing to encourage certain things (such as sin taxes for cigarettes -- apparently it's about $8/pack in NYC) are the proper way to deal with such things.

Re:Wrong country

[marauder404]

My comment wasn't wrong -- but it was admittedly incomplete. SUVs and trucks aren't included in CAFE because when CAFE was first legislated, SUVs didn't exist (they at least weren't named as such). However, now, with top pick-up trucks more than doubling the sales of top consumer vehicles, it's difficult situation. Should vehicles used for commercial traffic be included in CAFE? Should 18 wheelers and farm tractors? Or should it be just those limited to passenger vehicles? How do we count just those sold to consumers? How do states report those vehicles that are commercially registered vs. those that are privately registered? It's a sticky issue with no clear answers. So, yes, I'll concede that the US hasn't covered EVERY single option to completion, but you can't do everything at once. There's always something to criticize about everyone if you hunt long enough (such as why aren't catalytic converters mandatory in Europe?). BTW, road surfacing isn't really considered a viable option for the US because of its high cost per mile. With many more miles of roadway than any other country in the world, it's a daunting task. It's too easy to oversimplify situations in these posts, but it's suffice to say that everyone could be doing more.

Re:Wrong country

[Joseph Vigneau]

Seriously though most of those SUVs out there cannot take a whole hell of a lot, they are designed for the road with the "look" of being able to do what they can't. Are they uses for SUVs? Sure, but they are a hell of a lot less then there are SUVs to justify.

Heh.. Just this weekend, there was a quick snow shower in western Massachusetts. Ahead of me, on a hilly back road, I saw an SUV struggling to make it up a slippery hill; it eventually made it up the hill, though it was crabbing at about 30 degrees all the way up... I simply dropped my (2WD) Passat into 2nd, and cruised straight up the hill with nary a slip. I always smile when I see a disabled SUV on the side of the road in the winter..

Re:Wrong country

[avdp]

People would complain if the fuel taxes were 5% too. That's the thing about taxes, love to hate them. But the truth of the matter is that taxes in europe are higher all around (income, sales taxes, etc) and apparently, in spite of the grumbling, we're apparently quite happy with the socialist governments in place in most of europe which provide us with all kinds of benefits and protections that Americans (with their lower taxes) can only dream of having (free education, free healthcare - yes, I know it's broken in the UK, etc.)

Hey! All I am saying is that European countries are all democratic. Looks like we've made our own bed.

(I now live in the US, but it has nothing to do with taxes...)

Re:Wrong country

[Martin Blank]

This may have something to do with population density enforcing a move to public transportation. I've spent the last few minutes using the CIA World Factbook to compare the US population and area to that of the European nations west of the old USSR boundaries. The conclusion?

USA
Population: 280,562,489
Land Area: 9,158,960 sq km
Population Density: 30.63 people per sq km

Europe
Population: 567,355,034 (202.22% of the United States)
Land Area: 5,372,251 (58.66% of the United States)
Population Density: 105.61 (344.76% of the United States)

Europe (excluding former Warsaw Pact and Yugoslavia)
Population: 469,328,309 (167.28% of the United States)
Land Area: 4,425,959 (48.32% of the United States)
Population Density: 106.04 (346.17% of the United States)

When you have three and a half times the population density, you really have to get creative in how you handle transportation. To match this kind of density, the United States would need a population of 971,000,000. I imagine we'd come up with something in that case, too.

Re:Wrong country

[operagost]

Those pushrod V8s went out of production in the mid 1990's. YOU get with it.

Your post is an utter troll and I feel sorry for the fools who modded it up.

Re:Wrong country

[operagost]

It was probably a 2WD vehicle as well, in which case vehicle like your with more weight over the drive wheels would certainly have an advantage.

Re:Wrong country

[bbc22405]

The US is actually very interested in fuel economy: Corporate Average Fuel Economy [doc.gov] is very much responsible for pushing manufacturers to increase fuel economy.

If this were true, then the average fuel economy of US "cars" would be increasing. It's not. Ergo, what you say is not true. CAFE does not push manufacturers to increase fuel economy. Instead, manufacturers push the US Congress to not alter the CAFE target values, and to not include SUVs when calculating the CAFE values.

Perhaps you recall a recent political discussion, in which US legislators (probably Republican members of the House) were saying that "soccer moms shouldn't have to drive anything smaller or more efficient than their Ford Behemoths, lest their precious darlings be crushed in a collision with a Chrysler Monstrosity". (That was paraphrased, of course, from the slightly more comments of the gulty parties.)

With talk of it being pushed over 40 mpg, it could be a real race for fuel economy very soon.

Talk is just that, and nothing more.

Comparing fuel costs in the US to those in Europe is just short-sighted.

You'll have to explain that one for me. What do you mean by "short-sighted"? In what way? I don't see how a short-term or long-term viewpoint has anything to do with such a comparison. But before you get started with your "explanation", I will remind you that the ONLY thing that ever dramatically improved the fuel economy of US cars was the huge jump in gas prices in the 1970s.

It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison, as those taxes subsidize all kinds of other efforts and don't really reflect the true cost of driving on the consumer.

And your point would be? The tax I pay on a new pair of shoes does not reflect the true cost of walking, and subsidizes all kinds of other efforts. We do not need to adopt the Libertarian viewpoint (?) that each activity should be taxed at exactly the level needed to pay for that activity. Taxes can be a tool to influence policy, alter behavior, fund projects which have no obvious source of income, etc.

Re:Wrong country

[Hard_Code]

Hey, if we increase fuel efficiency, people will just drive more! (actual argument heard somewhere)

Plus, we all know SUVs are SAFER than cars (by virtue of the fact that they are not cars which are crushed by SUVs - by this logic TANKS are SAFER than SUVs, and, uh, 5 tanks combined into a SUPERTANK is safer than a TANK!)

Re:Wrong country

[stomv]

Yes, SUVs and pickup trucks are exempt. But there's more... the Big 3 lobbies Congress and is able to get expemptions, so that the CAFE standards aren't enforced, no less raised in levels like they were intended to be. Japanese and German automakers are leading the environmental way, and the Big 3 have shown nothing but vapourware.

If CAFE was enforced with raising levels over time, and SUVs and pickups encluded -- you'd see a few things very quickly:

1. Dramatic change in marketing.
2. SUVs with higher prices, while
3. Efficient cars with lower prices, and in the longer term
4. Improvements on the technology, both in concept and in application, so that autos reduce their environmental impact while increasing the safety of the passengers inside and outside the vehicle.

Re:Wrong country

[Bishop]

There is a problem compareaing straight numbers like that. The USA has some large empty areas like Alaska , and the south west deserts that are sparsely populated and skew the numbers significantly. You should see a map that plots population density to geographical area. You will find that parts of the USA, such as the eastern seaboard, have popluation densities that are more comparable to Europe.

Re:Wrong country

[twinpot]

They're also exempt from many other regulations too, like bumper height and several other safety related regulations (here in Europe and in the US).

In fact, non-conformity to bumper height regulations is the prime reason they are so destructive when hitting normal cars.

Re:Wrong country

[jonbrewer]

The US is actually very interested in fuel economy: Corporate Average Fuel Economy [doc.gov] is very much responsible for pushing manufacturers to increase fuel economy.

I wonder if you read the link you referenced...

"The passenger car standard, currently at 27.5 mpg, has not been increased since the 1986 model year."

This clearly shows that the US is not interested in fuel economy. The US hasn't raised the bar on passenger car fuel economy in sixteen years!

I have been driving a tdi Golf for 30 months now, and am constantly amazed at the performance of the car and the fact that I spend $20 USD to fill up every 450-500 miles. I wonder how people have been brainwashed into accepting $25 fills of ultra-premium every 250 miles, and how long this will go on.

Re:Wrong country

[Rich0]

Road surfacing is a classic case of the folks who have to pay the money don't get any benefit from spending more. Another good example is road salt.

Typically, road salt is made up of stuff like NaCl (table salt) - melts ice just fine, but also eats up car bodies pretty well.

An alternative is something along the lines of acetate-based salts (it's been a while since I read up, but ammonium acetate seems to be coming to mind). These salts do just as well on the ice, but are biodegradable and don't do nearly as much damage to car bodies.

Why isn't COONH4 used on the streets? Well, it costs about ten times as much. However, if you figure in the estimated reduction in corosion damage to cars due to salt as well as reduced damage to the enviornment, it comes out MUCH cheaper. However, the cost of salt is paid by the department of transportation, and the cost of body damage is paid by individuals.

Short-sightedness like this happens all the time - just part of the budget process in most companies and governmental departments...

Re:Wrong country

[ksheff]

Yes, manufacturers who want to sell vehicles in the US have to meet those standards. But do you think the foreign makes have to try very hard to meet them? If they do, they are the luxury car makes and they treat the fines as a tax and bump up the price of the vehicle a bit. Their target market isn't going to care that much. BWM is having success with the Mini because it's a nice well made small car. They saw that they could exploit a niche that would otherwise buy VWs or Japanese cars and if it does help w/o the CAFE fines, that's even better. Unfortunately, a large number of people still refer to these things as death traps and think they are a tin can like the Metro just because they are small.

However, if you haven't noticed, the US automakers are pushing SUVs, light trucks, and minivans because they are mature designs, have higher markup and aren't subject to the same CAFE standards. That's why US ave fuel economy has gone down over the last decade. Light trucks weren't included with passenger vehicles in the 70s because most of those were use for commercial and agricultural uses. Subjecting them to the higher standards would have limited their usefulness in those roles. The manufacturers are exploiting that loophole and minority of what is in the light truck category is actually used for what they were designed for. They are largely passenger vehicles. Even though the PT Cruiser is based on the Dodge Neon, because of the body design puts it in the light truck category, so their sales do not impact the CAFE averages for Chrysler. IMHO, since light trucks are largely being used for passenger vehicles, they should be included in the CAFE standards. Some of the existing designs could continue to be sold as heavy duty variants that require a commercial license to purchase.

Re:Wrong country

[Martin Blank]

Of course. What this means, though, is that there are also segments of the United States where there is room to continue spreading. I live in Southern California, and while I have the luxury of a shift that does not require me to drive in heavy traffic all that often, I do quickly tire of traffic when I do have to experience it. I'm considering moving in the next couple of years to a somewhat less fully-populated area, probably far from the current locale.

Europe, on the other hand, has considerably less expansion room, other than up. This means less room for new roads and highways, and dictates more spending on railways and busses, which can carry a higher proportion of people per volume. I'd love to see more rail here in SoCal. There was recently a plan to add a nice 35-mile rail system linking just north and central Orange County, with some spurs including around where I work and live. I was all for it -- except the central county NIMBYs have managed to scale it back to a mere 12-mile line, and it goes nowhere near where I work and live. Oh, well.

Re:Wrong country

[poot_rootbeer]

Many European countries are -- contrary to your statement -- interested in keeping the fuel prices up. To protect the environment and to force the car manufacturers to invent motors with more reasonable fuel consumption.

And to collect more tax monies on the sale of fuel.

No one sets governmental policy based solely on environmental concerns. Not even Europeans!

Re:Wrong country

[Wolfier]

USA
Average Adult Weight: 300 lb

Europe
Average Adult Weight: 150 lb

If you take body mass into account, they're about equal! Obesity should be a crime!!

Re:Wrong country

[dohcvtec]

Those pushrod V8s went out of production in the mid 1990's
Apparently, the parent is referring to the Ford 4.9 liter V8 (really, it's not 5.0 liters, check the specs,) which apparently is out of production. So you're right on that point. However, there are other pushrod V8s still available, most notably several varieties from GM: even the Corvette still comes with a pushrod V8. Not to mention the venerable GM 3800 V6.

Re:Wrong country

[dohcvtec]

these engines are making far closer to one HP/CID than any of the tin-can econoboxes
Well, I've got just one such "tin can econobox" in my driveway: a Honda Civic, 2002's #3 top selling car in the US. The base Civic engine is 102 CID, and power ouput is 115 HP. That's 1.127 HP/CID. For comparison, look at the Corvette. It has as standard a 350 HP, 350 CID V8. That's 1 HP/CID, less than the Civic. And don't forget, the Corvette is one of the highest-performance vehicles sold in the US. Yet its V8's specific output is less than that of many economy cars' 4-cylinders. In the end, though, it all goes to show there's no substitute for cubic inches.

Re:Wrong country

[Dahan]

1 km^2 =~ .6 mi^2

Uh.... no.

1 km ~= .6 mi. Square both sides and you get
1 km^2 ~= .36 mi^2. Or to be more precise, 1 km^2 ~= 0.38610216 mi^2.

But it's true that there's no way 1134.5 people/mi^2 = 2938 people/km^2. Try 438 people/km^2.

Re:Wrong country

[Guppy06]

" There is a problem compareaing straight numbers like that. The USA has some large empty areas like Alaska , and the south west deserts that are sparsely populated and skew the numbers significantly. You should see a map that plots population density to geographical area. You will find that parts of the USA, such as the eastern seaboard, have popluation densities that are more comparable to Europe."

You can get a ballpark estimate of population density by looking at miles of road per capita the countries in question have (more dispersed the population, the more driving it takes to get anywhere). And looking at that brings us back to "Europe is a heck of a lot more densely populated than the US." Hell, Canada's population is more concentrated than the US.

Re:Wrong country

[Ctrl-Z]

Hey, if we increase fuel efficiency, people will just drive more! (actual argument heard somewhere)

Your implication seems to be that this argument is bogus. I personally know several people that limit their driving due to the cost of fuel and/or the environmental impact.

People that drive less because the fuel is expensive would drive more if their cars used less fuel. It seems logical to me.

As to your second argument, it's quite logical that tanks are safer than SUVs. I'm sure people would drive tanks if they weren't prohibitively expensive and/or illegal. Look at all the folks that drive (gasp!) Hummers.

My comments above do not endorse the driving of SUVs, tanks, pickup trucks, moon rovers, or Hummers. I drive a Cavalier, which still isn't great, but it's better.

Re:Wrong country

[Grab]

It's worse than that. With SUVs being as they are, the *average* fuel economy of US cars is *way* less now than it was 10 years back. From the EPA site (link here):-

The average fuel economy for all model year 1999 light vehicles is 23.8 miles per gallon (MPG). Within this category, average fuel economy is 28.1 MPG for passenger cars and 20.3 MPG for light-duty trucks. The 1999 fuel economy average is the lowest value since 1980 and is 2.1 MPG less than the peak value of 25.9 MPG achieved in both 1987 and 1988. Average fuel economy for new light vehicles has dropped 1.0 MPG since 1996.

Grab.

Re:Wrong country

[El]

If the US was actually interested in fuel economy, they'd make those fuel economy standards apply to SUVs as well.

Re:Wrong country

[dubious9]

SUV are not safer than cars. Its true that SUV get less damage than cars in an SUV-car collision, but the cars is much more damaged than the SUV. Thus driving near SUVs is dangerous for me in my car. Secondly, SUV to SUV collisions results in more casualties than car to car collision. Think about it, increase the total mass of a collision system and more energy will be released when they collide. Thus an SUV is either more dangerous to other people in cars(SUV/car), or more dangerous to you than if everybody where driving cars(SUV/SUV). SUV may be safer to you considering more people drive car, but you are increasing the risk for everybody by driving one. In my opinion, SUVs are the scourge of the road. Buy a freaking mini-van, your never gonna take it off road anywhay.

Re:Wrong country

[Bishop]

Canada's population is more concentrated than the US.

Probably not. The most densly populated parts of Canada are only above 50 p/sqkm and those are cities. Canada's largest cities are only in the 2-3million (1e6) range.

Re:Wrong country

[Guppy06]

"Canada's largest cities are only in the 2-3million (1e6) range."

Canada's overall population is in the 1E7 range. That means it only takes ten cities (which I'm sure the Canadians have) put most of those people in a relatively small area. Looking at that map I can spot Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec... Hell, I can even spot Yellowknife.

And the rest of Canada doesn't even rate on the chart. If anything, that map supports my argument that the US has a more even population distribution than Canada.

Re:Wrong country

[marauder404]

You're right -- average fuel economy is not increasing, but manufacturers are definitely introducing more fuel efficient cars. So while they're developing them and producing them, they're not selling nearly as well. CAFE is partially responsible for creating the higher efficiency cars that the public doesn't really want to offset the production of the shitty SUVs that people do want. At least it got the option there. I'm not sure if taxing the hell out of gasoline is the right move. I don't like the idea of sin taxes on cigarettes, either, at ~$8/pack in NYC.

You'll have to explain that one for me. What do you mean by "short-sighted"? In what way?

Perhaps I misspoke, but what I meant was that looking at the prices of gasoline the consumer pays doesn't really yield all the information about why those prices are set that way and how much. You're right in that taxes can be used for all kinds of purposes -- it's just that I don't think that should be the case. :)

I'm a huge fan of cars, so I'd live in Europe just for the cars alone! I don't like SUVs, so they can all go! Just gimme some of those sportscars that you just can't get here! If only that gasoline was a li'l bit cheaper!

Re:Wrong country

[Martin Blank]

I know the comment is somewhat facetious, but look at the number of wars in Europe compared to the number in North America, even including the Indian Wars. Looking at a smaller scale, consider the violent crime rates in the inner city with those in the extremely rural districts. You may have a more valid point here than you know.

Re:Wrong country

[MtViewGuy]

I think once low-sulfur diesel fuel becomes widely available, the concerns about CAFE on trucks and SUV's will actually go down.

The reason is simple: a turbocharged diesel engine is actually better suited for SUV's and pickup trucks than regular gasoline engines, because the initial startup torque of a modern diesel engine is nothing short of extraordinary, to say the least. That high level of low-end torque is perfect for pulling heavy trailers and driving a SUV in rough terrain. GM's Duramax diesel engine found on their pickup truck models is proof you can pull 7,000 lb. trailers at around 18 miles per US gallon fuel mileage, which is actually superb fuel economy considering the load on the engine.

Just switching most of our pickup trucks and larger SUV's to a 2002-technology turbodiesel engines would raise CAFE of trucks and SUV's by 25% to 30%--and low-sulfur diesel fuel will allow this to happen.

Re:Wrong country

[Bishop]

If you saw a map of the US you would see the same thing. Have a look at the USA state by state
census. Compare The eastern states to the central states, and western states.

Have a look at these census numbers for Canada's 27 Metropolitan areas. The top four cities have 1, 2, 3.5, and 4.7 million people. Two more cities are just under 1million, 3 more are just under 700thousand. The other 18 areas are spread between 150, 450 thousand. Does this really mean the population is more concentrated? The largest population centre, Toronto, has a density of 603 p/sqkm. Compare this to the entire state of New Jersey: 437p/sqkm. That is a "high density" city compared to a state. New York state is better at 155p/sqkm. But this is still higher then the density of southern Ontario and Quebec. The most densly populated regions of the country. 20% of the popluation live in small towns of 10k or less. These seems to compare favorably with the USA where 80% of the population live in "metro."

*My 2-3 million number was wrong. I suspect the difference is due to the use of "metropolitan area" versus city.

Re:Wrong country

[Guppy06]

"There is a problem compareaing straight numbers like that."

Then let's go to the World Gazetteer and look at some population numbers. How about we look at some Western countries and see how much of that country's population lives in the three most populous cities:

France: 5.71%
Germany: 7.49%
Italy: 8.23%
Spain: 12.88%
UK: 15.04%

I don't think we need to go on to the smaller countries, I think you can see the pattern. Keep in mind that these are cities and don't include the surrounding metropolitain area (just urban areas, not suburbia). On to North America:

Canada: 16.76%
Mexico: 12.00%
USA: 5.13%

And you say the population distribution in the US is "similar" to that of Western Europe?

Let me go on to just the single most populated city in each country:

France: 3.57%
Germany: 4.01%
Italy: 4.37%
Spain: 7.41%
UK: 12.37%

Canada: 8.16%
Mexico: 8.67%
USA: 2.79%

Hell, the US number for three cities is less than most of Europe's numbers for just one.

We don't have a history of building fortified cities around castles that Europe and Southeast Asia have. We don't have a harsh climate forcing us to stick together that Scandinavia, Russia and Canada have. Nor do we have the limited resources of Third World countries forcing us to stay in our cities. Unlike Australia and South America, we've conquered and populated our interiors. When all is said and done, our distribution more resembles India and China more than it does Europe, and we achieved such a homogeneous distribution in far less time (the other two literally had millenia).

"You will find that parts of the USA, such as the eastern seaboard, have popluation densities that are more comparable to Europe."

Note that you said "Eastern Seaboard" and not "New York" or "Philadelphia." Europe has population spikes like Paris, London, and Brussels. The US has the I-95 corridor, which stretches from Boston to DC (if not Richmond). The closest thing Western Europe has to that kind of dispersal of urban areas is the Rhine Valley, and that's not anywhere near the same scale.

Re:Wrong country

[Bishop]

You are correct that we have spent for more time on this then necessary.

I will add that your numbers for %living in cities is quite different then when I was fiding from US census info. From New York State Data Center there is a link to 2000 demographic data by city/area that at a quick glance indicated 6.4million of the 10million non-NYCers lived in the major centers of Buffalo-Niagra, Naussa-Suffolk, Rochester, Albany, and Syracuse. I chose NY as a counter to Ontario as New York and Southern Ontario have much in common: climate, geography, industry, and colonization periods. This is obvioulsy not my field of expertise. I may be misinterpreting these results.

Those cities you list are huge, made up largely of low density houseing. Toronto-Missisauga-Vaughan are indestinguishable. That is why I looked for metropolitan areas. Toronto itself is only recently one city. 5 years ago Toronto was Toronto City, Richmond, North York, York, Scarborough, and a few more. Similarly Ottawa and Missisauga are almagamated cities. Ontario's excuse is that it is the most southerly part of Canada. It is the closest to the big US markets. All the jobs are there.

Large tracts of Canada are uninhabited because few people can afford to live in the middle of nowhere. People want to live around the population centers where they will find work, schools, and places to shop that don't involve driving for 4 hours.

I disagree that Canada's population is "a lot more concentrated." The population densities don't support your argument. Northern Ontario is said to be 60% of the landmass, and 2% of the population. So 40% of Ontario is "Southern Ontario." Just as a thought process move the line farther south and say that everyone in Sudbury and Ottawa moved south making Southern Ontario 20% of the landmass and 12million people. That is still only a population density of 66 p/sqkm. If we exclude NYC that still leaves the State of NY with a density of about 75 p/sqkm. Compared to NY the people of Ontario have the same backyards. The economic ramification of the difference in population densities is that if a company is looking to sell communications or transport, said company has less customers for the same infrastructure cost. That is why there are fewer roads and kms of phone line in Canada.

Re:Wrong country

[Bishop]

You can't compare cities like this. The old 1996 pre almagamation Greater Toronto Area was 630sqKM, with a population of 2.4million. Compare this to say Paris: 105sqKM 2.2million. You have to include the greater urban area.

239 MPG car

[cadzow]

At the risk of being cynical, when did MPG become a consideration in the US? Gas prices are so cheap compared with Europe, so where's the incentive?

Re:239 MPG car

[evilviper]

Gas prices are so cheap compared with Europe, so where's the incentive?

Sure, gas isn't insanely expensive, but that doesn't mean it's free. Sure, there's less of an incentive, but it's still an issue.

If a 500MPG car came along, everyone would be interested. If the pricetag is very high, and it falls apart every 100,000 miles, of course it wont sell at all.

Re:239 MPG car

[Openadvocate]

so where's the incentive?
There's isn't one, which is why it won't sell. Hell, if I lived in the US I wouldn't care about fuel economy or pick up friends to split the costs of fuel when driving across the country for xmas. But since the fuel price is so high, I buy a small car(there are better things in life to waste money on, than fuel) and make arrangements so the car is filled up with people for those long trips in the holidays.
I the price of fuel was half of what it is, I would have a car that uses twice the amount of fuel and we would all own a car and drive by ourself.

Re:239 MPG car

[will_die]

Except that 30 year guess is based on the oil in existing wells and oil that can be easly obtained.
It does not count new wells and new process for getting oil. Once the price of gas in the US starts to cost the amount they current pay in Europe, around $4.50 a gallon,(everyone pays the same low amount for the actual fuel, the taxes are what jacks up the price) they can start opening old oil wells and extracting left over oil using new methods.
Based on tests with the new processes the US alone has more extractable oil, in old wells only, then Saudi Arabia had at its peak with the current extraction methods.

Re:239 MPG car

[mpe]

With your current little debacle in the Middle East, I would have thought the idea of ridding yourselves of dependance on gas/petrol would be a good incentive.

But then the US would have to find somewhere else to go to war with :)

Re:239 MPG car

[Tyler Eaves]

>and it falls apart every 100,000 miles

Uhhh... [User points at Ford, Chevy, just about every american made car...]

Re:239 MPG car

[paradesign]

to most americans, its not. Which is why shit like this is being made!

It also explains why im moving to europe in a month from detroit!

Re:239 MPG car

[evilviper]

Uhhh... [User points at Ford, Chevy, just about every american made car...]

[User's message is completely besides the point.]

Re:239 MPG car

[Martin Blank]

Having worked for an oil exploration company (Unocal), I know that this is already done. The efficiency with which existing wells are tapped is much higher than it used to be. Unocal does mostly off-shore work in the Gulf of Mexico, off of Indonesia, and some exploratory work off of West Africa (with smaller operations in many other locations), and I remember talking to some of the engineers about the process.

Some of the initial investigation is done using sounding from a boat to check out the sea bed and the underlying geology, and they usually return four reels of tape that contain more than a terabyte of information each. This is then run through computers to determine the true geology to great detail, and if it looks like there's a possible profit to it, further work is done to investigate whether a drill rig should be put into place. This is not a lightly-made decision by any means; these rigs can take more than a year to construct and are very expensive to operate. Every single one of them uses the latest available technology, so no two platforms -- even in the same field -- are quite alike because they are usually started at least a few months apart, and the state of the art advances even in that short time. Rigs are left in place until the very last possible barrel of oil has been extracted, and sometimes longer than that if a possibly promising new technology that can be refit to an existing rig becomes available. These rigs also are the endpoints for more and more wells, sometimes covering hundreds of square miles for a single rig with wells going off at all angles, decreasing the cost for tapping a given field.

Once a rig is no longer useful and there's no immediate hope of re-use, its wells are capped (though the caps can, of course, be removed later), the rig abandoned, and either scrapped or scuttled. If scrapped, the materials get reused, and if scuttled, the fish get a new home and place to play.

Much research is now going into investigating the heaviest crude oils. This stuff is thick beyond belief, and almost impossible to pump with current technology. Oil companies have been investigating how to do this for the last 25 years or more, starting around the energy crisis of the '70s when OPEC flexed its muscle, and have made some progress, but it's still not a profitable field at this point. I remember reading an article long ago that suggested that the US is sitting on a virtual sea of this ultra-thick oil that could allow for total domestic consumption, but because it can't be pumped, it sits there, waiting for the day when we get advanced and/or desperate enough to do something with it.

Re:239 MPG car

[lucifuge31337]

Uhhh....driving a 150k+ mile '97 F150 which I have SERVICED and MAINTAINED. Runs fine, only had one semi-major repair (steering box leaked after I had to beat the pittman arm off to replace it). The problem is less with American cars and more with Americans drivers who don't maintain their vehilces properly.

Re:239 MPG car

[cardshark2001]

At the risk of being cynical, when did MPG become a consideration in the US? Gas prices are so cheap compared with Europe, so where's the incentive?

At the risk of responding to a troll, the current trend of SUV's in the US which pollute the environment twice as much as a normal car, also support terrorism, because most of our oil comes from Islamic jihadist nations.

Secondly, if we go to war with Iraq, we may find that the price of oil goes up.

Re:239 MPG car

[ncc74656]

and it falls apart every 100,000 miles

Uhhh... [User points at Ford, Chevy, just about every american made car...]

Quit yer trolling. Around here, I see many more older American cars on the streets than older imports. I usually run across another '77 Cutlass once or twice a week...and that's just one model from one year. Most of 'em are putting less crap into the air than the typical riced-out Civic or Corolla that's less than half as old, too, and they'll keep on going long after your average ricer has fallen apart at the side of the road. Maybe you don't mind sending your money to Tokyo every five or ten years, but I expect my vehicles to last longer than that...and I'd rather support our economy than someone else's.

Re:239 MPG car

[paradesign]

where do you think the seqouias and 4runners are marketed, in europe, NO, in japan, NO, in america YES! they make money off of us so they make shit for us, its a simple concept.

but then what do they make for them selves? you may ask. well the k class in japan is a good place to start and includes the Honda Beat. IN europe Audi and Mercedes make the A2 and A class respectively, as well as the Smart car.

the rolls royces and ferraris are niche vehicles and are made with extremely low production numbers, hence there price. they are not made to be economical in any way because merely owning one is extravagent.

and yes american cars are on the whole behemoth pieces of shit, get a clue about what your talking about before you open your pie hole again. A little market research goes a long way.

oh and by the way, the G500, was originaly made for military only purposes, like range rovers, and their production numbers are also exceptionally low.

Re:239 MPG car

[bluGill]

I used to spend ~$250/month on gas, just getting to work and back. That is a major part of my paycheck going to fuel. (And I get 22mpg, I don't know how people with 12mpg SUVs with longer commutes can afford it) Not quite enough to make payments and insurance on a high gas milage car, but I calculated it several times. Did I mention that the nearest bus at the time would have saved me about $10 in gas (it was about a mile closer than work), and required a 2 hour ride?

We care about milage. However gas milage isn't the only concern. I'd love to have a Hummer (the original, not the look alike without the abilities of the real thing) that gets 150 mpg, but that isn't feasable with current technology. (someone can do the math, but I think that is more than 100% effecincy)

I instead drive a small 4wd truck, hating the lack of cargo room when I haul things, hating the lack of mileage when I fill it, and hating the handeling when I'm driving without the load. It is a compromise. In no way ideal, but I can get by without a two vechicals, which is a big savings.

Population control device

[tinrobot]

The backseat only holds one person. If this car becomes the norm, will the human race ever conceive children again?

Re:Population control device

[Jerf]

Actually, it turns the car into a sure-fire population growth device.

Everyone knows the best way to have another kid is to give away all the baby stuff to somebody else. (I have a part of my family that has done this at least twice.) Similarly, by buying a vehicle with no space for a kid, one is ensuring that they will have a kid.

That's why my wife and I bought a used minivan last time we went car shopping. Since we have plenty of space for kids, we figure Mother Nature will pick on somebody less prepared. Should we ever decide to conceive, we'll have to pick up some two-seater convertable and sell one of our larger vehicles.

Re:Population control device

[ShavenYak]

That's funny. My wife and I bought a minivan around the time we started trying to have a baby. When she was about six months pregnant, it got totalled in an accident (she wasn't in it at the time, luckily). This left us with a Pontiac Sunfire and a Toyota Echo.

We've since gotten rid of the Sunfire and gotten a Civic, but it's still a bit tight until the baby gets big enough to use a forward-facing seat. And we have no idea how we're going to get all the presents home from Grandma's house for baby's first Christmas....

Re:Population control device

[El]

Think of the bright side -- the teenage pregnancy rate should to way down!

You Americans are funny sometimes...

[splateagle]

... Diesel an 'alternative fuel' - cracks me up that.

seriously though it's all about *encouraging* uptake - over here in Europe where we practically get taxed in body parts for our fuel, Diesel's been readily available on forecourts for decades and these beauties are overtaking conventional petrol engined cars in terms of sales because you get much more out of them both in terms of economy and (certainly in the case of my JTD Fiat) driving pleasure

commuting 30 miles to and from work each day is *so* much more fun when you get to do the clear stretches at 80mph and still turn in 55-60mpg :)

Re:You Americans are funny sometimes...

[marauder404]

European taxes on fuels is extraordinary and it makes "us Americans" happy about having low cost fuel. However, the diesel isn't an alternative fuel ... most heavy machinery and trucks run on diesel fuel. The alternative fuel is biodiesel and ultra-low sulphur diesel, not regular diesel. Europe has many more diesel-fueled consumer cars and there are only a few offerings available here in the US with diesel, but that may change soon.

Re:You Americans are funny sometimes...

[splateagle]

easy tiger - I wasn't boasting that I can get 80 out of my car (duh: I mean which continent do you think they developed that pocket-rocket M3 of yours on anyway? america's certainly not the only place people have fast cars) nor was I talking about driving for fun (note; I said I was talking about my daily commute,) and I certainly wasn't being xenophobic, I was just saying that getting smart responsive handling and a decent speed (for rural Scottish roads I mean - I'm talking the A70 over the Pentland hills Lanark to Edinburgh here for anyone interested) out of a regular affordable small hatchback is a big selling point for environmentally friendly fuels like the low-sulpur diesel my car runs on - that said I'd quite probably be driving an american-style gas guzzler if it weren't for prohibitive taxation (which in this case is a *GOOD THING*)

take the time to read bvefore reacting next time? and chill out.

Re:You Americans are funny sometimes...

[jez9999]

commuting 30 miles to and from work each day is *so* much more fun when you get to do the clear stretches at 80mph and still turn in 55-60mpg :)

Except that, if you live in the UK, the chances of getting a 'clear stretch' on any road is virtually non-existant, and even if you did get one, 80mph is over any speed limit and you'd be caught by several of the thousands of speed cameras, fined, and lose your license quicker than you can say 'diesel'.

Re:You Americans are funny sometimes...

[MtViewGuy]

Of course, if you want to drive a diesel car with surprising amount of power, try a Volkswagen Golf or Bora (as the Jetta is known in Europe) with the PD 130 turbodiesel engine. The PD 130-powered VW's (and equivalent SEAT models) are flying out the doors of dealerships all over Europe, especially in countries where diesel fuel is taxed much lower than petrol.

With the EPA in the USA soon mandating the use of low-sulfur diesel fuel, we Americans will soon enjoy PD 130-powered VW's, too. :-)

Never make it to the US

[pla]

I would *LOVE* to own such a car. Small, fuel efficient (to an extreme, in this case), stylish. Everything you could ask for in a car for commuting, cross-country touring, or just a toy for the typical DINK family.

However, I have *VERY* serious doubts that it will ever make it to the US in its current form.

*Perhaps* a version modified to seat 4. With an extra 300lbs of "safety" features that arguably cause more injuries than they prevent. And after all the wonderful emmissions control features (that don't apply to things like SUVs and pickups because they apparently don't make pollution at 10mpg), perhaps a "really good but not amazing" efficiency of 60-70mpg.

Hell, if I could have gotten one in the US, for my last car I would have bought a Mini. Good luck finding and registering one, though.

Re:Never make it to the US

[ces]

Hell, if I could have gotten one in the US, for my last car I would have bought a Mini. Good luck finding and registering one, though.

Huh? Minis are most definately being sold in this country. I've seen quite a few on the road around here. The big problem is they are so popular that the dealers have waiting lists of at least 6mo. I'm not aware of any states where you would have a problem registering a mini, although in some places you would swear there is a law requiring all cars to weigh at least 6000lb.

Not to nitpick, but...

[xcomputer_man]

This is seriously old news. I immediately knew I had seen this before, but I just can't remember exactly where I found the link. Anyways, if you check that page, you'll realize that it was last edited in April.

That said, this is seriously awesome technology. Except that it looks so fragile ... I worry it might tip over if I lean against it! How fast does that thing go, 32 mph?

Here in Scotland, UK...

[JKR]

Argent Energy have announced plans to build a £10m plant in Motherwell to convert waste cooking oils into biodiesel - starting construction in 2003. Looks like an Austrian firm BioDiesel International is supplying the know-how. There's been a standard for BioDiesel (composition, flash point, etc) since 1991 in Europe.

Jon.

economics

[selderrr]

at the price of fuel in europe, those cars are not only friendly to the environment, but also to your budget. In belgium, prices for unleaded fuel float around 1 euro PER LITER.

When I went on a trip to the US 2 years ago, I remember everyone freaking out at prices that were less than half of what we pay here...

My current car (an opel Tigra) uses approx 10litres/100km (I do a lot of city traffic plus the car had heart surgery 5 months ago and never fully recovered in terms of fuel usage) making me refill for 40euro every week or so. I could save 36Euro per week, or 420 per year.
Assuming fuel prices will go up in the future (anyone remember anything else ?) I think I can safely say that such a car can save me 5000Euro in 10 years. That's Half a VW Lupo.

Re:economics

[Quixote]

. I could save 36Euro per week, or 420 per year. Assuming fuel prices will go up in the future (anyone remember anything else ?) I think I can safely say that such a car can save me 5000Euro in 10 years. That's Half a VW Lupo.

Err, your math's off, chief. If you save 36Euro;/week, you're saving 1872Euro/year, or 18720Euro over 10 years, which is twice your VW Lupo.

When will slashcode get a Euro symbol?

Great news technically, but ...

[zensonic]

... my guess is that it won't make any sense economically (might not even help with the environmentally aspect either :/

The thing is, that the car has good figures due to being very very light, kilogram wise. This is done by molding the car in lightweight aluminium, which unfortunatly is very expensive compared to steel. Therefor my guess will be, that the car will be expensive, so much that the econmics are in favor for a normal car + normal gasoline.

As for the environment, the new gasoline is a good thing, but if my memory serves me right, aluminium is not!! Therefor it might be better for the environment just to make ordinary cars. ... I do hope that I can be proven wrong, but that's my guestimate on the matter :/

Re:Great news technically, but ...

[Zemran]

Many cars are already made out of aluminium. Audi make some and the British Land Rover has always been aluminium. It is reusable and therefore more ecological and as it does not rust it is cheaper as it lasts longer (look at the resale value of any aluminium car).

That said, to quote the article "Developed in the wind tunnel and built entirely from composite carbon-fiber reinforced material"

Re:Great news technically, but ...

[ces]

Most magnesium alloys don't burn that easily. See the burning of the cube for an example.

Most steel, iron, and aluminium used in cars is recycled already. With almost any metal it is far cheaper to recycle from an already refined form than to smelt new metal from raw ore.

Re:Great news technically, but ...

[Martin Blank]

I don't know about easily, but it does burn hot and bright. This might be the perfect car for those that want to go out in the proverbial "blaze of glory", though.

Re:Did anyone notice...

[zloppy303]

wob means wolfsburg, the city in germany where the factory is located. (german lisence plates start with the city/region where te car recieves it's license plates) as for l1... duh!

Re:Picture in the article

[richie2000]

So why are the lights off then?

Dr. Ferdinand Piech, Chairman of the VW Board of Management and test driver for a day, probably forgot to turn them on, since he is used to being driven around by a designated driver in a VW Phaeton. Or, he just couldn't reach the switch after the techs poured him into the car.

Maintenance cost of a car in US

[aralin]

Well, this will not help and the fuel efficiency of cars is not really a factor in US, because the cost of having a car is far higher than the cost of operating it. I didn't know this, until I came here and bought a car. I pay $300 a month in auto loan payments, $250 a month to insurance company (mostly for not having US drivers license for over 3 years) and under $50 for gas a month. Now that is 1/6 of the monthly cost of me having a car and driving daily. Honestly, I really really don't care, if I pay $580 or $620 instead. The difference is negligible.

Cost not MPG is what people use.

[h4mmer5tein]

I can tell you just how far I can get on a tank full of ( Low sulpher diesel ) fuel - 450 miles. And how much it costs me - £25 , but I couldnt hope to tell you the MPG figures for it. Especially since fuel is sold in litres these days and not gallons.
Most people I know judge fuel consumption on the same basis. Cost, not MPG. We buy fuel by price, not volume.
Does anyone actually use MPG figures as an every day referance anymore?

Re:Cost not MPG is what people use.

[neksys]

That's very true, even here on the west coast of Canada, its the same thing (I get 500 kms with $30 of gas). But what if the price of gas doubles tomorrow? And how do I compare with you, for example? I know that fuel is terribly expensive in Europe, so your £25 buys considerably less than my CDN$50 (approximate exchange). On the other hand, a litre is always a litre, a kilometre always a kilometre, a mile is a mile, etc.

Re:Cost not MPG is what people use.

[poot_rootbeer]

Does anyone actually use MPG figures as an every day referance anymore?

You apparently use miles per liter, which I think is kind of weird...

Anyway, distance-per-unit-fuel ratios (in whatever units you prefer) are very relevant to fuel consumption. The worse your fuel efficiency is, the more often you refill the tank, thus the more fuel you use and the more it costs you to drive.

Re:Cost not MPG is what people use.

[ewhac]

Most people I know judge fuel consumption on the same basis. Cost, not MPG. We buy fuel by price, not volume. Does anyone actually use MPG figures as an every day referance anymore?

I do.

Every time I fill up, I do a mental calculation on what the MPG was for the tankful. Then I reset the trip odometer and drive until the next fill up. I usually get around 32 MPG, and have never dropped below 30 (Honda Civic EX). If ever it does drop below 30, I'll know something's wrong.

Now if the thing just had an oil gauge...

Schwab

Re:Cost not MPG is what people use.

[bluGill]

Sure. I don't figgure it every time, but it is the only way to know. Saying I filled my tank for so much money means nothing without knowing the price of gas, and how far I went. So I need to find some way to calculate how my car is doing. When the number changes I know something is wrong.

MPG also is a good comparition. (In Europe l/100km is more common, but the same principal applies) When I say my car gets 22 mpg everyone knows how it compares to theirs. I know some who get 8 mpg, some who get 30mpg. I can go 300 miles on a tank of gas. The 8 mpg truck goes 500 miles, while the car only goes 250 miles. If you compare price to fill the tank that truck looks twice as bad as it is compared to the car. (not that it is good)

Long Live the States!

[btellier]

At 220 MPG the european community can pay the same effective price for gas that we do in the US with our SUV's!

Ultra low sulfur diesel?

[Erpo]

It's good to hear about new alternatives to gasoline-powered vehicles, but what we really need is a uniform (non-gasoline) fuel type for all mass market autos. It's going to be hard enough to make hydrogen (or biodiesel, or methanol, or ultra low sulfur diesel) pumps common enough to get people thinking seriously about alternative fuels, but the competition between these schemes is hurting adoption of environmentally friendly vehicles like the competition between desktop environments is hurting adoption of GNU/Linux. People want (and are comfortable with) uniformity. Asking Joe Average to make "the switch" is a big request, but when he has to ask "To which alternative?" the battle is pretty much over. When he learns it's all going to be different at his friend's house and at work, your chances are already dead, buried, reincarnated as a racoon, and run over by a semi (fueled by conventional diesel and running a Microsoft-powered cockpit GPS navigator).

<asbestos_suit>I suppose I'm just begging for flames by making the GNU/Linux analogy, but I think it's the best one considering the situation and the audience.</asbestos_suit>

some figures for the metric-impaired ;)

[pangloss]

Fuel tank capacity: 6.5L (1.7 gal)
Fuel efficiency: 100lm/l (235 mi/gal)
Top speed: 120km/h (74.5 mi/h)
Weight: 290kg (639lb)
Trunk capacity: 80L (2.82 cubic ft) (err, i think i converted this one right)

this is an effin cool car :)
no side mirrors--uses cameras and twin dash-mounted displays. it has a flywheel too.

my only question (besides when can i get one in the u.s. and for how much) was about the use of magnesium for various components (including the fuel tank i believe). i thought magnesium was highly flammable or something... clearly i haven't retained anything from chem.

Re:some figures for the metric-impaired ;)

[richie2000]

i thought magnesium was highly flammable or something...

No, not necessarily. :-)

Re:some figures for the metric-impaired ;)

[Malc]

> Trunk capacity: 80L (2.82 cubic ft) (err,
> i think i converted this one right)

That's the same capacity as my rucksack that I go hiking/camping with. I can see it even being able to do a week's grocery shopping for a family in one trip. (When I lived by myself, I used to cycle to the supermarket with a 65 litre rucksack, and would still come back with stuff on the handlebars.)

Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel

[pkplex]

I thought it was called greed?

There are plenty of alternative fuels and engines, and with this comes a loss of profit for oil companys.

How do you think G.Bush got in?

Depends where you look

[flacco]

It's nice to talk about alternative fuels, but I have yet to see a gas station selling one of them.

The guy behind the counter at the local Sunoco sells crystal meth, does that count?

About this concept car

[BadDoggie]

It was more a marketing gimmick than anything else. They worked hard to get that car legal for the road and highway in Germany. I'm kind of surprised they didn't have it following closely behind a semi (lorry) to slipstream and get that mileage down even further.

There's a small article about it here, and the Sueddeutsche Zeitung has both this picture and this article (with more pictures). The car ran on diesel (not any alternative fuel) at an average speed of 75km/h, or about 46mph. Some sections of Autobahn have a minimum speed of 80km/h (50mph).

This was a concept car which isn't much more than a motorcycle on three wheels with a cockpit rather than a fairing. However, VW is a big name in fuel efficiency. The Lupo, a production car, needs less than 5l/100km, or close to 50mpg, and that with a top speed of 199km/h or about 120mph. In Europe, with fuel about three times the cost of the US (for many reasons including taxes and ecological concerns), this is important.

Bio-diesel is gaining acceptance and outlets in Germany, as is LNG (liquid natural gas), but this car wasn't using them. DaimlerChrysler is still working on hydrogen power, a much more sensible fuel.

Is it really "News" in December when this car ran in April?

woof.

Re:About this concept car

[kris]

The minimum speed on german Autobahnen is 60 km/h (slightly over 35 mph). There are no sections with a higher minimum speed, but there are sections with three or more lanes where the inner lanes have a minimum speed of 80 km/h (50 mph), whereas the outer lanes are standard german Autobahn. The recommended speed on a german autobahn is 130 km/h (80 mph), and there is no general speed limit (although many sections have speed limits and the sheer amount of traffic in germany very effectively limits speed even more).

The top speed of the Volkswagen 1L car was reported as 120 km/h (75 mph during its 230 km (140 mile) cruise.

Volkswagen offers a 3L TDi version of the Lupo right now, which uses standard Diesel fuel available at almost all gas stations in Europe.

You can bet that security was a top concern for the designers of the 1L Volkswagen as well as for the Volkwagen Lupo 3L. Germany is a country the size of Utah, but with 80 million people living in that area. Also, because there is no general speed limit, speed differences on german Autobahnen are extreme as there are only two lanes per direction and there is no cruising as in the US.

Instead vans and transports crowd the outer lanes at 100 to 120 km/h (60-75 mph), while the inner lanes are occupied by personal vehicles running from 160 to 250 km/h (100-150 mph). If you have been learning driving in Nevada or Utah, you might be in for quite an experience.

Germany requires you to have at least 12 hours of theory (attendance required) and 12 hours of practice before even allowing you to take the drivers exam. After the exam, you are on probation for two years, about any recorded offense within the probation will see you at a drivers retraining... The cost for the aquisition of a drivers license in Germany runs at about $1000 to $1200 at the moment.

Re:About this concept car

[wkitchen]

"The Lupo, a production car, needs less than 5l/100km, or close to 50mpg, and that with a top speed of 199km/h or about 120mph.

After reading the review of the Lupo, with it's comfort and durability problems, I'm thinking that VW might be wise to hire some good bicycle designers to team up with their automotive engineers. Why? Because in the world of bicycles, designing things that are ergonomic and lightweight without being flimsy is second nature. On the other hand, building an entire automobile using the exotic materials and high quality construction of a really good bicycle would probably result in an astonishingly expensive automobile. But I bet the lightweight seat would be comfortable and the cup holder wouldn't break from normal use.

Re:About this concept car

[drinkypoo]

No, it's not news. It was news the first time this story was posted on slashdot.

some info about biodiesel

[tanveer1979]

This page talks about an abundant source of biodiesel. Esp nice for countries which have warm climates.

Cute, but impractical

[pongo000]

I would imagine the survivability aspects of a collision with this vehicle and any mid-sized vehicle would be very low. Yes, I read the article -- something about GT-class protection -- but the mere lack of weight would be the first mark against you in a collision (something about conservation of mass and energy come to mind). And although top speed is somewhere in the vicinity of 70 mph, it will take a long time to get there -- which means a lot of time spent at a great speed differential to other traffic. Again, not exactly a formula for survival in a collision scenario.

Let's face it -- the average rolling tonnage of vehicles in the US is greater than that in Europe. What works there doesn't necessarily mean it will work here. What is really needed is a rolling steel cage, truly indestructible, with lots of energy-absorbing panels. I can't imagine trading away personal safety for environmental conservation.

Re:Cute, but impractical

[mpe]

If you crash at 70mph then you are as good as dead. It doesn't matter how many airbags you have or how much armour plating you've welded on.

Actually rather than armour plating what you need is a structure which crumples and disintegrates. Which adsorbs the energy, like a race car. Drivers regually walk out uninjured from collisions a lot faster than 70mph.

Re:Cute, but impractical

[Quila]

I know of quite a few Lotus Elises, at ~1600lbs, that have been in serious crashes (collision, rolled, nose-first 12ft into a ditch) with little or no driver injuries. The driver sits in an extruded aluminum bathtub with a rollcage around him. The front and back are collapsible subframes and the body panels shatter. I feel quite safe.

Along with the McLaren F1 (also very safe at 2400lbs) it's the only car to be drivable after the front collision test.

You don't have to make cars heavier, just more intelligently.

Re:Cute, but impractical

[kris]

I get laughed at for having a 1.9 liter 4 cylinder engine.

Volkswagen has a very nice 1.9 liter 4 cylinder engine for their Volkswagen Golf that is actually great fun to drive. This baby comes in at 96 kW (130 hp) in a 1200 kg car, getting you up to 200 km/h (125 mph) effortlessly, eating all of 4-5l/100 km standard Diesel fuel (1l gas is about $1 in germany, 1l Diesel is about $0.85 in Germany).

Re:Cute, but impractical

[bpowell423]

Just what I want... a car that crumples and disintegrates in a crash. No thanks.

Re:Cute, but impractical

[Gordonjcp]

It's illegal to use an American car in the UK, without heavy modifications and a special registration, because they're so flimsy and dangerous. Just because you're carrying around two tons of steel, doesn't mean that they're strong. No US-built car would pass a UK MOT test (safety inspection) in standard trim, and the UK has the most lax safety inspection of any EU country.

Re:Cute, but impractical

[Gordonjcp]

Well, the newer Escorts are a fair bit bigger - the original ones were a small 4/5 seat thing but the newer ones are about the same size as a BMW 3-series.

It's all relative to the size of other vehicles on the road - very few people in the UK find it necessary to drive the children to school in a 7.5 ton truck. Furthermore, the US hasn't really got any kind of crash safety testing for cars that I can see. At least, having worked on various Yank Tanks, that's the conclusion I'd draw. In a low-speed parking shunt, they'd fold up like beer cans.

Re:Cute, but impractical

[Gordonjcp]

Yeah, we have a similar situation in the UK with VW Polos, where in some cases the brake servos stick, leaving you with really heavy brakes. It's not widely publicised, though. What has happened is that VW has just quietly recalled all the affected cars and replaced the servo units.

Not like the Toyota Yaris, though. They had problems with brake pipes failing, which was *extremely* widely publicised. The usual consumer panic led to people going on TV saying how they could have been killed because of the faulty brakes. Yeah, right. From a pinhole in a rubber hose. Do you mean to say you didn't notice the huge red "Low Brake Fluid Level" light and the huge puddle of brake fluid under the car?

BTW, I'm intrigued by the comments about driving at 75mph+ on highways. How do you get American cars to stay on the road at that speed? From my (admittedly fairly limited) experience, the steering is about 300 turns from lock-to-lock, and the handling is, well... interesting, to say the least. Not exactly crisp and grippy.

Re:Cute, but impractical

[Gordonjcp]

I drove a couple of Mustangs, and while they had fairly pokey engines, they were still pretty unwieldy and sluggish. Horrendous amounts of oversteer - worse than my old Volvo 340. Good fun when you've got room to go round a roundabout twice...

Re:Cute, but impractical

[Gordonjcp]

Roundabouts are pretty handy actually, if you want to have two large and busy roads intersecting. Means you don't have to have traffic lights (although some do, usually due to bad initial design). Do you go round them anti-clockwise in the US?

I'm used to fairly large cars that handle really crisply, like the Citroen XM - used to have one until it got to the stage where too much needed fixed in one go. http://www.gjcp.net/car.jpg has a picture of the old beast, God rust it. The photo doesn't give much idea of scale, but it's about the same size as a BMW 5-series, possibly a little bigger. It's got self-levelling suspension all round, which stiffens on corners and under acceleration, so it's really comfortable but stays stable when "pushed". When the engine's on it sits about 4-5" higher... You *cannot*, even in snow, make those cars oversteer. They're front-wheel drive, but even so, the back just won't step out.

Alternative Fueling Stations information

[Artifex]

Michael, please point your browser here. It's got both a station locator, and a route mapper (trip planner) so you can plan stops to refuel on long trips.

VW Jetta vs Rover Montego

[ChrisJC]

VW Jetta might be most fuel efficient now, but it's not as good as some cars in the past have been.

Rover (Austin previously) used to make an estate car (station wagon) which was the same size as the Jetta, called the Montego. The diesel version had a 2.0litre Direct Injection Turbo diesel engine, made by Perkins.

These used to return 75mpg at 56mph and 55mpg at 75mph. They were light years head of anything else at the time - at a cost of increased engine noise because of the direct injection.

At the time, Ford, Vauxhall, Peugeot were all churning out indirect injection diesels which were at least 10mpg worse, and generally slower. The Ford Escort / Sierra diesels were crap.

The Montego Diesel came out around 1988. Now of course they all use direct injection, but are still only nipping at the heels of the Montego in terms of economy. Somewhat ahead of its time.

Shame we make retrograde steps. A bit like the latest windows feature is in fact old hat for any other OS.

Re:VW Jetta vs Rover Montego

[twinpot]

The big problem with the Montego (apart from all its others...), was that the direct-injection diesels of its time were horribly noisy and harsh. Bit like being in a metal can full of bolts.

Those problems are now largely overcome, and with common-rail and particle filters, the diesels are as good or better than the equivalent petrol model.

BMW make a super 3.0 diesel, and VW is coming out with a 5litre TD for their SUV that puts out in excess of 700Nm of torque. The rate of improvement in diesel engines, particularly in Europe is impressive. Peugeot have a gorgeous concept mid-engines sports car out at the moment with a 2l turbo diesel, putting out around 180bhp , top speed over 140mph, and returning an average of 60 odd mpg.

Who Says We Are Not Ready?

[KristsInferno]

We as a nation are ready.
These are locations that are registered as selling biodisel:
http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/retailfue lingsites/default.shtm
Now, the big question is: Are we as CONSUMERS ready? We americans love our big 12mpg SUV's...

Fuel stations selling them...

[kris]

What is interesting is that Diesel for these cars is available in Europe at each and every gas station. 28% of all german cars are diesel cars, with the Volkswagen TDi's being one of the most popular. 3-4 l/100 km are common fuel usages with these, if you are driving sensibly.

Kristian

Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel

[Grab]

Maybe Michael should RTFarticle...

The 'one-liter car' is powered by a single-cylinder diesel engine...

So how many places in the world is it impossible to get diesel? Given that this is the fuel *all* (bar none!) trucks use. The story poster had it right - there's new diesel fuels around which are less polluting, which makes this even better. But it'll still run just fine on plain old diesel.

The only trouble is selling diesel cars to the US market. Or in fact selling *any* fuel-efficient car to the US market.

Grab.

unobtanium?

[lingqi]

I think that's what they call these cars (especially the VW concept).

I believe the exhause was made of titanium, and so is the chassis. btw have you SEEN how small the passenger compartment (there is no trunk) is?

I mean... for the same trouble and inconvenience, not mentioning the cost for all the exotic materials and their manufacturing (sorry but steel is about two hundred thirty eight times easier to work with compared to titanium), I would much rather bank on something that sparks the imagination.

Re:unobtanium?

[Alioth]

The Moller Skycar has been "six months away from being flown" for as long as I've been alive. I don't know how Moller manages to con investors, but he does it.

I drove a VW Diesel

[The Tyro]

had a 1979 Rabbit, Diesel (the kind with the round headlights... they went to square ones in 1980).

Their diesels always got good gas mileage... It was the perfect car for a high-school kid (which I was at the time... I realize that I'm dating myself here), got around 40-50mpg, damned good for that time. I could afford to be magnanimous and not bug my friends for gas money... it was nice.

I hope they have solved the problems with diesels, at least from the consumer perspective.

1. They are noisy, and dirty.

2. Finding fuel used to be a pain in the ass

3. You are constantly tightening things (diesels vibrate like nobody's business)

4. You can't shut them off if they overheat (I think modern diesels have a fuel cutoff. If not, they should!)

If the numbers are accurate, That's one amazing little commuter vehicle. Good for VW... might have to put them back on my "vehicles to buy" list.

Re:I drove a VW Diesel

[The Tyro]

I suspected they have solved the problem... used to be an issue, perhaps more theoretical than real (never happened to me personally). It has to do with the way a diesel engine operates. I apologize in advance if you already know this stuff.

Diesels operate without the benefit of spark plugs. They use a heating element called a "glow plug" to start the engine running, but once running, they operate without any sort of a spark... they simply use heat and high compression to ignite the fuel.

One can immediately see what happens here if such an engine overheats. Unless you cut off the fuel supply, even if you take some measures to decrease the compression, the engine might be hot enough to continue running. In theory you need to cut the juice to any electrical element in the fuel system.

Diesels used to be notorious for running without much electrical power (dead battery, almost-dead alternator). You used to see Semi trucks going down the highway with headlights as dim as candles.

Looks I'm behind the times on the subject of modern diesel technology.

Re:I drove a VW Diesel

[kelv]

> 1. They are noisy, and dirty.

I don't know what the auto manufacturers are doing in the US but in Australia a lot of work has gone into making diesel engines quiet.

A lot of utes and 4WD vehicles run on (realtivley) small, supercharged diesel engines. They are now just as quiet and clean as petrol equivalents.

This has really happened in the last 8-10 years in Australia.

Re:I drove a VW Diesel

[albanac]

All four of these problems have been radically ameliorated in the last ten years. I grew up in a hostile environment, where there were a *lot* of diesel cars. The ones I grew up with vibrated, overheated, and had absolutely terrible acceleration and general performance. Mind you, they were exceptional load-carriers.

Modern diesel cars I have driven have performance, acceleration and quietness which are equivalent to the petrol cars of the same class. Examples being Ford Escort diesels and VW Golf (European model) diesels, equivalent to the same car in an unleaded petrol model.

~cHris

Re:I drove a VW Diesel

[10Ghz]

I don't drive a diesel, but I'll try to comment

1. They are noisy, and dirty.

Not anymore. For example, the TDI diesels from VW are so smooth that just about only time you know it's a diesel, is when you are refuelling it (that is, you put in diesel instead of gasoline)

2. Finding fuel used to be a pain in the ass

I don't know how it is in US, but in Finland (and rest of Europe I guess) 100% of gas-stations sell diesel as well.

3. You are constantly tightening things (diesels vibrate like nobody's business)

Fixed. Maybe they vibrate marginally more, but in reality they do not. Modern diesels are smooth

4. You can't shut them off if they overheat (I think modern diesels have a fuel cutoff. If not, they should!)

Ummm, this I don't know a thing about (Like I said, I don't drive diesel myself)

Re:I drove a VW Diesel

[gl4ss]

*** 4. You can't shut them off if they overheat (I think modern diesels have a fuel cutoff. If not, they should!)

Ummm, this I don't know a thing about (Like I said, I don't drive diesel myself)***

well, when they were all mechnanical, you didn't need electricity to run a diesel engine once started(no need for spark)).

this is more of a myth though.. at least been for the last 20 years.

the modern diesel engines use injectors to inject the diesel directly into the cylinder afaik.. these injectors work with electricity. the modern diesel engines are very nice to drive, especially those turbooed vw's, they're very much like normal 'gas' engines to drive when compared to 80's volvos for example. i don't think anyone would even consider a suv-sized car without diesel around here anyways(unless they've got shitloads of money to gas, i don't think they even sell a non-diesel starcraft van around here.. or any non diesel van that's big enough to be a real van).

Re:I drove a VW Diesel

[ChrisJC]

You are completely mistaken. The problem with a diesel is that if too much oil vapour from the crankcase gets into the air intake, the engine will run on the vapour. The vapour is not being controlled in any way, so the engine will accellerate until it destroys itself.
A fuel cutoff will make no difference as the engine will still run on oil vapour. You have to stall it.

Please get your facts right before spouting scare stories.

Re:I drove a VW Diesel

[The Tyro]

Interesting... I hadn't even considered the crankcase oil.

I recall diesels when they were almost entirely machanical, including the fuel system. All you really had to do was start them (which was a BIG production if it was cold), and watch them run.

Thanks for the info.

Re:I drove a VW Diesel

[JohnsonJohnson]

I had a 1983 IBM PC with an Intel CPU and I can't see what the big deal was. Storage was on slow noisy small floppy disks. If I typed to fast in WordPerfect the screen lagged in updating. It didn't have a network connection. I could only get 16 colors on the screen at once (an it cost an arm and leg to do it). I wonder if anything has improved since then?

Re:I drove a VW Diesel

[Jobe_br]

In response to everyone saying that the 'new' diesel engines are no longer noisy - bull. My father recently purchased a 2002 Jetta TDI and I've had the opportunity to drive it on occasion, when he's come to visit. I have a '99 Honda Prelude and when its at idle, you don't hear it - well, maybe in a closed garage, but not outside just standing next to it. I'd say that the diesel is easily 5-10 dB louder as it is certainly noticeable when it is idling. Cheers.

Re:I drove a VW Diesel

[10Ghz]

Depends what you are comparing. Diesels emit more particles than regular gas-enginges, but they have smaller CO2-emissions. And while they do release more particles, the old image of diesel-car with black/blue-smoke pouring from the tailpipe is a thing of the past.

Re:I drove a VW Diesel

[twinpot]

I think you'll find that is because of the (dirty) diesel that you have in the US. Measure one running on low sulphur diesel, and it'll be a lot better.

Re:I drove a VW Diesel

[Gordonjcp]

I've had a fuel pump diaphram burst, and leak a small, but significant, amount of fuel into the engine. This continued until a lovely mixture of Castrol GTX and diesel was being blown into the air intake.

Now, consider that the engine speed is regulated by a centrifugal governor, which reduces the fuel fed in as the engine rpm increases. With fuel just pouring in the intake, it spun up to around 3,500 rpm (tractor engine, red line at 2,250 rpm) until I pulled the breather pipe off, at which point it spluttered and - after about 30 seconds, still at around 3,000 rpm - stopped.

Scary. Just plain scary.

Not a car for the claustrophobic...

[jejones]

It's below hood level of other cars on the road, so the driver will have a hard time seeing much of anything in traffic. The back seat passenger's knees in the photo are wrapped around the driver's seat, and it's not clear that the passenger could even comfortably read a book while riding. It makes airliner seats look spacious. I guess that it will be an OK car for short anorexic models who aren't schlepping anything.

Re:Looks like a "3rd World country" is beating US

[Zemran]

Who are you calling a 3rd world country? SA or Germany? Tech wise I would put Germany ahead of the US so I assume you mean SA but I have never thought of them as 3rd world yet, just heading that way.

Insight == Crap.

[sinserve]

A friend[1] of mine has been driving one for the past few months, and the thing
is about to fall apart. First of all, the acceleration sucks, it is almost like a
bicycle: I gave it a few rounds around town and the cars behind me constantly honked
at me because the thing wouldn't speedup whenever the speed limit changes (but it sure
can brake.)

Also, the body totally sucks; the rubber alignment around the inside of the doors started
to crack, but the their credit, Honda has an excellent customer service and most of the
vehicle is warranted for quite some time.

If you want a fuel efficient car, the Civic, which is the biggest bang for the buck out
there, just keep it real and DON'T even try to make it look sporty.

--
[1] The "friend" is actually my girlfriend, but you know hateful slashmods.

Alternative fuels in the US

[fleeb_fantastique]

When I purchased my diesel Beetle, someone suggested I look into BioDiesel. As far as I can tell, the only way I would be able to use BioDiesel in my car would be to purchase the stuff in bulk and store it somewhere. I don't think I can legally do that in my condominium. And at $1.90 to $3.00 a gallon, I don't think I can afford it compared to the $1.55 a gallon (or so) that I will generally pay for standard diesel.

I work in the DC area, so reducing emissions would seem to be a priority here. Except that someone apparently removed funding for BioDiesel. Someone who, I think, currently lives in the White House. Someone who, I think, has more of an interest in preserving oil company interests (being something of an oil man himself) than protecting even his own health.

Anyway, here's a couple of useful links:

BioDiesel.Org

US Government's Alternative Fuels Data Center Homepage

The last link is particularly nice. While I will fault the US government for doing anything substantive, they at least have provided a lot of interesting research on the topic.

more diesel tech

[Zemran]

Diesel has come a long way recently and I hated having to go back to petrol with my latest car (but it was a good deal). I am used to 60 mpg and no break downs. The analagy with OSs has already been made but to take it further...

Diesels are cheaper to run, not just because the mpg but also because they break down less often. The stories about vibration are old hat, that is like saying Linux only works from the command prompt. If you try a VW TDi you would not know you were in a diesel, they are as fast and as smooth as a petrol car. You can hear the difference from out side but I tend to sit inside my car. Most car breakdowns are caused by engine electrics and diesels do not have that.

Also, if biodiesel gets off the ground all those poor whining farmers can grow fuel instead of having to survive on subsidies. It is corn oil based so we can grow our own and forget the middle east !!! That is ecologically and economically sound.

So it is cheaper, more reliable and gets us away from the reliance on the current monopoly...

Re:more diesel tech

[Zemran]

Not to forget the large V8 BMW 7 series diesels that do 155 mph and return 30 mpg. Diesel tech can produce high powered performance cars that have all the advantages and no disadvantages.

Re:more diesel tech

[floki]

Also, if biodiesel gets off the ground all those poor whining farmers can grow fuel instead of having to survive on subsidies. It is corn oil based so we can grow our own and forget the middle east !!! That is ecologically and economically sound.

I hope you understand the environmental problems that will arise if "all those poor whining farmers" start growing fuel:

• monocropping (easy spread of pests and diseases)
• soil degradation
• destroying of unique biotopes

Brazil, the world's largest producer of sugarcane, uses the sugar mainly to produce alcohol which is used as fuel. This paper from the University of Sao Paolo discusses the problems that arise from the massive growing of sugarcane: mainly the destroying of large parts of the rain forest, soil degradation and erosion.

Scientists from Australia (the third largest producer of sugarcane) also see problems with large-scale monocropping.

If oil runs out, fuel crops (or fuel cells) may well be the sole chance of keeping our current habits of driving. Nevertheless we will have to deal with the new problems that arise from monocropping and the massive cropping of fuel producing plants in general.

Diesel Cars

[Detritus]

I knew several people who bought diesel cars during the last fuel crunch. They liked the mileage but were unhappy with the high incidence of mechanical problems and the difficulty with finding diesel pumps at gas stations. They switched back to gasoline for their subsequent cars.

Re:Diesel Cars

[mary_will_grow]

Yeah, that really gave it a bad name, it was too bad. The reason for it though was because the engines were really slapped together in a rush, basically retrofitted gasoline engines, none of the bearings and fittings had time to be re-engineered, and they just couldn't handle the different force you get from a diesel burn.

Re:Diesel Cars

[joshsisk]

My dad has a small diesel truck (Izuzu?). He's had it for twenty or so years. Everything on it is broken _except_ for the engine... Wipers, heater, radio, all broken. Still drives, though, and still gets good mileage, too. My mom pleads with him to get a new truck, but he won't. He says the engine is so simple compared to new engines that it will never go out.

Incidentally, he gets these offers occasionally to sell it to a company in Brazil who wants more of that same model truck to use in the rain forest. Very odd.

Re:Diesel Cars

[layyze]

Exactly, it was Americans trying to do Diesel without ever having done it before. A last minute rush job to try and hold on to their shares. My grandmother has had a diesel Mercedes since 1980, and yes it still runs -- quite well actually. (And yes, she uses it EVERY day) If you stick with the companies that KNOW diesel, such as VW and Mercedes, then you should have a vehicle that will last longer than any Ford, Chrysler, or GM gasoline crap.

Re:Diesel Cars

[FoulBeard]

GM, Ford, Chrysler crap companies have been making diesel vehicles since the early part of this century, but these usually take the form of large trucks. American companies never made *small* deisel cars which is why the first attempts really sucked, becuase yes they basically retrofitted gasoline engines. But American companies can make a good deisel engine... they have been doing it for years. BTW my dad has a gasoline S10 pickup with over 300,000 miles so dont give me that wrap about shitty American quality.

Re:Diesel Cars

[armb]

> My grandmother has had a diesel Mercedes since 1980, and yes it still runs -- quite well actually. (And yes, she uses it EVERY day)

There are plenty of older diesel Merc taxis around, and they probably get driven harder than your grandmother's car (maybe not, but when my grandmother was driving every day, she was fairly gentle on her car).

Re:Diesel Cars

[Gordonjcp]

Random aside, but the venerable Ford Essex V6 engine, as used in many cars from the mid-60s to the mid-90s (not just Fords, either - they crop up in many "specials" and sports cars, like the AC3000, TVR, and Reliants) were actually designed to be either petrol or diesel. They are still used in the Ford Explorer, in 4-litre form.

They have huge main bearings, and big-end bearings, along with a flat "Heron" head and recessed piston crowns. For diesel use, an injector would have been fitted instead of the spark plug, an injector pump would go on with a slightly different timing cover and the water pump relocated, and pistons with flat crowns to increase the compression to around 16:1 for diesel.

The problem is that at the higher speeds attainable with the petrol engine (these can rev to around 6000rpm in standard road tune and higher in race tune), the larger bearings have a higher peripheral speed and overheat easily, damaging the case hardening. The engine then makes some expensive noises.

Re:Diesel Cars

[Gordonjcp]

In Turkey they use Mercedes W123 and W124 series cars as taxis. They remove the engine and rebuild it at 500,000 miles, and replace with a rebuilt one at 1,000,000. Yep. One Million Miles (pinky to mouth)

Re:Wrong country maybe, but you have wrong facts..

[MyNameIsFred]

How convenient that you forget that the U.S. mandated unleaded fuel well before Europe did. In fact, Europe complained that U.S. regulations were hurting them because they had to modify their cars for the U.S. market.

Another fact, Europe likes to trumpet their use of diesel over the U.S., but recent studies have shown that while diesel reduces CO2, it increases soot Science Daily. The net effect is at no real change, and more likely it actually make global warming worse.

Oh, I forgot this is Slashdot, Europe is enlightened, the U.S. is the bumbling oaf.

V8 BMW diesel? hah!

[Lazy Jones]

Have a look at this: review 1, review 2

Cost of Fuel...

[Zarf]

VW/Audi has a history of being a leader in creating super fuel efficient vehicles.

Since fuel costs 1.10 euro a liter here they definately have an incentive! 3.78 liters in a Gallon, 1 dollar is 0.98 euro... That's roughly $4.25 a gallon. Hellyah, I'd want some fuel efficient friggin' cars!

Biodiesel in America

[Crispin Cowan]

For all the haughtiness in the article quote, biodiesel fuel is available in America. It is sold out of the pump at the corner gas station two blocks from my house. They charge approx. $1.80/gal. instead of the $1.40/gal. they charge for regular diesel.

Kudos to Albina Fuel.

Crispin
----
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc.
Immunix: Security Hardened Linux Distribution
Available for purchase

Re:Too bad...

[frozenray]

Dear moderators,

If you disagree with what I've written (I have no problem with that), why don't you reply to my post instead of giving a "-1, Overrated" right from the start? Too bad "Overrated" mods are not caught in M2, I consider this to be serious shortcoming of the Slashdot moderation system.

America will never put up with 8 HP

[DebianDog]

American are number driven consumers. Trying to sell a highway vehicle here with 8 horsepower? Never happen. We have lawnmowers with more HP. You guys know it is the same with computers with the megahertz myth.

People do not understand power to weight ratios or torque. I can not tell you how many people thought there were faster than my 500 LBS 1.1 liter Honda CBR. I would say things like, "Look 500 pounds and 160 HP. Let me get you a calculator. I do not care if your car has 400 HP, I will cream you."

Now if you were to market the car as the "The 0-60 in 8 seconds / 200 MPG car" then you would have something! But you could never advertise 1 liter - 8 HP. No no.

Re:America will never put up with 8 HP

[bpowell423]

"I do not care if your car has 400 HP, I will cream you." ... until you hit an SUV head-on. The passenger in the SUV wakes up and says "what was that?" The driver says, "Nothing, honey, I think I just ran over a possum... go back to sleep." :)

Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel

[moonbender]

Diesel is more fuel-efficient, but it's also burned less clean than gasoline. Diesel motors release particles into the air which are higly carcinogenic. Only very recently have there been trends to install filters in the cars which accumulate these particles and destroy them every so often. Some car manufacturers refuse to install them since the filters, in turn, decrease fuel efficience - but just by about 0.1l/100km, so that shouldn't be that big a deal. Anyway, without these filters, Diesel engines are not that great, environmentally.

Re:Looks like a "3rd World country" is beating US

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

Its kind of hard to put Germany ahead of the US in terms of technology, especially with all of those pesky multinational corporations that exist in both nations similtaniously(sp?). I wonder if I can think of any... Hmm. Off the top of my head I can think of Siemens, AMD, and Intel. Both Germany and the US have a DRAM manufacturer (Infineon and Micron). I do have to say that the US has superior military technology though...

SUVs?

[Ionizor]

This is exactly the sort of attitude that's caused the vehicle size arms race in North America. SUVs for example don't make you safer, they only make you feel safer. If an SUV runs into a mid-sized vehicle the chances of the occupants of said vehicle dying increase by a lot. SUVs also tend to roll over, causing fatalities that could easily have been avoided. A New York Times writer put together a book on this. I don't have a link handy but I'm sure you can find it if you look.

Environmentally, driving an SUV or Light Truck instead of a midsized sedan releases about five times the pollution. And maybe it's just me but I'm tailgated or cut off by an idiot in an SUV much much more frequently than by an idiot in a car.

As long as people keep buying them, though, the auto makers will keep making them. I wish people would take a look at what their "safety" is costing everyone.

Re:SUVs?

[CommieLib]

Actually, here is the data, published by Regulation magazine, an adjunct to the Cato Institute. The full regression portion of the document is hairy, so here's the Conclusion:

CONCLUSION the results of this research suggest that the increase in light truck use in the United States in recent years has helped to reduce motor vehicle fatalities. During the years of our sample period (1994-1997), light truck registrations per driver increased five percent. Our elasticity estimates indicate this increase consequently lowered single-vehicle fatalities per driver by 7.5 percent and multiple- vehicle fatalities per driver by two percent. These figures translate into about 2,000 lives saved between 1994 and 1997 because of the increase in light truck use.

As for environmental concerns, I suppose your point is true if you're comparing new to new, but comparing a new SUV to a sedan just a few years older, the data changes. If you compare a diesel SUV to a current standard sedan, it changes even further. If you're comparing a RAV-4 to a Cadillac Deville, well, you get the idea; it's not as simple as it seems.

From the tenor of your post, it sounds like there's something more than cold, hard data in your equation...read the report all the way through and make your own conclusion.

Re:Is that conversion correct?

[grahamsz]

Yeah i'm not sure where that came from - by my calculations you get:

264.34 miles per US Gallon
317.46 miles per UK Gallon

but either way that's pretty good

The US needs tax breaks

[grahamsz]

At least in the UK the government started diesel at a lower tax rate (around $3/gallon in 1990 - as a rough guess) and slowly crept it up to match regular gasoline.

Now they are doing the same with LPG which you can now get in quite a lot of gas stations - maybe 1 in 10 (and more in cities) and most public service vehical fleets have already been converted.

Trade 50 more MPG for your life?

[Proc6]

I admit up front, I have not even begun to examine the crash test data from any of these green-cars. I also realize that crash safety has come a long way in recent years.

Nevertheless, simple physics seems to dictate that if you were in a head-on collision with an Escalade, well, I think I'd rather be driving an Escalade myself than one of these 150 lb hybrid tupperware-mobiles.

Speed limits going up, car weight and size going down. There's all of 4 inches between your forehead and the windshield in an Insight. Eeek. Are you okay with your 16 year old daughter in a tinfoil 2 seater doing 75 on the interstate just to be the only person in your town to save some gas?

Re:Trade 50 more MPG for your life?

[perrin5]

You do realize that the argument you just gave amounts to the 'prisoner's dilemma' which led to the escalation of the arms race between the US and the USSR, don't you? (along with an appeal to fear)...

The trick is to get more people to do it, not to question the number of people who are not.

The Toyota Prius, and Honda Civic hybrid are both very safe vehicles, btw.

Re:Trade 50 more MPG for your life?

[aquarian]

I admit up front, I have not even begun to examine the crash test data from any of these green-cars. I also realize that crash safety has come a long way in recent years.

Obviously. And I bet you haven't looked at crash test data for SUVs, either. Or actual accident records, which are even worse.

The "simple physics" you allude to isn't that simple, either. If it is, then how can a 1500 LB open wheel race car can hit a wall at 200 MPH, and its driver walk away?

Re:Trade 50 more MPG for your life?

[ukyoCE]

You're completely right. That's why I made sure to buy an Expedition for my 16-year-old as soon as she got her license. Sure, it cost an arm and a leg, and costs 40$ a week in gas, but she's safe! She's been in four accidents so far (she's 18 now) and hasn't even had to go to the hospital. And she's still in the same SUV too! The car barely even got hurt when she ran into those people! Some people say that I shouldn't be putting a new driver like her in a humongous and dangerous SUV, but what do they know. I have to work 50 hours a week, so I don't have time to teach my kid how to drive safely. The next best thing I can do is put her in a safe car, like her Expedition. It's too bad the parents of the kids in the other cars she hit didn't care about their children enough to buy an SUV. But they're dead now, so that's what they get. Any good patriotic American should buy an SUV that gets 14mpg and keeps their kids safe, just like I did. Not only will your daughter thank you, but most importantly, she'll be ALIVE to thank you. Don't worry about the children in those small cars who die because your child ran over them with her tank - it's evolution. Survivial of the biggest. Thank God we have George W. in the White House protecting our oil interests by bombing third world countries and removing funding for alternative fuels. God Bless America.

(Yes, i'm exaggerating on purpose to get your wheels spinning. Don't bother flaming me because I really don't care that much.)

Biodiesel and fleets

[Big Sean O]

Biodiesel probably won't show up at 'consumer' pumps any time soon. After all, when was the last time (outside of a truck stop) have you seen a diesel pump?

Biodiesel will have great success in a fleet situations. Where all the busses or delivery trucks at a central garage fuel up at the same place. Later, when it becomes more affordable and/or more popular, you'll see it at truck stops.

85% Ethanol Gasoline is appearing in large cities. Not a lot, but I've seen one or two in Chicago (and I haven't been looking). Look for more pumps, particularly in the Midwest Corn belt, where the states are pushing Ethanol as a market for excess corn.

Of course, the Hybrids are the most immediate 'wave of the future'. They use gas, the reduce gas emissions, and they get better gas mileage. Sure they're more expensive, but I think I read somewhere that the big three are planning on reducing that cost through mass production. I'm guessing by 2008 we'll have more hybrids on the road than you might think.

Hybrid vehicles, using gasoline, are safer than fuel cell vehicles using Hydrogen. I've seen those vehicles, and the precautions needed for hydrogen fueling are crazy: Hydrogen burns almost invisibly in daylight, so if you're not careful, you can walk right into merry little hydrogen fire.

Re:Biodiesel and fleets

[T-Punkt]

> Biodiesel probably won't show up at 'consumer' pumps any time soon.

Maybe not in your country, but in Germany and Austria there are already over 1500 gas stations which offer biodiesel.

> After all, when was the last time (outside of a truck stop) have you seen a diesel pump?

Well, I don't have (and don't need!) a car. I guess it was last week.

Re:Biodiesel and fleets

[bluGill]

Station with a diesel pump? Look closer. I have never in my life seen a gas station without diesel that didn't have a compititor within one block that had diesel. I live in the US, and in a northern state where Diesles have earned a bad reputation of not starting in winter. (And don't try to tell me that it is solved because I know people with modern diesles and they have a hard time starting when it is cold).

Trucks all use diesel. Farmers are switching to it in their trucks and tractors. Many construction trucks use it. Cars don't come in diesel versions, but Ford and Dodge forced Chevy to get a good diesel because so many people refused to buy their work trucks with gas. (The old chevy diesel sucked comprared to the powerstroke or cummins)

There have always been a few diesle cars around. Never enough for gas stations to care about, but the other users of diesel are big players, and station owners want that buisness.

At 239 MPG...

[bpowell423]

it'll only use a tenth of a gallon before being squashed like a bug on the highway! Seriously, I value my life too much to trust it to something as comical as this thing. Maybe for commuting around tiny little streets in Europe, but not for driving 5 hours to see Grandma for Thanksgiving.

Biodiesel... But does it scale?

[rtos]

If you are interested in alternative fuel sources, I recommend you check out Steven Den Beste's comments on biodiesel . He's skeptical about its scalability, to say the least. Here's a tiny quote:

"The problem with all of them isn't that they can't be made to work, it's that the amount of power (energy per time) they can provide us is several orders of magnitude too small to make any real difference if our goal is to significantly reduce our consumption of petroleum. What you find is that most of them can generate really substantial amounts of power in short bursts, but the average power generation is tiny on the scale we're discussing."

Please note that the above is just a tiny quote, and you need to read the whole article to really put it into context.

You might also want to check out his other article on alternative fuels which covers solaris, geothermal, wind, fusion, tides, fission, and solar satellites.

I'm not saying he's 100% correct, but he definitely brings up some points that need to be considered when having an intelligent conversation about alternative fuels.

Iraq

[Latent Heat]

Why did the United States together with NATO attack Milosovic? Can't say there is much oil just outside Novi Sad.

The alternatives to war are 1) maintain sanctions that have killed thousands and thousands of children since 1991, 2) remove sanctions and give free reign to a regime to threaten millions with nuclear or germ-war death, including you in Europe, a regime that has a proven track record of willingness to use chemical weapons, 3) hope that "Cowboy Bush's" threats of war will get Iraq to cooperate with UNMOVIC and avoid war.

You all in Europe need Middle Eastern oil more than the U.S. does -- your policy, however, is appeasement.

Diesel available at McDonalds

[neonfrog]

All this whining that biodiesel isn't available -- burn used grease of which there is a HUGE supply: Greasecar.

This is now the third time I've posted about Greasecar (not affiliated in any way, but plan to implement a kit in the the next year or so).

Heard a radio story or two recently about diesel and soot. As clean as they can be (nowadays) from a carbon standpoint they have another bad thing about them: soot. Even if the carbon is reduced the soot is sunlight blocking / reflecting and thus weather affecting (kind of like those contrails) -- so much so that even the diesel-guzzling Europeans are beginning to take notice of the problem. I am not sure if the soot issue is resolved at all with biodiesels or grease cars. Still reseraching that one...

True, you need to go to Brazil

[twitter]

You be the judge:

Car in Brazil

VW Concept Car

Grin, I always thought that car in Brazil was cool. We're all in it together.

Congratulations to VW, this is a very cool thing, despite the smart-ass remarks above.

Re:True, you need to go to Brazil

[Joao]

Funny you should mention that.

I'm currently on vacation here in Brazil (the country, not the movie ;), and I'm pleasantly surprised to see the cars most people are driving. In the US, my Honda Civic was one of the smallest cars on the road, while down here, my dad's Civic is quite a lot larger than the local average. Sure, there are a few large cars around, including the occasional SUV. But the little ones, including the 1000 cc VWs and FIATs outnumber the larger vehicles by quite a wide margin.

Ps: Good info on SUVs is available at the website of the NPR radio show cartalk.

Re:Picture in the article

[telstar]

Not to mention that huge line of traffic behind the thing. Get out the way!

biodiesel

[robbo]

It's nice to talk about alternative fuels, but I have yet to see a gas station selling one of them.

Why would you want gas stations to sell you alternative fuels? With biodiesel, every fast food outlet becomes a potential gas station. I'd rather just see the regular gas stations put out of business.

Stopped for walking

[Epeeist]

> because we drive *every*fuckingwhere in our *own* cars. especially in cities like los angeles. no one walks even a block or two. you get in your car, and you drive. that's the standard mentality.

I can well believe this. I was stopped twice by police in Milwaukee for walking near the outskirts of the city. They wanted to know where my car was. I had to explain that

a. I was a visitor from the UK doing some consultancy.
b. I didn't have a car
c. I was walking to try and throw off the effects of jet lag.

Re:Stopped for walking

[stud9920]

Yes but are you black or white ?

Re:Stopped for walking

[Epeeist]

> Yes but are you black or white ?

White - but I do have a Yorkshire accent.

Re:Stopped for walking

[stud9920]

White - but I do have a Yorkshire accent.

That must be it ! Did you know male people with a Yorkshire accent are 50 percent more likely to be involved in a crime ?

Yorkshire accent, what's that anyway, are you barking like a dog or something ?

Re:Stopped for walking

[ncc74656]

Yorkshire accent, what's that anyway

You might try getting a copy of this Monty Python sketch...

Trade gas for grease

[neonfrog]

That's why you get a Ford F-250 king cab diesel or any other big diesel thing and convert it to run on french fry grease. That is exactly my plan in the next year or so -- get a used Ford (why Ford? they are common in my neck of the woods (I hate to wait for parts) and my brother-in-law is a Ford mechanic) and do the mods for used grease (my wife works at a culinary school!). ANY diesel vehicle (even BIG OLD CHEVY SUBURBANS if you want to feel tank-like) will do. Mercedes are nice and safe. Escalade schmescalade - get a diesel EXCURSION!!

Considering that used grease is usually free, the $1000 install of the kit should pay for iself in short order -- at a minimum I go 40 miles a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year. At $1.50 a gallon of something (and 15 mpg, though that is optimistic for a big thing) it will pay for the kit in ONE YEAR.

Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel

[MindStalker]

Thats actually not true. Diesel engines don't spill any more junk that petro engines do its just that the pieces are larger so they are more visible. This is actually a environmental plus as they fall to the ground while petro exaust doesn't and hangs out in the air for a long time.

soot is not a global warming threat

[g4dget]

The net effect is at no real change, and more likely it actually make global warming worse.

While soot contributes significantly to global warming, unlike CO2, its contribution is short-lived because the particulate matter is removed from the atmosphere quickly (of the order of 1y). From the point of view of global warming, switching to efficient diesel engines is a very good choice. Furthermore, for widespread adoption of diesel the soot would to get removed anyway because it would be unhealthy.

Oh, I forgot this is Slashdot, Europe is enlightened, the U.S. is the bumbling oaf.

Maybe that's because a larger fraction of the people on Slashdot actually have a basis for comparison, compared to your average American.

Re:soot is not a global warming threat

[Rich0]

Soot is NOT an organic matter. Soot is carbon with other chemicals in it.

Hmm - guess you aren't a chemist... Last time I checked, carbon-based molecules were organic BY DEFINITION... Also, the last time I checked "other chemicals" could be anything from aspirin, to water, to oxygen, to cyanide... Most likely, it would be degraded pretty well by appropriate bacteria - though I will be the first to agree that it is probably pretty hard to scrub up using brushes and soap...

Of course, the original author mentions nothing of time-scales. While I'm sure bacteria will eat soot just as easily as they can eat oil, or even rock for that matter, it probably isn't going to happen in your lifetime...

Re:soot is not a global warming threat

[g4dget]

Soot is NOT an organic matter. Soot is carbon with other chemicals in it.

What does that have to do with anything? Soot is particulate matter, and it disappears from the atmosphere quickly--that's all that matters as far as global warming is concerned. The fact that it sticks to your house is unfortunate, but it is irrelevant to global warming.

As I was also saying, widespread adoption of diesel wouldn't happen without soot filters on cars anyway because it's a health hazard.

Re:soot is not a global warming threat

[mduell]

Also, the last time I checked "other chemicals" could be anything from aspirin, to water, to oxygen, to cyanide...

/me notes that cyanide is nearly half carbon and asprin (acetylsalicyclic acid) is over half carbon

Today's diesel engines are WAY better

[MtViewGuy]

Tyro,

Let me address your concerns one by one.

1. The engine being noisy and dirty are things of the past. Modern computer design has improved diesel engines to the point that the clattering sound you hear from old-style engines no longer exists on a 2002-manufactured diesel engine. As for the air pollution problem, the use of modern fuel-delivery systems and modern particulate traps/exhaust catalysts will eliminate the unhealthy exhaust of diesel engines of the past. The only reason why diesels aren't common in the USA is the fact Diesel #2 fuel sold in most of the USA has sulfur compound levels of around 2,000 parts per million, which will quickly corrode fuel-delivery and exhaust emission control systems on European market diesel cars in very short order. Fortunately, with the EPA mandating low-sulfur diesel fuels very soon, we will see clean-burning diesel engines in the US market in a few years.

2. Finding diesel fuel pumping stations is fortunately not as bad as it used to be, thanks to the fact diesel engines are very popular for pickup trucks.

3. Because modern diesel engines don't have the vibrations of older-style engines, you don't have to worry about engine vibration causing long-term structural damage to the car. The current 90 bhp TDI engine on the VW Golf/Jetta is quiet enough that you really for the most part can't tell if it's a gasoline or diesel engine. I can't wait for VW to bring over the PD 130 diesel engine with its 130 bhp output and massive initial starting torque.

4. Modern diesel engines have pretty much cured the problem of not being able to shut them off on high temperature conditions, thanks to modern fuel delivery systems that have automatic cutoff.

I for one want to see Toyota build a Prius with a 1.0-liter turbodiesel engine instead of the 1.3-liter gasoline engine. Instead of getting fuel mileage around 50 miles per US gallon try getting fuel mileage in the range of 70 miles per US gallon! :-)

Re:Today's diesel engines are WAY better

[RennieScum]

However...what does a desal use a timing chain for? There aren't spark plugs with carefully timed sparks fireing! What is the deal with timing on a diesel?

Fuel injection. The old VW's fuel pump ran off of this belt (using the same hole/cam as the distributor they removed IIRC). Injection timing in a diesel is just as important as spark timing in a gas engine.

Yeah, the drive belt is a bitch to replace, you can get at most of it without to much hassle but to remove/install it you need to take off all the pulleys and the shroud. Few cars give easy access to this though.

That rubber belt (it's actually steel belted) doesn't do much in the way of noise prevention. They've been in use since the 70's if not before. A chain actually does more damage when it breaks since it becomes a bunch of small, rotating, hard metal bits.

Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel

[gaj]

Um, the American people voted, and he received more electoral votes than his competitors?

Re:Looks like a "3rd World country" is beating US

[uradu]

> the vast difference in GDP

Huh? About a factor of three, which incidentally is also roughly the ratio of population sizes. That's why we usually work with percentages rather than raw currency amounts, in which case you'd see that the US spends about 16% on defense while Germany spends about 10%.

Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel

[lfourrier]

With a diesel engine, you have the possibility of using biodiesel, that is carburant made from plants. the carbon released by the engine is then carbon that was just fixed by plants, not carbon fixed millions of year ago like in petrol.
Using biodiesel, you stabilize CO2 level in atmosphere.
With gazoline, you increase it.

You just keep dreaming

[suman28]

There is no way the 1L car will enter U.S mainstream. Have you seen the size of that car? It looks like a toy car. Seeing how most of us here are obsessed with big size and more power, even an almost normal looking car is hard to sell (i.e Civic hybrid, Toyota Prius...). I can't even imagine how this will compete in the U.S. Now Europe and other countries is a whole other matter.

Re:Looks like a "3rd World country" is beating US

[Martin Blank]

US GDP: $10 trillion
German GDP: $2.2 trillion
Ratio: 4.5:1

US Population: 280M
German Population: 83M
Ratio: 3.4:1

Source: CIA World Factbook 2002

As for the defense budgets, need I remind you of the American forces in Germany? They may not be so necessary anymore, and on this basis alone (and not nationalism), I wouldn't mind seeing them come home, though that might well be a poor decision at some point in the future. I do wonder how it would affect Germany's economy, which I understand to be a little shaky at the moment, if the American forces did leave. I'm sure they contribute at least some to local money numbers. It would be an interesting experiment.

VW's amazing PD 130/PD 150 engines

[MtViewGuy]

The best examples of a powerful and efficient modern diesel engine are Volkswagen's amazing PD 130 and PD 150 turbodiesel engines.

They offer surprisingly amounts of performance and still get 40 to 45 miles per US gallon fuel mileage even with a lot of hard driving. Small wonder why VW's and SEAT's powered by these two engines are extremely popular in Europe.

Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel

[operagost]

There are now diesel catalytic converter retrofits available. These replace the existing muffler so that modification of the exhaust system is not necessary. However, right now I only know of them being available for buses and trucks; although that's a good start since they're the ones with the most road mileage here in the U.S. Many cities are retrofitting their buses with these or deploying CNG vehicles (all of Philly's small buses are CNG).

..I have yet to see one...

[passion]

It's nice to talk about alternative fuels, but I have yet to see a gas station selling one of them.

Open your eyes, do a little research - I know of a gas station just down the street that sells natural gas (for cars), and the Insight don't need no stinkin' special fuel - it's just efficient.

Alternative fuels at filling stations

[jridley]

I live in the Ann Arbor area, and several stations I normally go to have LNG (Liquified Natural Gas). There's a hydrogen pump listed in the UCS web site but it turns out that it's at the Chrysler proving grounds and not accessible to the public. I think there's a hydrogen pump at a gas station about 40 miles north/east of here but I've never gone to check it out.

Of course, we're in the midst of liberal city AND very near Motown, so it's not too surprising this stuff is around here. However, it does show that there's willingness to put in the pumps if there's demand. The LNG station is at a Meijer's (large supermarket/we sell everything chain).

I love my TDI

[Publicus]

I've been the proud owner of a Golf TDI for about 4 months now and I absolutely love it.

I get 45-50 mpg and the thing is great to drive. In fact, most mornings it's my main motivation for going to work! (This morning being no exception)

For those who aren't so interested in fuel economy though, I think this model is pretty cool. A V10 diesel in an SUV!

Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel

[Hard_Code]

This helped a bit:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/energyb ri efing.htm

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp ?I nd=E01&Cycle=2000&recipdetail=A&Mem=N&sortorde r=U

Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel

[iangoldby]

Are you sure that was more votes?

Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel

[jpop32]

The story poster had it right - there's new diesel fuels around which are less polluting, which makes this even better. But it'll still run just fine on plain old diesel.

Ummm... No.

The newest generation od diesel engines (common-rail turbo diesels) actually demand new environment-friendly fuel. Regular diesel has too much sulphur which damages the engine. But, they manage to squeeze ~80BHP from 1.5 liter engines, with ~5l/100km consumption. No wonder they sell like hot cakes in Europe.

The polymer car you will never see.

[supabeast!]

This car is an interesting idea, but it fails to address something that would really improve fuel efficiency; the automobile industry needs to stop making cars from metal. There are plenty of modern polymers stronger and lighter than the steel used in cars, and ceramic engines wear less and weigh less than steel. Such cars would have a much longer lifespan than the cars we have now, and would not need nearly as many expensive replacement parts as the cars being produced now. This would hurt the automotive industry's flawed business model that revolves around products guaranteed to degrade and lose value. Ick.

And I thought I was ignorant on some issues...

[Viewsonic]

The USA gets 25% of its oil from the Middle East. Over the past few years it has been dropping by a percentage or two. We've been making deals with Russia lately to produce more oil as we slowly sever our ties with the Middle East. Iraq has nothing the USA wants other than an evil dictator that needs to have his ass booted out of power. USA is more dependent on Canada and Mexico for oil than it is from the Middle East. I wish this stupid urban myth that USA gets all its oil from the Middle East would just die. In 10 years from now we'll be getting around 5-10% of our total oil from there, less if possible.

haha..

[Viewsonic]

Lovely 2 star unfavorable VW reviews compared to the rave 4 star BMW reviews.

LOL...

[El Camino SS]

The latest common rail diesels from PSA (Peugeot/Citroen) have particle collectors that periodically burn the particles at very high temperatures.

He just talked like a Peugeot was a superior vehicle. I started laughing uncontrollably. Please let me modify his original statement for clarity of point:

The latest common rail diesels from PSA (Peugeot/Citroen) have particle collectors that periodically burn the particles at very high temperatures... then for no apparent reason they explode in a fit of uncontrollable European engineering ennui*.

*Footnote: Germany Excluded.

Re:LOL...

[El Camino SS]

Touche! LOL...

My name is that because it is the ugliest car that caught on with the public, EVER. It hits me on so many levels. Also it is poorly designed. THAT is why it is my name... although "the Edsel" would also be appropriate.

Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel

[gaj]

Yup.

Or else he wouldn't have won.

Unless you are suggesting that he won because they were better votes? I suppose one could make that argument. ;)

Or were you confusing electoral votes (cast by Electors) with votes cast by citizens for a slate of Electors? If you were, perhaps you should consider educating yourself.

Difference in Country Size

[RembrandtX]

For all the folks there who are griping about Americans saying ' its not practicacl' etc.

I take this oppurtunity to remind you about the difference in our country size. [Which, many europeans etc don't seem to understand until they come 'across the pond' so to speak.]

I lived in Nottingham U.K. for a year and a half or so when I worked for Games-Workshop. [technically I lived in Lenton for all you nit pickers :P] Nottingham central (the castle, the reston square hotel, etc) was approximatly 7 miles from my home. [which I shared with 3 flatmates, 1 english and 2 japanese guys.]

My english flatmate was VERY english (just, as I suppose, most americans are VERY american .. anyone who has ever lived abroad will appreciate the horror in which I say that.) and was constantly taking pot shots at how americans are spoiled .. driving their huge SUV's everywhere on cheap cheap gas (it was 1.65 per litre (pounds not dollars) when i was over there thats roughly 14 lbs a gallon . or about $20 a gallon with the exchange rate).

Before I go on with this next bit, I want to give the homefront Americans a bit of information about the U.K. so they can understand this part. The drive from Heathrow airport to Nottingham is about an 1.5 - 2 hours time. 5 hours if the m-6 is ANYWHERE in your route. Its probally about 100 miles between the two .. and Nottingham is roughly 1/2 way up the island. This is considered a Weekend Trip by most folks I associated with over there.
Nottingham Castle is about 25 miles from Sherwood Forest (or whats left of it) I learned that on the day I proposed to my wife, and the gas station attendant was HORRIFIED that we were going to DRIVE there .. 'Are you sure you want to go there ? thats almost 20 miles away.' was what she said. Again. Distance. My grocery store ( a safeway mind you .. was .8 miles from my house .. my work was .6 miles ) Once when i flew in from the US .. and took a train to nottingham, I wanted to save the $$ on cab faire [and couldnt decipher the bus schedule] I walked from nottingham to Lenton carrying my luggage .. 7 miles .. i was declaired a health nut for months after that. Now back to the story.

I kept trying to explain to him how distance was a factor in daily American life, but he just didn't understand. When I explained my daily commute to work was just about the distance to London from our house .. he thought I was just 'taking the piss'. This argument continued on, until the company sent him to the US offices in Baltimore MD.

Totally ignoring my advice that he wouldnt be able to visit BOTH New York and Orlando in the same weekend, He hopped a plane to Baltimore. {and never got out of Maryland :P)

Coming back he was a changed man.

Before his trip to the US. He simply could not fathom the amount of land that our nation covers. [Something most Americans don't stop to realise either.] Just like I simply couldn't see how me walking 7 miles home from Nottingham was a big deal.

SO .. as these eruopean folks start saying how wasteful we are .. and all that. Take this into consideration:

You can drive from Nottingham England to Italy faster that you can drive from Connecticut to Florida.

And for you Euro folks, when the americans say '239 mpg ? thats not enough' or 'that looks so uncomfortable' please consider that the distance between Baltimore Maryland and New York City could require a fill-up of that car. And that many folks make commutes of that distance *daily* for work.

Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel

[surprise_audit]

A well-tuned diesel engine puts out CO2 and water. Nothing else. Read that in a fairly reputable motoring magazine back in England about 10 years ago.

Of course, well-tuned diesel engines are about as common as hips on a snake...

Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel

[SpaceJunkie]

you mean after being rigged, major exclusions of certain cross sections of the public, numerous recountings and admissions of inaccuracies, a public too illiterate to understand voting. Umm - the George Bush vote was a farce in the worlds eyes... You mean some Americans actually thought he got in fair and square?
Anyway- this is almost off topic, except to state that George Bush has some very well known and reasonably advertised links with the Oil Industry (understating). Remember how Ford bought the EV1 and shelved it. Before people troll about how useless it was to have to leave it plugged in those eight hours a day you are sleeping and dont use it, or those eight hours a day you are working and dont use it - it might not be for everyone but for some of us it was a great alternative.

There are two main reasons that petrol is the most widely used vehical fuel: 1) The oil/petrochemical companies are the richest economy in the world - yes even more than Bill Gates. There are economies that would collapse if a safe, clean, cheap and efficient alternative presented itself overnight. These peole's livelyhoods and entire reputations are at stake. Why would it seem so odd that they would go to extreme lengths to preserve their legacy.. As much as I am an idealist- if I was in that position i would probably do the same - who wants to have to go back down....
2) The American public. Yes call me what you like but they drive the biggest cars, the move the least on environmental issues. The American nation decided to ignore, abstain or even counteract many environmental treaties while the whole world - even China - signed them. The British public have slightly better attitudes, and drive smaller cars which are slightly more fuel efficient. The germans have some excellent concerns. In fact on my short stay (coding contract) almmost everything in the four companies I was visiting was recycled. Stinking petrol cars- I dont think so. Most people either cycled, or grouped together in deisel cars. Public transport was much cleaner and safer than any I have seen with a notable security presence and much more efficient trains. Even on a friday night at rush hour in city locations in munich you could get on a train without being force to placce your cheek in a fat guys armpits. I am sorry- but on environmental issues - Americans embaress the rest of the world.... George W most of all...

Caspean Sea? Natural Gas?

[PatientZero]

The best route for a pipeline happens to be right through Kosovo. Coincidence? Maybe...

As for Iraq, you forgot 4) continue with weapons inspections, and if they fail, 5) seek approval for an attack from the U.N., following the charter that we developed and signed. As well, perhaps there should be U.N. inspection teams in Israel and the U.S. to ensure there are no chemical weapons. We could also pretend to be moving towards nuclear disarmament as we agreed.

Saddam is certainly a brutal tyrant, but if we neglect international law in dealing with him, that encourages law-breaking on all sides. As well, most people forget that he was most brutal when he had U.S. support, using chemical weapons internally agains the Kurds and externally against Iran (whom we were funding simultaneously). This was before the invasion of Kuwait, and the U.S. State Department happily mailed the checks and sent the military equipment and chemicals for producing weapons.

you understand, don't you

[peterjm]

that this was a concept car. It was designed to get 100 mpg, and transport one person from point to point b. This is not the car that will be released to joe public when this technology finally makes it out of the concept phase.

to quote another section of the article.

Viewed as a vehicle concept - with four wheels, but very low-slung and with two seats in tandem - the 'one-liter' car is perhaps an indication of a totally new family of cars.

It's part of new familly of cars. It's designed to show off the tech, not the final desgin of the car.

Re:Comparing Gas Prices

[wackybrit]

You list 0,87 /L as you price. Not sure where you are, but in the UK petrol is approx. 74p per litre, which is 1,18 .

So what are options for Americans?

[Deagol]

So we're a 1-car family. We have a '93 Mazda Navajo, which is a re-badged 2-door Ford Explorer, with a 4-L V6 engine. The best fuel efficiency I've recorded is 20mpg, though I average 18mpg for highway trips (the majority of travel this thing now sees). I'm not ashamed of this car, as we travel off-road a lot (hey, this is Utah!) and have rural property which requires a 4x4 to access it. We often haul stuff inside, as well as outside (trailer), which would not be possible in a conventional car.

(You know, it's a no-win situation. We own a single vehicle which does everything we require, but it sucks in fuel efficiency. Yet, if we get a second, more efficient car, we'd be acused of being the typical glutonous American family.)

I'd like to get a better car, though, for commuting. One to optimize my tax burden (which, for me means any car over 12 years of age) and fuel efficiency (obviouly better than 20mpg, say 30-50mpg).

Diesel is an option, as I live in a farm town and it's readily available.

So... let's hear some sugegstions! I just hope the VW Rabbit isn't the only matching car. :)

Re:So what are options for Americans?

[Skip666Kent]

Toyota Echo

Cutely-goofy little car, but lot's of room and amazing mileage.

Station in Cambridge Massachusetts...

[Mysticalfruit]

There's a gas station in cambridge massachusetts that sells biodiesel...

Re:Michael's just an idiot

[Reality Master 101]

It ain't flamebait if it's the truth.

This kind of thinking is for the uninformed

[Anonymous Coward]

The average person may get caught in this trap, but a slashdot person? This is sad.

Say you don't get in a head on with a smaller car, say your Escalade hits an embankment. Now how happy are you about all that extra energy? Now your enormous amount of energy is dissapating through your too-stiff frame rails and delivering a hell of a shock to you (unlike a crumple zone space frame car). How about that tail way behind you? Where is it going to put all of its energy? Well, it's either going to swing sideways or upwards. Neither seems like a lot of fun, does it?

And what about the increased rollover incidence? What about the reduced likelihood you will get in a wreck in a manuverable car? Which wreck is more survivable, the one you were in in a large car or the one you avoided completely in a manuverable car?

Stop buying vehicles as kinetic energy weapons!

Head on accidents are so few. For all you know the increased risk of skin cancer because you have to spend more time in the sun fueling the vehicle more than makes up for your chance of using your better physics in a head on collision.

Lawn mower

[Catskul]

From the Popular Science article:
The engine produces a thundering 8.5 horsepower and weighs only 57 pounds.

I think my lawn mower has more power.
Hell, my bicycle has more horse power.(with me pedeling)
There is no way a 8.5 horse power engine could power a road worthy vehicle.
You shouldnt be able to call it a car if you cant drive it on a highway.

300cc engine? What a huge pig of a car.

[Chris Y Taylor]

Almost 640lbs, and a 300cc engine... What a road hog. Messerschmitt made a passenger car with a 173 cc engine* (the KR175). It initially had no reverse because the car was light enough to just walk it backwards even up an incline. Of course it got a miserable 80 to 100 miles per gallon, but that was back in the mid 50s.

For a modern passenger vehicle of that style, 250 miles per gallon is about right; not "certainly almost unbelievable" as the article says. Doubting comments like "claims that such a technological feat was impossible" must have come from the writer's friends and family, as automotive experts working on fuel efficiency would hardly consider VW's 239 mpg "impossible" when Combidrive's Mouse ( http://www.3wheelers.com/combidrive.html & http://www.trinity-school.org/summer02.pdf ) has already attained over 255 mpg, with a presumably stripped down Mouse claiming 568 mpg at the Shell Milage Marathon in 1996. (201.1km/litre) So VW's claims of being the most economical car are not as "cut and dried" as they would have you believe. The VW does have 4 wheels to the Mouse's (and many other micro's) 3, so they may be trying to differentiate it from its trike competitiors by saying "car" rather than "vehicle" and then using a strict definition of "car". Still, the point is that 239mpg at 46mph is not that surprising for a purpose built non-production vehicle (with things like a magnesium space frame, I doubt they really plan to put this into production any time soon). This is a publicity stunt, not a technological breakthrough.

*Even the ME KR175 was huge compared to the 1964 Peel P50 (49cc engine, 132 lbs., http://www.3wheelers.com/peel.html ).

SUV's are *NOT* safe!

[chunkwhite86]

You are quite obviously diluted and misinformed when it comes to automotive safety.

Your low-tech, oversized SUV has a ladder frame chassis. This does not compress when in an accident. A car with crumple zones (invented by VW, BTW) will absorb a huge amount of the collision impact leaving only a minimum amount for the human occupants to absorb. Whereas your BODY will absorb this force in an SUV collision.

Guess what is the leading cause of high speed collision deaths? Nope.. not intrusion into the passenger cabin - Its your internal organs coliding with your skeletal system - This force is magnified several times when in a ladder-frame SUV, so you guessed it - your dead, while your buddy who is driving a CAR in the same accident would survive. Food for thought.

Also consider the government warnings on the sun visor of your new SUV? Yes, they are true - your SUV *WILL* flip over (and probably kill you from being crushed) if you make sudden turns or collide with a curb. Again, in the SUV - your dead. In a car, your alive.

An SUV derives all it's structural integrity from that antique ladder from chassis, while a car gets it's strength from the design of the unibody shell. With newer supercomputers working to design more rigid monocoque car bodies, it's no wonder a car is so much safer in an accident than an SUV.

And lets not forget that 50% of safety is *AVOIDING* the accident to begin with. Who do you think can avoid an accident better? An SUV with very antique primitive suspension, and therefore awful handling (and prone to flipping over) and brakes that are not very effective because they have to stop such a large mass, and huge blind spots that prevent you from seeing smaller cars around you -or- a car with a modern suspension so it can handle well, brakes that can stop it in a shorter distance, and good visibility in all directions? Sorry buddy, you lose again. In an SUV, your dead, in a car you'll live.

Not safety related, but any self respecting slashdot geek should appreciate modern technology. An SUV does not deliver in that department either folks. That live rear axle was invented around the year 1900, while that leaf spring suspension came unchanged, from the covered wagons of the 1860's. It's like paying $25,000 for a 286, 8 Mhz, with 160 KB of RAM! Guess all those shoddy american car makers must have much better marketing departments than engineering departments. Probably why the Germans have always been 30 years ahead of the Americans in automotive technoloy...

Re:SUV's are *NOT* safe!

[twinpot]

A car with crumple zones (invented by VW, BTW) Not too sure about that one. Mercedes and Citroen probably had the first production cars with intended crumple zones (old 180's and ID/DS), and SAAB & Volvo were doing quite a bit too. This at a time when VW where only doing the Beetle.

Biodiesel as an alternative fuel for diesel cars

[erwten2000]

I drive a 1987 Golf diesel and for a while I have been only using biodiesel. The car runs much better on biodiesel than on the filthy oil-diesel.

Biodiesel is much better for the environment, the motor itself and for the public health of all. And the motor makes much less noise ... the horrible diesel motor noise is a result of the horrible fuel (which is a waste product of "gasoline").

Biodiesel can cut pollution up to eighty percent compated to oil-diesel. We mustn't forget that Dr. Rudolph Diesel designed the diesel motor to run on vegetable oil and not on filthy oil products.

In German and Austria there are already 2000 service stations which sell biodiesel (www.biodiesel.de and www.biodiesel.at). Germany and Austria are serious about cutting CO2 levels.

Sadly, in the Netherlands where I live, the government and even the Dutch Green Party could care less about biodiesel.

Good biodiesel site/book ... http://www.veggievan.org

m.

That Can Be Arranged

[duck_prime]

With your current little debacle in the Middle East, I would have thought the idea of ridding yourselves of dependance on gas/petrol would be a good incentive.

But then the US would have to find somewhere else to go to war with :)

I'm sure that when we finally move over to bio-generated fuels, and the Middle East realizes with shock and horror that nobody cares about them anymore (heh heh), someone else will be glad to step up and be the next global villain.

The cynics amongst us will claim that this is an artifact of the Smoke-Filled Room Conspiracy "manufacturing" enemies to feed the military-industrial complex or distract the populace. There is something to that.

But don't forget that the enemy du jour is always terribly sincere. The Communists certainly battled the US/the-free-world for world domination on a number of fronts. The militant muslims chanting "Death to America" in the streets aren't just kidding around either. Historically, someone always steps up. If nobody seems to be volunteering, Germany is always good for another round. ;)

So here's the question... who's next? Are these guys already sharpening knives, or will they not bother to hate (what boils down to) the West until militant Islam is "dealt with"?

This is mostly tongue-in-cheek, but...

So many reasons it is impractical

[RalphSlate]

I am not a "the earth can recover from anything we throw at it" person. I believe that we should be conserving fuel. However, this car, and the others like it, are not at all practical in the US for the following basic reasons:

1) Although a 1 or 2 seat car might make sense while commuting to and from work, owning a $10k car just to commute to work is impractical. I would need another car if I wanted to drive my friends and family anywhere, or if I wanted to buy anything larger than a toaster oven. Until gasoline costs $1000/gallon, owning two cars, one for commuting, one for other usage, isn't economically realistic.

2) With all the SUVs and 18-wheel trucks on the highways, it would be suicide to drive one of these cars. I doubt that insurers would even insure them because they would be a fatality magnet in an accident.

3) What do you do if you're not 100% in shape, and weigh more than 150 lbs. as a male adult, or are just plain claustrophobic? Driving this car would be worse than a 10-hour coach plane trip in a middle seat between two football players.

I think that if you gave me this car for free, I wouldn't drive it, because of the safety/comfort issues. Add on a price tag surely over $8k, and it's a no-brainer -- only the most environmentally fanatical of people will buy cars like this. And that doesn't add up to enough money for it to be worth the carmakers' effort.

This is bogus

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

Diesel engines are actually simpler in a mechanical sense as they have no ignition, these combust by compression. I think your friends just had some bad luck or bad manufactorers.

Re:This is bogus

[ChannelX]

US diesel cars around that time were notorius for having all sorts of problems. Its why diesels dont sell well here anymore (VW is the only remaining company selling diesel cars).

Re:Wrong country maybe, but you have wrong facts..

[Guppy06]

"but recent studies have shown that while diesel reduces CO2, it increases soot Science Daily [sciencedaily.com]. The net effect is at no real change, and more likely it actually make global warming worse."

As long as the net effect is "no real change" per gallon, diesel fuel is still better. Diesel engines tend to put out more power with less fuel. For example, a Dodge Ram 1500 with a 6-cylinder Cummings turbo diesel gets more horsepower and torque with around 22 MPG of diesel fuel than the same truck with a V-8 getting around 18 MPG of gasoline.

The Diesel cycle can get much better efficiency than an Otto cycle because you can get compression ratios you simply can't get if you're using sparkplugs. That's why trucks and ships have diesel engines.

DIY Bio-Diesel

[z0ck]

http://www.bagelhole.org/article.php/Transportatio n/44/ Learn to make your own. You can make your own fuel for a bit less than petroleum diesel, get the same power and reduced emmissions. Plus, the exhaust smells like whatever was cooked in it. My old diesel suburban smells like Krispy Kremes.

Re:Check out Cato Funding

[CommieLib]

Did you have a problem with the data, or the analysis of the data?

Oh, I'm sorry, that was an ad hominem attack. Okay, well then...

Of course Cato gets funding from car and oil companies. Cato lists as the title on its home page The Cato Institute: Public Policy Analysis, Limited Government, Free Markets. If they're engaged in a shadow conspiracy with the oil companies, they're not covering it up very well.

So...let's hear some criticism of the actual report. What? You can't tell a regression analysis from a Subway sandwich? Color me surprised.

Wrong administration.

[fmaxwell]

The US is actually very interested in fuel economy: Corporate Average Fuel Economy [doc.gov] is very much responsible for pushing manufacturers to increase fuel economy.

That used to be the case, however Bush and Cheney are both from the oil industry. Cheney had secret meetings with energy company exectives when drafting the administration's energy policy. Bush/Cheney have resisted raising the CAFE MPG limits, closing the light truck loophole, and have downplayed the importance of fuel efficiency, instead concentrating on oil drilling. They have even gone so far as to push for extensive drilling on public lands, include wildlife refuges -- a giveaway that would allow oil companies to take oil from public lands and then sell it on the world market to the highest bidder. (There is no requirement that the oil be sold in the U.S. or that it be discounted for the benefit of U.S. consumers.)

I agree that the US has interests in keeping oil petroleum prices down, just as every other country in the world, but Europe has chosen to tax their fuel very heavily, making non-gasoline options more attractive.

It is *NOT* in U.S. interests to keep petroleum prices down. Having prices that are so low is why we have people commuting alone to work in 11MPG SUVs. It's why soccer moms are driving Chevy Suburbans rather than station wagons. The best thing that could happen would be for gasoline (and diesel) prices to rise to about $3/gallon over the next few years. We need something to make U.S. consumers pay attention to fuel economy when selecting a vehicle. I'm tired of the U.S. kissing Saudi Arabian ass while the Saudis fund anti-American terrorists. I'm sick of pretending the Iran is our friend and of defending the ungrateful bastards in Kuwait. Drilling in Alaska is no answer -- we will see no significant production from such an effort for about a decade and, even under the most optimistic estimates, it will cut oil imports by only a tiny percentage.

Low prices = higher consumption = reliance on foreign oil = depletion of world oil reserves.

Diesel engines for airplanes too

[baz00f]

Diesels (GAP Diesel Engine) are cool for aviation: they will burn standard jet fuel (kerosene-like) which is cheaper than Aviation gasoline and unleaded (yes AVgas is still leaded!), and jet fuel is generally more available. And diesel engines will probabaly last longer than gas betw. overhauls.

-- "Eat Bowl Futty"

Re:Looks like a "3rd World country" is beating US

[uradu]

> US GDP: $10 trillion
> German GDP: $2.2 trillion
> Ratio: 4.5:1

Sorry, my mistake. Still, maybe the OP should define "vast difference." While I whole-heartedly agree that the Germany economy absolutely sucks at the moment (and has sucked for the last few years), there are some mitigating factors, the primary one being the drain on resources of unification. That is only worsed by the deep economic inertia and the general German incapacity for economic change and reform.

The US military leaving Germany might actually be extremely beneficial to the German economy. It would hopefully create the need in the heads of policitians to beef up defence, thus strengthening the domestic defence industry. Traditionally (certainly in the US) that's been one of the driving forces behind lots of high-tech R&D (insert obligatory Nazi references here), and that's something Germany has been neglecting for a LONG time. While they certainly do have some strong players in the defence field, they're hampered by Germany's traditional restraint on defence trade (headline stories of German chemical technology in Lybia and Iraq notwithstanding). If they can't sell submarines to Taiwan and tanks to Turkey, guess who will?

America needs to downsize.

[Maul]

This would be no problem if people in here in the US realize they don't really need a giant SUV, or even a full-sized car.

Seriously, it is beyond me why anyone would want to drive one of those huge SUVs as their regular vehicle. The gas costs for those things must be completely insane, not to mention the fact that some of them can't even fit in a parking space properly.

Truthfully, it would be better for the USA and the world if we downsized. It would be wonderful if the majority of people here switched to cars no bigger than a Civic.

I believe that if the US at large switched to compact cars, things would be a lot better for us.

1) Less gas consumption. This means cheaper prices at the pumps, cleaner air, and a supply that will last longer.

2) Less congestion. Bigger vehicles take up more space on the road. This will also allow for more parking spaces on the side of the road, in parking lots, and more room in your garage.

3) Safer roads. This might be a personal bias, but it seems that those who drive SUVs and larger cars have a false sense of security, and thus drive less cautiously. It seems as if SUV drivers where I live use their size as a "weapon," forcing everyone to look out for them rather than driving defensively. Additionally, an impact between two light cars will be less destructive than an impact between an SUV and a light car.

Re:75 km/h is fine( For the sidewalk)

[dubious9]

Na, I usually take the highway to the expressway to the turnpike. After that its only a short hop on the parkway and I'm there.

But seriously, how many people commute using highways in dense contries like the UK and china or Japan?

Re:Check out Cato Funding

[CommieLib]

Thank you for actually reading the report. At least you're actually thinking about the issue.

Having said that... A quick read of the "article" indicates that they did a regression analysis of different light truck percentage use against number of fatalities. Of course, there were almost no light trucks at the beginning of the 80s and so many light trucks now.

Regression period 1994-1997.

The Cato article does state that other sources do show that light trucks increase the fatalities of other drivers in head-on and side-impact collisions, and that light trucks have an higher incidence of roll over. They seemly ignore this and suggest that the improvement in overall traffic fatalities is due to the stiffer construction, vehicle weight, more safety features of SUVs!

The study is doing what good studies do: present the counterarguments first. The confusing thing is that the study concludes that while both of the above statements are true, the increase in fatalities they contribute is outweighed by the decrease in fatalities due to the construction of SUV's:

The strong light truck effects in the case of single-vehicle fatalities imply that the stiffer frames and greater weights of light trucks are protective of life in collisions not involving other vehicles. Moreover, the light truck effects substantially offset any fatalities from increases in single-vehicle accidents associated with light truck use. The multiple-vehicle fatality equations imply that the protective effects of light trucks to their occupants outweigh any increase in fatalities associated with an increase in multiple vehicle accidents due to light truck use and any increase in fatalities to occupants of other vehicles.

They even suggests more SUVs! This ignores two decades of vehicle improvements (air bags, anti-lock brakes, side impact beams, superior crush zones, increased vehicular weight) and improvements in driver behavior (more DUI stops, seat belts, child safety seats, etc...). By concentrating on percent light truck versus traffic fatalities a really incorrect picture is drawn. Just crash various light-truck versus various cars and cars versus cars from the current years and look at the results - oh just wait the NHTSA and insurance institute equivalent have done that comparison and guess what they reported.

Once again, 1994-1997.

It's amazing that a think tank that does such a shoddy analysis can reject years of actual crash tests by governmental organizations and private insurace research groups. I'm not saying that my critique is perfect, but their methodology is pretty goofy. I tend to trust actual research.

Take a look at the controls in this study:

• Light truck and SUV registration per licensed driver
• Dummy variable identifying states with 55 mph interstate highways
• Average inches of rain
• Inches of snow
• Proportion of licensed drivers who are male and under 25 years of age
• Proportion of licensed drivers who are are over 60 years of age

and a bunch more I'm too lazy to list. These are two Ph.D's in Economics at Rutgers; we're not talking community college here. You're saying we shouldn't trust academic research? I realize I didn't make it perfectly clear when I posted, but Regulation was simply the magazine that published the study.

Consider the study. What if it's right? If it's right, then opposing SUV's can cost lives. Of course, any choice that anyone makes can potentially "cost" lives; the point is, what public policy goals are we going to pursue, and do the choices we make further them?

Re:75 km/h is fine( For the sidewalk)

[CaseyB]

You don't drive that far to work then. Most people take the Freeways to work. That usally requires 100km/hr plus speeds.

You don't drive on a freeway at rush hour then. Very few freeways in large cities go anywhere near the speed limit in busy traffic.

Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel

[iangoldby]

I was referring to the 2000 election and the Florida vote-counting debacle, which is still a bit of a running joke here in the UK. Sorry you didn't get it.

Anyway, thanks for the Electoral College article. A good read.

Re:Picture in the article

[dubious9]

And the hit it'd take on it's lightning fast 40-some mph top speed...

Nowhere in the article does it say that its top speed is 40-some mph. It said that it averaged 40-some mph. If you can do 70mph for only ten minutes of your communte, and the rest is in traffic, your average speed is gonna be less than 40. RTFA man, and understand the numbers.

Re:Looks like a "3rd World country" is beating US

[Martin Blank]

Hey, we have to keep our war-mongerer-supported industries alive somehow. :)

SUVs with higher prices?!?

[El]

My god, they're already selling for $50,000... how much higher can they get?

I know this is lame but...

[hitzroth]

here was my submission:

2002-05-06 01:42:36 285mpg Volkswagen (articles,tech) (rejected)

Just one time I'd like someone to listen to me. Is that really too much to ask?

Hello?

Hello?

Anyone?

Re:Woah there yankee...

[dubious9]

1) Yes pat ourselves on the back: "UNICEF estimated that about 500,000 children younger than 5 have died in Iraq since sanctions were imposed." [globalpolicy.org] Silly Europeans should let us go to war so we can stop killing children (and start killing adults)!

You say this like its the UNs fault for imposing sanctions. Its Saddams own freaking fault. If he was truly interesting in saving his own people, he would have never invaded anything, not started a pointless war against Iran, and would have championed peace in the middle east. Face it, if Saddam played his cards right, the US and other countries would be giving billion in aid to them.

2) For what its worth, the only nation with a proven track record of using weapons of mass destruction (chemical or nuclear) is the United States of America.

Yes, but the United States rebuilt Japan and Eruope up after WWII. They export billions and billions of dollars in foriegn aid. I'm not saying that the US has always acted in the Right Way (tm), but they do a hell of a lot of good too. If the only thing that we were doing was developing weapons of mass destruction, you could bet the UN be knocking on our door.

3) Indeed: because setting the precedent for justifying preemptive unilateral attack to stop terrorism, topple unfriendly regimes or whatever ambiguous issue-de-jour sounds like a recipe for prolonged peace!

If you wanted Iraq to argee to weapons inspections quickly, wouldn't you want them to believe that we are crazy enough to risk international mayhem to attack them? All the US has done so far is talk tough and move it military chess pieces. And yes, who wouldn't believe that dubbya isn't crazy enough to launch a war?

Don't think Robert Redford reads Slashdot ...

[slagdogg]

... but he does have some comments on the issue.

I do.

[joshuaos]

I do, my last car got about 35 mpg, and a full size school bus I rode in for a time got about 6 mpg. Of course, this is the U$A.

You must not be in the United States

[Ashurbanipal]

Here in the US, many gas stations sell a so-called "alternative fuel".

It's known as PROPANE, or LP GAS.

And of course the VW uses DIESEL, which is also commonly available.

"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."

Common rail engines and wizardry

[allanj]

The way modern diesel engines get their great performance AND fuel economy at the same time, is through a fuel delivery system called common rail. I'm no expert in this area, but it supposedly means direct injection of diesel fuel at a pressure of ~1500 bar. Now that's a whole lot of pressure, so it depends on a steady supply of high quality diesel to function. So DON'T allow a common railer to run out of gas - it can seriously damage the engine. Apparently small fragments of metal gets torn of the common rail system, and sucked into the engine itself, creating a world of problems to moving parts in there.

These days, all car manufacturer serious about selling cars in Europe have some variant of common rail diesel engines in their product lines. These babies sell like hot cakes and quite deservedly so, IMHO.

Re:Check out Cato Funding

[CommieLib]

You're overlooking the whole point of the report: that while increased mass increases the incidence and degree of injury to others, it decreases the incidence and fatality of injuries to occupants by a greater degree.

As far as the whole "people don't need SUV's" argument goes, I could make the argument that you don't need an Integra. 90% of the people on the planet (wild out of the ass statistic alert) don't have a car at all. My family only uses one on a daily basis (a minivan used by my wife, and a 1971 SuperBeetle that only runs intermittently), while I carpool to work. Perhaps going off-road, hauling cargo, or carrying more passengers is what you would do with an SUV, but other people might have different priorities and values, like simply the fact that they like a big car or even...safety, the whole thing we've been talking about.

This clash of values and priorities is inevitable, and really what the whole SUV debate is all about. Civilized people like you and me have discussions and intelligent conversations about it, and endeavor to change each others' minds. The problem comes when the sufficiently organized and political influential brook no disagreement and establish their will by edict, rather than allowing that interchange that is the essence of democracy and <gasp>free markets.

I'll dissent from "clearly show". The NHTSA's tests (to which I assume you're referring) fail to take into account a decrease in structural strength for a corresponding decrease in mass. This implies using a different (and presumably more expensive) material such as titanium. So obviously, we're not comparing apples to apples here. Yes, I suppose it would be true that the whole world would be safer if SUV's were made out of stronger, lighter materials, but they would also be more expensive to manufacture. Once again, different values, different priorities.

Re:Check out Cato Funding

[CommieLib]

Furthermore, the NHTSA's tests showing a decrease in fatality with decrease in vehicle mass (it's obviously not linear by the way), only accounts for total fatalities. If you're talking about fatalities for occupants, they show an increase. You choose which vehicle you want your family riding in.

Re:I have a 2002 New Beetle TDI (diesel)

[The Tyro]

Multiple people have responded in earlier posts about runaway operation of a diesel... never happened to me personally, but I was warned about it.

I have not had a diesel vehicle in the family for 20 years, so I was curious as to the current state of the technology (I no longer work on my own cars). I'm getting quite an education in this thread.

The only other diesel we owned was when I was too young to drive: a Cadillac Eldorado diesel. Judging by my parents opinions, we never owned a worse car (I learned some great swear words listening to my parents discuss that junkyard dog). We went on many road trips, and after several breakdowns on the highway, we got rid of it. Incidently, it had most of the same problems as the VW, though to be fair, it was slightly less noisy.

SUVs and Cell phones

[Ionizor]

Maybe the wanker-in-an-SUV problem is just in Canada.

This reminds me of a story my friend whose father is a Police officer was telling me. It was about an incident with a woman driving down the road in a Jeep while talking on a cell phone.

Apparently she was completely oblivious because she drove right over a line of flares, through an accident scene and over a second line of flares without even noticing. That's bad enough but it gets worse.

Not only did she not notice the accident scene, she also failed to notice multiple police cars following her down the highway with lights and sirens on trying to get her to pull over. Brace yourself, it gets worse.

While she was on her merry romp through the accident scene she had managed to run over the body of someone who had died in the crash. The body caught on the undercarriage of the vehicle and she dragged this poor person down the road for almost twenty minutes before she noticed the flashing lights and sirens and hung up her phone. Her comment when she finally pulled over and the police asked her what the hell she was doing?

"Did I do something wrong, officer?"

That's not a bug, that's a feature!

[weiyuent]

I found the following passage from the article to be quite amusing:

"The 'one-liter' car has a number of highly practical, almost luxurious details...reversing is aided by a rearview camera..."

The rearview camera is being marketed as a luxury feature, when in fact it is there because the minimalist, aerodynamical profile of the car means there's no rear window to see out of!

Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel

[RennieScum]

Having owned a diesel (81 Dasher SW) I can tell you that in the US, diesel is harder to come by than you would think. Travelling along the highway it's not too difficult, since that's where the trucks refuel, but in a small town it's damned near impossible to find. There was one public station in my town (out of the way of course) where I could fill up, and it wasn't a 24 hour place. Nearest diesel after 10pm was a 30 mile drive.

Especially when you're unfamiliar with the area, I was nearly stranded in rural Georgia once, couldnt find a gas station with diesel (I suspected all the farmers had some, so I wasn't -too- worried, but they use a lower grade for their tractors).

Also remember that trucks hold something like a hundred gallons of fuel, they have a longer range than a car.

I knew one person that had a fleet diesel subscription for their Rabbit, where they had an account and used a key to fill up whenever they liked, but only at that one station.

Synopsis: Diesel is very available near an interstate, and -not- available elsewhere.

Re:Check out Cato Funding

[The Grey Mouser]

Hi,

You're overlooking the whole point of the report: that while increased mass increases the incidence and degree of injury to others, it decreases the incidence and fatality of injuries to occupants by a greater degree.

Well, ignoring the cynical "better you than me" attitude which seems to be the principal factor in spurring SUV sales (sort of taking "drive defensively" to the logical extreme :), there are a few other difficulties which I didn't see addressed in the report you mention. First, I didn't happen to see any error estimates attached to the quoted numbers of total lives saved. The two percent value given for multiple-vehicle collisions is not huge, and it would be interesting to see if the errors resulting from imperfect control groups (surely they weren't all identical?) exceed this figure, making the end result statistically dubious. Did they give an error analysis, and I just missed it?

Second, the report covers a period when SUVs were still relatively rare on the road, which is hardly the case today. This means that in a typical multi-vehicle collision involving an SUV at the time of the report, the other vehicles were most likely smaller cars, and so the protective value of the SUV outweighed the crushing destruction inflicted on the smaller vehicle. It would be interesting to see an updated study for the past couple of years, where SUV-SUV collisions are much more common. I imagine that the highly-touted protection of the SUV evaporates when hit by a similar behemoth, as no one vehicle holds the momentum advantage in that situation. And so it may be that fatalities drop with a slight increase in average vehicle mass (for the reasons stated in the report), but that the trend reverses itself with a much larger increase in average mass. In other words, you're safer in an SUV, until enough people are in SUVs! What's next? A bigger vehicle! And this of course only lasts until more people catch up...

The obvious question is whether those people who can't afford anything better than a compact are somehow less entitled to highway safety than those folks who can drop serious dosh on an Urban Assault Vehicle. It would be interesting to see the Cato study redone with casualties displayed as a function of economic class.

Cheers,

Mouser

Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel

[surprise_audit]

You're right - the combustion products will be CO2, H20 and whatever other crap got sucked into the air intake, minus whatever fraction burns or welds itself to the inside of your engine.

Oh, wait, doesn't the catalytic convertor take care of that crap??

Crash test data for other super-economical cars

[Quila]

The 1500lb Smart gets as good a score as the much heavier Ford Escort. Many SUVs achieve this same score.

The 2000lb Audi A2 gets as good a score as a 2250lb Honda Civic. The rest of the SUVs fall into this rating.

Source

Not just weight

[Quila]

To maintain high speed, most of your horsepower goes into overcoming air resistance. What's the drag coefficient on this thing, .05?

Holy Moly

[gelfling]

TROLL?

I'm reporting what I actually did realted to this piece and you call me a troll? Stop huffing the highlighters people and stop taking yourselves so seriously.

Re:Is that conversion correct?

[grahamsz]

Sadly a UK gallon of regular 95 octane will set you back about $5.30 - but I guess that's the price to pay for better milage.