Slashdot Mirror
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.
don't think its a coincidence that this was posted immediately after "Ask Slashdot: What Makes Great Science Fiction?"
Its allllll one big conspiracy..
"Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
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.
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).
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).
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...
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?
The backseat only holds one person. If this car becomes the norm, will the human race ever conceive children again?
... 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
Jon.
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.
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
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.
Money for nothing, pix for free
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?
The guy behind the counter at the local Sunoco sells crystal meth, does that count?
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
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.
This page talks about an abundant source of biodiesel. Esp nice for countries which have warm climates.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
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.
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.
Get off my launchpad!
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.
-- PC architecture - what a mess.
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
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.
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.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
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.
And so it goes.
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...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
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.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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.
"There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
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.
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.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
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
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.
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?
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
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.
My father is a blogger.
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.
-- null
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.
Not to mention that huge line of traffic behind the thing. Get out the way!
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.
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!
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.
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).
Of course, well-tuned diesel engines are about as common as hips on a snake...
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...
OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
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...
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
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.
... the horrible diesel motor noise is a result of the horrible fuel (which is a waste product of "gasoline").
... http://www.veggievan.org
Biodiesel is much better for the environment, the motor itself and for the public health of all. And the motor makes much less noise
Biodiesel can cut pollution up to eighty percent compated to oil-diesel. We mustn't forget that Dr. Rudolph Diesel designed the diesel motor to run on vegetable oil and not on filthy oil products.
In German and Austria there are already 2000 service stations which sell biodiesel (www.biodiesel.de and www.biodiesel.at). Germany and Austria are serious about cutting CO2 levels.
Sadly, in the Netherlands where I live, the government and even the Dutch Green Party could care less about biodiesel.
Good biodiesel site/book
m.
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.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
Having said that... A quick read of the "article" indicates that they did a regression analysis of different light truck percentage use against number of fatalities. Of course, there were almost no light trucks at the beginning of the 80s and so many light trucks now.
Regression period 1994-1997.
The Cato article does state that other sources do show that light trucks increase the fatalities of other drivers in head-on and side-impact collisions, and that light trucks have an higher incidence of roll over. They seemly ignore this and suggest that the improvement in overall traffic fatalities is due to the stiffer construction, vehicle weight, more safety features of SUVs!
The study is doing what good studies do: present the counterarguments first. The confusing thing is that the study concludes that while both of the above statements are true, the increase in fatalities they contribute is outweighed by the decrease in fatalities due to the construction of SUV's:
The strong light truck effects in the case of single-vehicle fatalities imply that the stiffer frames and greater weights of light trucks are protective of life in collisions not involving other vehicles. Moreover, the light truck effects substantially offset any fatalities from increases in single-vehicle accidents associated with light truck use. The multiple-vehicle fatality equations imply that the protective effects of light trucks to their occupants outweigh any increase in fatalities associated with an increase in multiple vehicle accidents due to light truck use and any increase in fatalities to occupants of other vehicles.
They even suggests more SUVs! This ignores two decades of vehicle improvements (air bags, anti-lock brakes, side impact beams, superior crush zones, increased vehicular weight) and improvements in driver behavior (more DUI stops, seat belts, child safety seats, etc...). By concentrating on percent light truck versus traffic fatalities a really incorrect picture is drawn. Just crash various light-truck versus various cars and cars versus cars from the current years and look at the results - oh just wait the NHTSA and insurance institute equivalent have done that comparison and guess what they reported.
Once again, 1994-1997.
It's amazing that a think tank that does such a shoddy analysis can reject years of actual crash tests by governmental organizations and private insurace research groups. I'm not saying that my critique is perfect, but their methodology is pretty goofy. I tend to trust actual research.
Take a look at the controls in this study:
and a bunch more I'm too lazy to list. These are two Ph.D's in Economics at Rutgers; we're not talking community college here. You're saying we shouldn't trust academic research? I realize I didn't make it perfectly clear when I posted, but Regulation was simply the magazine that published the study.
Consider the study. What if it's right? If it's right, then opposing SUV's can cost lives. Of course, any choice that anyone makes can potentially "cost" lives; the point is, what public policy goals are we going to pursue, and do the choices we make further them?
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
... but he does have some comments on the issue.
(Score:-1, Wrong)