Slashdot Mirror
GM Pulls Plug on Electric Car
davebo writes "General Motors' EV1, the all-electric dynamo of a car, has been pulled from the market. You can read the letter GM sent out to current EV1 drivers here. When the EV1 came out, the chairman of GM said it would
"define the GM of the future". Guess he'd like to take that back now . . ." With Ford also cancelling their electric vehicle program, looks like hybrids are it for the next few years.
Electric cars are silly in the first place. Seriously, doesn't anyone realise that the power plants that make the electricity probably spew more pollutants into the air than the cars that burn fossil fuels? As clean as cars are now, I'd be willing to bet that's true.
I think it makes sense, It would be nice for the world to switch over to electric cars in a year, but in reality, it's not going to work that way.
What will probably happen is that for the next several years, we will start to switch over to hybrid cars, and ease into the electric car idea, and as the prices of gasoline continue to rise, we'll start to switch to completely electric cars. I think it will be at least ten to fifteen years though, before such a thing happens. It's such a massive change to our economy, infrastructure, etc, that we can't really switch overnight like some manufacturers seem to think. This is probably a smart move on GM's part.
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
As can already be read in the article, the success or failure of cars like this is not dependent on technical or marketing issues, but only on local regulations and taxes. And these tend to cycle every couple of years with the change of government after an election.
Years ago, one could run a car here on liquid propane gas. There was nearly no tax on that, basically because of a loophole in the regulations. Those cars were quite clean when compared to gasoline fueled cars. And on gasoline fuel there was quite some tax.
Of course, this did not last forever. The time came that LPG was taxed as well, and gone was the advantage for the average driver. So gone were the cars running on LPG as well. Fortunately the gasoline fueled cars have become cleaner as well, otherwise this would have had quite some impact on the environment.
It seems the same is happening with the EV1. Being phased out even while it has many advantages.
From the article "GM said(in an ad) :Electric cars are finally here" (apprximately)
Electric cars have come and gone through the decades, common in early 20th century. Went out with the Model T and made a comeback in WW2 time, along with wood burning cars, coal burners and the like.
Then GM introduces this one and then take it back out again
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
What makes me look twice is that the government implemented a standard that goes right against the two major electric car makers in America. I think that there might have been some dirty (think oily) outside influence in the decision.
Brought to you by the Artificial Idea Factory.
The USA Govt is the evil empire, having surpassed Bill Gates. USA NOT OK.
I've heard a lot in this thread about how electric is a good, clean, cheap energy source etc.etc.etc. Then I read a post which said how the electricity is produced by coal, gas, etc.-burning stations. Perfectly correct. That's where the majority of all our energy on Earth comes from. Then someone flamed them for not thinking about renewable, e.g. solar, wind, wave.
The CHEMICAL and ENGINEERING power costs of making the plastics and metals, the chemicals in batteries, damn, even the wires means that we would use up most of what remains of our (i.e. the world's) oil supplies just building enough "renewable energy" equipment to keep us going for a few years.
We've got, maybe, far less than 75 years of oil left. That means we have about 50 years to become totally dependent on renewable sources, enough for us to use them to produce everything we know and use today.
I have a close friend, who's got more degrees, PhD's and Doctorates than I've had hot dinners and he was the first to show me the figures and open my eyes to this. How do you build and maintain a wind farm of giant metal and plastic structures without oil, coal and gas to power the factories and foundries? It's EXTREMELY difficult.
This is why the scientists are worrying. It's no longer just a matter of "Hey, let's just switch to solar." The manufacturing and maintenance power-cost of anything new is phenomenally expensive if we've got no fossil fuel left to make the damn things and keep them running.
(1) Power plants are more efficient than your car engine (typically twice as efficient).
(2) Oil is not universally cheap. I pay 4-5x more for petrol than you do. I think Europe has a similar high price for oil.
(3) Dense cities cannot cope with pollution from fuel-burning cars. A perfect example is your own LA. Moving the pollution away is good for the city even if it doesn't greatly help the planet.
(4) Power plants don't have to burn oil or gas or coal. There are plenty of alternatives (though none of them quite as cheap as oil or gas or coal, yet). Hot rock and solar are my personal bets for the future of electricity production; both have potential to be cheaper than fuel-burning plants.
(5) It takes decades to develop technology from concept to production line. It's important that research into EV continues so that the technology is fully developed when (if) the cheap sources of electricity finally appear. This may seem "absurd" to you but many people thought the Altair was absurd too. Look where it got Bill Gates. Being on the bleeding edge can often pay off in the long run. Companies with deep pockets (ie, GM) are willing to sink billions into "absurd" concepts because every now and then one of those crazy ideas will pay off big.
First and foremost.. I'm not bashing michael.. but the foreshadowing "With Ford also cancelling their electric vehicle program, looks like hybrids are it for the next few years" is unnecessary.. here's why..
:-P
An official letter from GMATV explaining that the charger conversion efforts funded by GM have been terminated due to the CARB decision to standardize on conductive charging. Click on the pages at left to read the letter from GMATV - Torrance Operations.
Ok.. so it's being standardized.. nothing wrong with that.. parallel ports are standardized.. so are serial ports.. it doesn't get simpler than that..
Now, back tracking to the Ford TH!NK article..
General Information
Why is Ford discontinuing TH!NK products?
As part of its continuing efforts to develop advanced vehicle technologies, Ford Motor Company has decided to concentrate its resources on the development of hybrid and fuel-cell technology.
Right, no ELECTRICAL cars.. but they will still be concentrating on developing HYBRID and FUEL-CELL cars..
So.. in conclusion.. NO.. the plug is NOT being pulled on Hybrid cars.. from my own personal standpoint.. I believe.. once we full utilize production and strengthen the abilities and features that hybrid cars and fuel cell cars.. we will concentrate on electrical cars..
And by we.. I'm talking about the car manufacturers, of course
"The ones who dont do anything are always the ones who try to pull you down" -- Henry Rollins
Yes, the design styles you speak of are indeed for the purpose of reducing drag. I think many people find the look of these very efficient cars unappealing, so that's why the covered rear wheels etc. aren't being applied to gasoline-powered cars.
I saw a link posted here recently (can't seem to find it) that demonstrated just how much less drag one of these designs produced, and it was pretty impressive. It makes sense to use a design like this (even if it's ugly) when the target market is people extremely concerned about the efficiency of their cars. Makes less sense to attempt to push the efficiency on SUV owners, though I agree that making vehicles more efficient across-the-board would be great.
The first one is pollution. This is very serious to us as people.
The second is that oil isn't distributed fairly around the world. Some countries have it, others don't. This leads to a number of problems, everything from religious, economical, to practical.
Why not look into making alternative fuels that you can produce locally? We can, for instance, grow a hell of a lot more crop in Europe than we need for food. There are a number of plants that can produce oils that can be refined and used in disel engines, and they pollute less than fossile oil already.
What is needed is that companies like GM invests $1 billion in alternative fuels and make the production much much more effective and the engines more clean/effective with the new types of fuels. This is far more realistic than electrical cars is today.
Fusion could of course change this in a heartbeat. But although we (humans) should persuade this scientifically we shouldn't base our economy on it quite yet, thank you very much.
But imagine cars that you wouldn't have to fuel, were totally clean, and I am sure a lot of people would be happy;) We can simply start chaning models much more often instead.
and all I will say is that I am glad that the electric vehicle has been revoked.
Not only are batteries a danger to our environment they are made with toxic materials that harm our environment. Yes you can go on about as much as 90% of a battery is recyclible but its not a solid fix to the problem.
My opinion is that in 5 years time is should be law that all the car companies in the world must provide a demo of a car running on hydrogen. You think its not possible? Well the technology is already here, its just that all the oil companies run the show (similar the ciggarette companies).
Too bad noone gives a damn about anything except their buttom line and short term balance sheet until its too late.
One of the reasons we don't see more electric cars or hydrogen cars is the distinct lack of dollar signs, isn't it? I think deep down inside, even the most self centered people would like to see the environment cleaned up... just so long as there is no effort required on their part.
It's very easy to look at the situation and either dismiss it as not your problem or not worth the potential effort. The only way to get around this is to make it profitable.
Think of it this way, what do you think is more effective for recycling: 1) Totally Volentary Recycling, 2) Depoit Based Recycling (ie getting money back), or 3) Fines if you don't Recycling.
I'm willing to bet number one is the least effective. So how do you go about making it worth the car companies while to invest and properly support such things?
Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
http://www.fuzzyknights.com
Recently, I did a research report on the threat of global warming to the Earth. After digging very deep into the issue, and studying all the data, I've come a conclusion that many scientists share. Global Warming is normal. It is a standard part of the Earth's temperature fluctuation. Granted, we have increased levels of greenhouse gases, and helped to prolong this period of warming. This is not necessarily bad. The small amount by which we have increased the global average temperature, is not the end of the world that the ignorant media portrays. The end of the world will be when the next ice age, or glacial period hits. This could happen within the next 100 years. What may save us from this fate, are our "atmosphere damaging" gases. (Of course, I'm not saying pollution is a good thing, I'm purely talking about the warming effect of these gases.)
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
--there's such a thing as going overboard to extremes. over-concentrating electrical generational facilities produce less points of failure that mean when they DO fail they affect a lot more people, cause a lot more damage. It's a security issue. It's also a cost issue. Business scandals, political manipulation, insider trading, etc have NOT gone away. What is happening is with each new scandal uncovered, the crooks see where they failed, and refine their techniques so as to not get caught next time. I don't think you can ignore this issue. Big whopper piles of money, as represented by centralised energy, seem to always attract very big crooks. Same as any other "big" business especially when it's one of those quasi public/private hybrid industries that the utilities represent, ie "legal monopolies".
I'm not giving up my home PV unit. The grid has gone out a lot where I live since I've been living here, I keep my power. Kinda nifty. It's like the olden days with only a few mainframes, you willing to give up your own computer? How about mass transit, you willing to accept only mass transit for everywhere you go, or can you see the practicality of individual cars? Food, a few whopper farms, or millions of farms and gardens? It's like do you REALLY want to put all your eggs in one basket with energy?
Back to PV, I am always wondering how much better it would be if virtually every sunny side rooftop in the US was covered in panels now. Maybe actually put a lot of the manufacturing guys back to work, re-open some more plants, build them by the millions instead of thousands. The space exists on these roofs and now is composed of shingles that get hot, and that's it. How much electric do you get from that? And what might happen to the cost if millions more were in market demand? Would the R&D and the manufacturing advances result in better and cheaper? I am guessing it would, seems to work for everything else.
"Diesel car. I can get 50mpg on highway driving at normal speed."
;)
;)
A Honda Civic 1.6VVTi is capable of near-enough 50mpg when driven so's to maximise use of the green `economy' light.
I've got the Seat Toledo 1.9TDi SE (so a very similar engine to your VW diesel, no doubt). The quoted mpg ratings are 45, 55, 65.7mpg. I get around 55mpg on the motorways myself, ticking along at 70-75mph (only had it a fortnight, results still pending!).
"very nice handling"
Check. I went for a spin around the back-roads in deepest darkest Surrey last night, bombing around corners at a rate of knots, with no sideways rolling/wallowing at all.
"side aribags and all kind of safety features"
Check
"What do you all think?"
I think I got the same performance - almost the same car - but without the VW-brand price-hike, myself
And the power-to-weight ratio seems about right at 1.9TDi and 1.3 tonnes.
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
I'm not talking about "instant milleage". The 50 mpg is what I got after driving on highway for around 800 miles. Let me pull out the numbers from my spreadsheet:
:)
:)
Total miles: 1012.7 mi
Total Fuel: 19.475 g
milleage: 52 mpg
So I was wrong. It was 52 mpg
And, AFAIK, Toledo and Jetta have the same engine (Seat is part of the Audi-VW-Skoda-Seat thing). Seat engines use the same TDi technology than the VW. TDi was developed by Audi in the first place
And, anyway, I cannot get a Toledo in the US. And in the US, a VW is ~ the same price of a Honda Accord with the same load of features (manual transmission, security features, abs, disc brakes on both trains, 10 year extended warranty, road assistance...).
And the VW is a German car, if you know what I mean. An Accord is not half the fun. Your Toledo, being designed by German engineers, qualifies as German, so the fun you have with it is the same that I have.
Then, how clean is Diesel around the UK? Surrey is in the UK, IIRC my ancient history classes...
Note: I just wish that fuel be more expensive in the US, so SUV people would be forced to pay a price for the insanity of driving those monsters (12 mpg!!!!!!). Even at this cheap price, I'm saving $2000 on a 5-year period comparing with an Accord.
Maybe this is because GM is going to focus on Hydrogen fuel instead of electric cars. Other car companies doing the same thing (like BMW... can't wait for that).
This may also have something to do with President Bush pushing for research funding for hydrogen fueled cars.
Electric just doesn't have the power or range of gasoline powered cars. I think everyone is begining to realize that and hydrogen seems to be the best of both worlds, powerful yet environmentally friendly. Oh, and not dependent on dead dinosaurs.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
>>I want to know why only 1000 were made. They spent a billion on a program and only sent it out to a wishlist? Or did they withhold it from the market because the infrastructure didn't exist?
Because we lost money on every single unit and because the demand wasn't there at a price where we could recover our costs.
Fun cars. I drove them on the test track, but they couldn't keep a charge in a Michigan winter. And don't expect to carry a family and groceries.
We are still looking for technology that works in real life not just the lab, at a price that consumers are willing to pay, and that meets auto safety requirements. Believe me, if we thought we could sell 100,000 and make a 2% profit, we would be falling all over ourselves to get them out.
If you think deeply enough, you will have no single direction for your outrage.
All the car companies wanted their technologies to be the one every other company used in the new machines. That way they could collect on patents or at least control the direction of the market.
BUT theese 2 lost the battle for comformity. All the others car companies joined forces to make fuel cells. Which means if theese 2 also went with fuel cells then they could get cheeper mass produced parts all the fuel cell cars had in common.
conspiracy theory start
I wouldn't be suprised if the president, chemical companies, and oil companies didn't have something to do with this choice. It keeps us going to a station to buy 'fuel'. Since electric cars eliminated MUCH of the need for theese company's products and the services gas stations provide lots of jobs would be 'lost'. And lots of companies would have to change the way they do business. And we all know how hard financial groups can fight.
conspiracy theory end
Honda has a real Fuel Cell *not hybrid* vehicle.
http://www.hondacorporate.com/fcx/
Consider updating the teaser.
I think you are right about that. In some European country called Freedom, (or is it France), they have prototyped a battery package system. Where you drive in front of a booth that looks like the front of a car wash and your batteries are taken out and replaced with fresh ones. "Your" batteries are then charged and as soon as they are available someone comes up and swaps "his" with yours.
It's a political story. Death of the EV-1 is pure politics and economics. Patent politics. Market share politics. Regulor old government politics. As others have mentioned, GM was trying to forc their proprietary charger on people. GM was never really wanted the EV-1. The lease-only business model has been a bone of contention in the EV community for years. Leases suck. Most people want to own. It's no secret that GM set the EV-1 up to fall from day 1. End of story.
As for what the "best technology" for engines is, there isn't one. What's needed is for somebody to design a modular engine--think RAID for cars. Instead of one engine under the hoold that costs $5000, you need several easily removeable components under the hood that cost several hundred dollars. I'd like to see these components cost $200, but even $500 would be beneficial. Notice, I'm not talking about the actual tech of these components--I'm leaving that as a total abstraction for a very specific reason. Stop and think before you read the next paragraph.
Now think about your computer. A hot system can cost $3000, but none of the components in that system is more than $500, except maybe the monitor.
Computer tech is driven in part by the ability of geeks to swap inexpensive components out of their chassis and have them all interface together. Now imagine the same thing with cars:
Standard pressurized fuel system. Standard battery rack. Standard fuel to electricity converters. Standard exhaust bus. Standard computer monitoring and control interfaces.
Do that, and in no time at all you'll have dozens of companies striving to offer gasoline to hydrogen reformers that are just a little cheaper, or a little quiter, or a little more efficient. Geeks will be reprogramming their control units every other day, and RMS will be saying "GNU/Car", but that's about the only downside I can think of.
Something like this won't come from the incumbent manufacturers; certainly not in the US. Even the Asians are probably more interested in protecting the current business model--nobody wants their cars "cloned".
A revolution like this will have to come from someplace like North Carolina, where there are machine-shop workers, mechanics, and NASCAR techs who know how to build cars without "the man" getting in the way. A lot of NASCAR vehicles are losing sponsorship. There's nothing like unemployment to breed new ideas sometimes.
Regardless of who does this, it needs to be done. Only through interoperation of standard components can the automobile shake itself out of the ossified corporate tool inspired funk in which it is mired. Modular components could be the engine (no pun intended) of the next economic boom--but only if we can sneek them under the RADAR.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
My grandfather owned an electric car. It wasn't much more than a heavy duty golf cart with a hard shell (fully enclosed), but it could go 40 mph and go several miles on a charge. He lives in a small town in Iowa and he would use it to take my Grandmother out for dinner, run to the store down the street, etc.
It ran on car batteries, and he used the same set of batteries for over 10 years before they finally couldn't hold a significant charge. Car batteries are easily recyclable (see my previous posts from where I worked at a secondary lead refinery recycling car batteries).
He eventually sold the car to a man from California who drove to Iowa hauling a trailer so he could haul the car back to California. Unlike a lot of cars, my Grandfather got more money for the car than he paid for it 10 years before.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
What Big Three has to realize is that their competitors, mainly Japanese car makers, are destroying them. Honda, Nissan and Mazda are cranking out cars with goobles of horsepower, leaving Detroit in the dust, literarly. The Japanese are feeding our love for big things, such as horsepower, which translates into quicker cars. I recently went car searching and did not look at one american car. Nothing in terms of performance and styling caught my eye from the American car market. I quick glance at any car ratings guide, and you'll rarely find an American made car in the top of its class...
SUV's however, I would not buy anything either than an American made model (Have owned 3 Jeeps, great SUV's). American's are leaders in this market (except for the british Land Rovers).
Ironic that a country who should be moving away from its dependency on foreigh oil has two of its leading automakers scrap electric cars and builds better gas guzzling SUV's than anyone else.
100% Insightful
As several people have noted, the hybrid seems to be the way that auto manufacturers are going for "reduced emissions" vehicles.
At a recent "Engineers' Week" party, the local Toyota dealer had a couple of Prius available for inspection and demonstration. I was unimpressed. The drive system is overly complicated and 50 MPG is pathetic for a "reduced emissions" vehicle that has economy as its main selling point. Granted, it's better than 20-30 MPG I get in my eight-year-old Firebird, but it's not impressive. A ten-year-old Honda Civic or Geo Metro can do that, and they're pure gasoline!
This car has it right. The most efficient way to run an internal combustion engine is to have it operate at high manifold pressures and low RPMs: Wide Open Throttle. By using a 17 horsepower (12.7 kW) diesel tractor engine and a tall final drive ratio allows this car to get around town at 35 miles per hour while achieving 128 miles per gallon. Of course, it has a top speed of only 65 miles per hour.
The point that you make could be straight from Big Oil's mouthpiece. There are many ways in which an electric car is more efficient than a gas car. A power plant is more efficient by far at turning chemical energy into kinetic energy than a car. An electric car is almost guaranteed to be smaller and more kinetic energy efficient than your Ford Executioner. When using electric cars, all the pollution comes from the power plant instead of from millions of little cars. You tell me, geeks of the world, which is easier to maintain and clean up? One big point, or millions of little points?
More important than any of those points, however, is that as long as people in power (like the board of GM) squash new technology, when the big oil runs out, replacement technology will be too immature. Only the rich will be able to afford oil OR solar/wind/your alternative of choice.
Look at it this way. The US is spending up to $200 billion to ensure that oil stays cheap for the next 10 years, maybe. We're only putting $17 billion, over the next 20 years, into researching practical fusion, and MUCH MUCH less into solar technology. You tell me, how far away is "cheap, clean nuclear power", and who's going to be sitting on that board?
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
Ten years and OVER A BILLION DOLLARS??? If that's what it takes GM to develop a simple DC drive system, the stockholders of GM need to rethink their investment! That figure is more likely to be what they want to try and write off their corprate tax returns!
Anyone who has ever turned a wrench on an electric golf cart could design an electric car. As far as charging the vehicle, who gives a damn how it's done?! Plug it in or park next to the charger. Pick the LEAST expensive technology and go with it.
The problem with the electric cars is that you can't turn a big ass SUV into an electric car. Ford and GM are interested in PROFITS, not ecology. If they have to devote parts of their assembly lines to a niche vehicle, that takes up resources from their SUV lines.
And for the record, I drive a big-ass Ford Bronco with big tires and a lift kit.... I have nothing at all against SUV's and their drivers. But I'm getting damn tired of this country relying on foreign oil. Electric cars may not totally be the answer, but they are at least a step toward the solution. I'd drive one to/from work if I could buy one. Then keep my Bronco for trips, pulling my boat or camper, or hauling stuff from Home Depot. You know, like use the right tool for the job??! Cheaper and smaller for short trips, big and bulky when the job calls for it.
I always thought GM sucked, now they have confirmed it....
The number 1 problem of working in a cubicle - 23 power cords, 1 outlet...
I want everyone to do something, everyone thinking the Honda Hybrid is the way to go. Go take a look at the fuel mileage. Now, take a look at the VW TDI-based cars. Look at that fuel mileage. Verrrryyy interesting. It would seem... like diesel.... gets better mileage! On top of that, if BioDiesel is used, you have a renewable resource that is better for the environment, and gets great mileage, all in a car that lasts longer! (typically, most diesels get 300k mi before anyone bothers to worry... just look at European taxis). For all the guys into biodiesel, we know better than to think a hybrid is the only way to go in alternative fuel sources. You can't forget about diesels. BioDiesel can be made from fresh oils (such as rapeseed oil), or from waste vegetable oil (WVO), which, btw Diners & Restuarants pay to have removed from their property. Plus, your exhaust smells like french fries! How can you go wrong? Read more here.
Two sites everyone interested should check out -
http://biodiesel.org/
http://tdiclub.com/
I think this will be the Holy Grail of aternative fuel, for the reasons mentioned in an earlier thread: Infrastructure and Fuel.
Other methods (Electric, Hydrogen, etc) require everyone to first buy a new car, and every filling station convert or add capacity for a separate fuel.
Diesel, OTOH, is used everywhere already, by public transportation, road crews, the trucking industry, and private folks with diesel cars or pickups. If that's you (and in the US that's about 1/3 of our fossil fuel users), you can switch right now, at little or no cost. There is almost nothing to build or make a risky investment in. The fuel will cost more at first, but as demand increases, capacity will catch up.
In Washington state, there is a strong effort underway to convert public vehicles (busses, garbage trucks, dumptrucks, construction vehicles) over to pure Bio, and many uses blended Bio already. If we had a refinery (ours currently comes mostly from Ohio by train) close by, like the one soon to open in California, prices would drop even more.
So why aren't there more diesel cars sold in the US? VW's Jetta/Beetle/Golf platform is currently the only passenger car you can buy. That's because of our aforementioned filthy fuel. European diesels (for the most part) don't run well on high-sulpher fuel. US diesel will not catch up to Europe till 2007, when Ultra Low Sulpher diesel will be manditory. Then we could see a flood of European cars that could not have been imported before. Thus, more potential customers for Bio.
jason wiley - too lazy to log in.
Thanks for the update. Sad day for electric vehicles indeed. Fortunately for those that are "le fabricator" there are a lot of good websites on turning your pickup truck or car into an electric vehicle.
My website (mentioned below) is for exploring mods for cars that make them more fuel efficient or make them into electrical vehicles. Okay, I'm not entirely altruistic, there are mods there that make nice polite cars into gas mongering pavement pounders also.
Its a shame I haven't gotten anyone to write an electrical vehicle article for it yet. Unfortunately there isn't as much journalism supporting efficiency mods as there is for performance mods. I've found that theres quite a few people out there more willing to make their car biodiesel or electric then a 10s 1/4 miler.
-----------------
OnRoad: Hit the Road.
Let's face it, no American really wants a light-weight, low horse-powered electric car. We all want to have the baddest car possible.
Of course, when we pay $1.70 at a gas pump we start to see the value in an electric car. But what we need is more effecient gasoline powered engines. I've heard rumors that they could develop engines that get 100 miles per gallon, but oil companies just won't let them do it. Can anyone confirm?
There's no place like ~/