the coolest new car on the planet and its green! [Archive]

Jeff Nicol

08-19-2011, 7:39 PM

I can't figure out why someone would If you looked into how much pollution and non-green materials are produced and spewed into the atmosphere by the manufacturers of the LITHIUM that is mined and refined to make the batteries, you would see that no matter what the "Greenies" say the pollution is produced before it even hits the showroom floor. How much petroleum, coal, natural gas and so on were burnt up to manufacture each car? Do they look at that when they shell out the opulant amount of cash to buy a car that they don't need?

Sure is a pretty car, but it is not "GREEN" at all if you use some common sense, not trying to make waves just putting some information out there that is more important than spending a lot of money to impress your neighbors.

My opinion with good information,

Jeff

Jamie Buxton

08-20-2011, 12:27 AM

A car that costs over $100K is irrelevant to anything real. Only the extremely extremely rich could buy one. And no matter how green the car is, the few hundred that will be built will have infinitesimal impact on the planet. Making expensive cars is easy -- just pour cubic dollars into it. A car that would actually be cool would be a 100 mpg one that'll haul a family and cost less than $20K.

Jerome Stanek

08-20-2011, 12:44 PM

I wonder how much energy it takes to produce this car

Joel Goodman

08-20-2011, 1:15 PM

I do agree that the energy cost of producing new expensive stuff (and the disposal costs of dumping the old) should be part of the green calculus but.... that's a pretty car! I saw a Fiskar on the road (I think it was a two seater) and it was beautiful.

ray hampton

08-20-2011, 1:41 PM

disposal of the old cars is not hard to do and it will not cost any money ship them to Mexico or overseas to China and get pay for them

Mark Bolton

08-20-2011, 4:08 PM

I suppose its the tried and true formula of refinement and innovation most always starts from the top down. Kinda like all the innovations that have trickled down to the masses from mega endeavors like the stealth bomber/fighter, Apache helicopters, all the projects funded by DARPA, space program, X-prize, and so on. The simple fact is the drones (us) are so busy just trying to bring air into our lungs we simply cant afford what it costs to innovate and R&D at the level required for our future. We are way beyond the days of toasters and waffle irons. Heck, many coffee makers today you never even touch a single coffee ground in the process. Not that they are essentials but all things like these self parallel parking, blind spot warning, lane drift alerts, all come from programs and R&D that the average consumers dollars simply dont, or wont, pay for.

Extreme innovation has always worked this way, aircraft, boating/yachting, even woodworking equipment. The Martin's and Altendorf's set the standard and what the rest of us use is trickle down. I would guess, and its only a guess, that we wouldnt even have access to a LiOn cordless tool had it not been for some extreme high dollar R&D operation funded by either some government, or the rich. Most all extreme refinement comes this way. Maybe a watch would be a 4lb hunk of brass hanging off your wrist had it not been for Rolex.

Mark

Kevin W Johnson

08-20-2011, 11:07 PM

Not to mention all the hybrids that will litter the used car dealers in the coming years because neither the dealers or the consumers are going to be willing to pony the the $$$$ to replace the batteries.

I just can't figure why people get so hyped about hybrids (a Prius @45mpg hwy) when we had cars in the late '80's to early '90's that got 52mpg hwy. If the auto industry would focus more on "exotic" materials like carbon fiber, and ultra-light aluminum alloys, etc., the cost of those materials could/would drop substantially and the mpg's would increase drastically. The enemy of MPG's is weight and drag. Drag is easy to tame, our cars and trucks just weigh too much.

Mark Bolton

08-21-2011, 1:50 PM

If the auto industry would focus more on "exotic" materials like carbon fiber, and ultra-light aluminum alloys, etc., the cost of those materials could/would drop substantially and the mpg's would increase drastically. The enemy of MPG's is weight and drag. Drag is easy to tame, our cars and trucks just weigh too much.

Or the consumer could be willing to compromise a little too. Unfortunately the over ruling mindset nowadays is to want it ALL. The consumers fueling the return of massive cars want the illusion of safety they bring, the room, the status and prestige, and so on. Fuel economy is a mere perk that if thrown in is great but most will gladly trade a hefty portion of salary in reduced fuel consumption for the other attributes.

Im not sure it can happen but I would hope we can innovate ourselves into a place of being able to have our cake and eat it too but it doesnt seem like thats ever been possible in the past so I am not sure physics will allow it now either. You can only lighten up an Escalade so much.

I cant say much, one of my primary vehicles in my business is an F350 utility/dump that gets about 9. But try to run a smaller truck that gets about 20 whenever possible. When I drive the smaller truck I dont see it as something being taken away from me, I happily think of all the dollars I am getting to keep rather than giving them to the billionaires in the petroleum industry.

Mark

Curt Harms

08-22-2011, 7:54 AM

John McClanahan

08-22-2011, 8:11 AM

I agree with Curt. The electric motor should supplement the gas engine. It would be used to help the gas engine when the extra power is needed. Then hybrid autos could get the travel distance needed. And if the batteries ran down, you could still drive, just with reduced power. The experts think the opposite is the better idea.

John

Brian Elfert

08-22-2011, 9:12 AM

That car would look a lot better as a coupe than a sedan. The rear doors look like some sort of afterthought the designers were forced to add.

I doubt the cost of using aluminum for cars will go down as the cost of the raw aluminum keeps going up as worldwide demand increases. A big reason cars get less mileage today is the EPA. Increased emissions standards have reduced MPGs. A lot of those 52 MPG were stripped down compared to today's cars. They probably had manual transmissions, no A/C, and no power windows/locks. No airbags either. It is quite difficult to buy a car today without power windows/locks, automatic, and A/C. Some manufacturers do offer such models, but try buying one new without having to order the car.

Gerald Wubs

08-22-2011, 9:41 AM

Ben Hatcher

08-22-2011, 10:21 AM

The 3 cylinder Geo Metro got 52 mpg...or at least was rated at 52.

Hybrid drive systems are just another power adder not unlike superchargers or turbochargers. The huge advantage electric motors have is that their full power and torque are available at very low RPM. I think that the “debate” as to if they are a net positive or net negative is completely missing the point. They’re a step in the right direction and the technology and learning that we get from them will lead us to the next best thing. To argue that they aren’t THE answer or don’t do as much as the greenies claim so therefore we should do nothing is, in my view, foolish.

mike holden

08-22-2011, 10:46 AM

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
That is no Aston-Martin DB9, not even close.
Mike

Brian Elfert

08-22-2011, 11:06 AM

The cars that people constantly bring up as getting 40 to 55 MPG in the old days would be a diesel Rabbit, Geo Metro, or Honda Civic. There are probably others I don't recall right now.

Ken Fitzgerald

08-22-2011, 1:30 PM

Further political comments could result in this thread being locked and removed from public view.

Bruce Page

08-22-2011, 1:50 PM

The cars that people constantly bring up as getting 40 to 55 MPG in the old days would be a diesel Rabbit, Geo Metro, or Honda Civic. There are probably others I don't recall right now.
It’s doubtful any of those would pass today’s stringent safety requirements. Safer vehicles have saved countless lives but the price we pay for that safety is increased weight. There was a video making the email rounds a few months ago that showed a test of a 70’s vintage (I think) big car hitting the proverbial immovable wall at speed and a modern car hitting the same wall at the same speed. Any occupants in the vintage car would have been killed or at least very seriously hurt while the occupants of the new car would have walked away.

Paul McGaha

08-22-2011, 4:43 PM

I'm with Mike. As for as beauty's go I more like the new Challangers and Cameros.

PHM

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
That is no Aston-Martin DB9, not even close.
Mike

Kevin W Johnson

08-24-2011, 11:26 PM

@ Kevin W Johnson, I agree with your basic thought, but I am struggling to think of cars (plural) that got 52 MPG in the 70's or 80's. I had a Mini 1000 that got good mileage, and it was very cool indeed, but I'm not sure it really got 50 MPG in normal driving. Please give some examples of the high mileage vehicles you remember. (Oh no, not the Chevette! arrrgg!) :)
Would these vehicles pass todays safety tests? I know my Mini wouldn't - the brakes were antilock though - you couldn't lock a wheel unless a wheel cylinder was leaking brake fluid into one of the 4 wheel drums! (frequent occurance) LOL
Also on a side topic, I don't believe for a second that there is any "oil company" conspiracy, the laws of physics dictate that extremely high fuel mileage in a real world, driveable car is not that easy. I'm sure that if any car company had a 100 MPG car, not an oil company in the world could buy them off.

Where did i mention anything about the 70's? I said late 80's- early 90's. Suzuki made cars that got up to 52mpg, and yes they were rebadged as Metro's also. Volkswagen rabbit diesels were another. Yes, we have a difference in auto safety standards, and yes these can add weight to a vehicle, HOWEVER, we also have 20+ years of new engine technologies that SHOULD be able to compensate for the required weight differences.

Heres a funny comparison for ya. The 1992 Geo Metro 4dr, 1.0L 4cyl. had a curb weight of 1692lbs with a top MPG of 52. A 2008 Smart Car, 1.0L 4cyl, has a curb weight of 1650lbs with a top MPG of 41.

Bob Turkovich

08-25-2011, 8:08 AM

Where did i mention anything about the 70's? I said late 80's- early 90's. Suzuki made cars that got up to 52mpg, and yes they were rebadged as Metro's also. Volkswagen rabbit diesels were another. Yes, we have a difference in auto safety standards, and yes these can add weight to a vehicle, HOWEVER, we also have 20+ years of new engine technologies that SHOULD be able to compensate for the required weight differences.

Heres a funny comparison for ya. The 1992 Geo Metro 4dr, 1.0L 4cyl. had a curb weight of 1692lbs with a top MPG of 52. A 2008 Smart Car, 1.0L 4cyl, has a curb weight of 1650lbs with a top MPG of 41.

Two important things you're missing, Kevin.

For the 2008 MY, the EPA revised their test procedure to more accurately represent actual driver habits. The net result was a significant drop in EPA fuel economy. You can check it out on www.fueleconomy.gov (http://www.fueleconomy.gov). They didn't run the comparison for a '92 Metro but for a '98 Metro the drop was 4 mpg for an automatic and 6 mpg for a manual. A couple of other vehicles I checked had similar droppage (e.g., Honda Civic)

The second item......just as important as weight.....was the effect of increased emissions standards. I don't currently have access to specific numbers but I would bet that if you ran that same Metro vehicle with a 2008 emissions package on the 2008 EPA cycle you'd be hard pressed to get 40 mpg.

Don Alexander

08-25-2011, 9:51 PM

i may just be dreaming but it sure seems like the more a gallon of gas costs the worse my MPG is on the same exact vehicle (i check the MPG with every fillup and i average it over time because i am aware that i can't fill it exactly the same every time) could it be the quality of the gas we are paying through the nose for is getting worse? sure seems like it

Kevin Gregoire

03-03-2012, 1:14 PM

if anyone watched Ellen this past week, it was Justin Biebers birthday and his manager and Usher gave him one of these.
what a lucky kid!

Myk Rian

03-03-2012, 5:52 PM

Jason Roehl

03-03-2012, 6:15 PM

At least in the U.S., gasoline is almost universally distributed from in-ground tanks that are deep enough their temperature isn't going to change much. Even if the tanker truck has a several-day trip from the refinery, the mass of their 5000-gallon tanker of gasoline is high enough that it won't change but a couple degrees. You're not going to notice a mileage change from the change in volume of a gallon of gas warming or cooling a couple degrees. Not to mention, today's EFI cars adapt the fuel/air mixture hundreds of times per second.

Cold, heavy winter air and warm, light summer air will have a much greater effect on mileage than the old "pump gas when it's cool" myth.

Greg Peterson

03-03-2012, 10:32 PM

Sure is a pretty car, but it is not "GREEN" at all if you use some common sense, not trying to make waves just putting some information out there that is more important than spending a lot of money to impress your neighbors.

Common sense says this vehicle will consume less fossil fuels and emit less pollution during its service life than a vehicle of similar purpose.

Kevin W Johnson

03-04-2012, 12:30 AM

Common sense says this vehicle will consume less fossil fuels and emit less pollution during its service life than a vehicle of similar purpose.

Maybe, maybe not.

Example: Data has been requested from Toyota on numerous occasions on the energy usage to produce the Prius, in order to validate their claims of less pollutants over its service life to that of a standard gas counterpart. To date, they have refused all requests. There's certainly no trade secrets to hide in that information, and Toyota's refusal certainly suggests it has something to hide.

Van Huskey

03-04-2012, 1:40 AM

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
That is no Aston-Martin DB9, not even close.
Mike

Ferrari GTO 250... trumps them all...in mine eyes

There are issues that make green cars less than green BUT the key is they are needed for the transition. They will spark innovation which can be channeled to be more and more green. One has to consider the big/long term picture. I am a born and bred petrol-head and there is no sound on earth like a gasoline I/C engine but electric will probably be the future of cars and that is just fine by me.

Jim Matthews

03-04-2012, 9:41 AM

My wife's 1999 VW Cabrio normally aspirated automatic gets near 34 mpg on the highway.
It's worth $1500. This thing is a monumentally cool step in the wrong direction.

I would be much more interested in hearing about innovations in freight transport, where most of our fuel is consumed.

It does make a cool sound though...

Greg Cuetara

03-04-2012, 11:42 AM

The question in my mind right now is are we shooting ourselves in the foot with the 'EPA' standands. I used to live in Colorado and in one season they added ethanol to the gas to reduce emmisions but I also saw a 20% drop in fuel economy so I saved 20% of emmissions / gallon but used 20% more gas so in the end it was a wash. I don't know much about cars but I know years ago cars got better economy because they were allowed to breath more but now with our 'standards' they can't breath and therefore less economy. There has to be a happy medium between emissions and fuel economy but if you only concentrate on the emissions you will lose half the story. (ie like the car above you have to look at the entire production costs and how much it takes to make the car green, i find it funny that most people think their plug in hybrid is more green but in fact if you have to burn coal to create elecricity to charge up your hybrid you are no more green than anyone else, now if you have solar that you are using to charge the car that is another story)

i heard of a ford over in europe that can get 40-50mpg but cant' be sold in the states....also what about the diesels in europe that are getting very high mpg with no hybrid action....can we look at the whole picture rather than a piece of the pie to make a decision.

John Coloccia

03-04-2012, 12:13 PM

I'm guess I just can't get excited about a $100,000 "green" sports car that will likely be used to drive back and forth between the private jet and the mansion.

Zach England

03-04-2012, 12:26 PM

Can I get the tires rotated at my local sewing shop?

Greg Peterson

03-04-2012, 12:44 PM

The question in my mind right now is are we shooting ourselves in the foot with the 'EPA' standands.

China is starting to realize the false economy of lowered or no environmental restrictions. Between polluted ground waters, toxic air and dead rivers, the capital and human cost of allowing industry and capitalism to determine the standards is coming home to roost on the people that have to live in that environment.

Historically speaking, industrial capitalist have a particularly careless and short sighted view of environmental protections. The timber industry in Oregon is a fraction of what it was thirty or forty years ago. Left to their own interests, there would be practically nothing left today and the Oregon commercial fishing industry would be all but extinct by now. Logging practices have a direct relationship with Salmon runs as Salmon spawn in many mountain creeks where logging is desirable.

We had thousands of shelves in our warehouse that were clear vertical grain fir. And the grain was tight. Fifty years ago these shelves were as common as they were inexpensive. There's still old growth fir today, but not if commercial logging had had their way. Left to their own agenda, even the redwoods of California would be gone.

Superfund sights are further evidence that industry is a poor steward of the commons. Clean air and water are not something that can be regulated by on a monetary scale, they are a quite simply a fundamental requirement for everyone.

Heather Thompson

03-04-2012, 12:49 PM

Ferrari GTO 250... trumps them all...in mine eyes

There are issues that make green cars less than green BUT the key is they are needed for the transition. They will spark innovation which can be channeled to be more and more green. One has to consider the big/long term picture. I am a born and bred petrol-head and there is no sound on earth like a gasoline I/C engine but electric will probably be the future of cars and that is just fine by me.

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner here!!!! I to am a born and bred petrol-head, actually my winter project is rebuilding a 1975 Yamaha RD350B two stroke into a "Smokin" canyon carver, definitely not the greenest bike on the street. I saw this thread last year and bit my tongue, so many people look for the problems with change as opposed to looking for the solutions, we can not do this because of cost, production cost in energy out weighs claims of less pollutants over service life, etc etc etc. A few years back I became aware of a man by the name of Shai Agassi, he was a software guy from California who was attending a conference where the question was posed "How do you make the world a better place by 2020", it was meant to be a conversation starter but he took it to heart. Mr Agassi started a company called "Better Place", it is a dynamic approach to zero-emission vehicles powered by electricity from renewable sources which uses battery switch stations to allow for long distanc travel. The EV owner does not own the battery, kind of like taking an empty propane tank and swapping for a fresh one at the local store, this basically deflates the arguement of who is going to pony up when the battery gives up the ship. This is a link to the "Better Place" website, lots of good stuff here if you take the time to explore it. http://www.betterplace.com/the-company-leadership-detail/index/id/shai-agassi

Sawmill Creek is a group of folks that come together with shared interests, many questions are asked and solutions suggested, I do not ever recall a post that said this is not working for me so it can not be done. I have seen many comments like, I would have never thought of that, or thats a great idea and I added this to make it work a little better. Thinking constructively as opposed to destructively will make this a "Better Place".

Kevin Gregoire

03-04-2012, 12:53 PM

i didnt make this post to talk about hybrids, i made it to show off one of the coolest looking cars i have ever seen.
it has to be one of the best looking 4-door cars ever to roll off a production line!
but it is cool it can go between fuel and electric, but if i had the money i would go with either a monster turbo motor
for it or a hi-perf electric but not both.

Jerry Thompson

03-04-2012, 1:10 PM

That car is not green it burns hydrocarbons for the most part. Where doew the electric charge come from? Most likely a coal burner.

Greg Peterson

03-04-2012, 1:22 PM

Kevin, I agree this car is a beauty. Art, however, is in the eye of the beholder. Aston Martins resonate for me, as do Ferrari's. And I'm not even a car buff. But beauty can not be denied.

As for green, I look forward to the day I don't have to budget for gasoline. My commute, as well an overwhelming number of commuters, would be more than adequately served by an electric vehicle.

Someone mentioned diesel efficiency in Europe. Diesel efficiency excels on highways. City driving, or congested commuting driving patterns, reduces diesel efficiency.

One thing that would be an immense aid to fuel economy in Portland would be synchronization of the traffic lights. It is absolutely maddening to travel anywhere in this city. You are constantly accelerating and stopping simply because the traffic lights are so poorly timed. Certainly the technology exists to control traffic with an eye towards efficiency.

Jason Roehl

03-04-2012, 2:24 PM

I'm not against using alternate energy source, but the problem is that too many folks don't even remotely understand the chemistry and think that just throwing dollars at the research will overcome the hurdles. The reality is that many of the perceived hurdles are laws-of-nature-roadblocks that cannot be overcome. Take hydrogen-powered vehicles, for instance. Hydrogen does not exist in a free state--in nature it is always bound to one or more other atoms. Breaking it off of those other atoms always takes as much energy (or more) than it release when it is burned in an engine. Immutable fact--hydrogen is a less than 100% efficient means of transferring energy.

I don't think electric vehicles are "it", either--batteries will pretty much always be heavy, because for a battery to be useful in moving itself and a vehicle built around it, it needs to have a high charge density. That means large, heavy atoms that can pick up multiple electrons (like lead). High heat and current flow cause batteries to lose their internal structure. They might get a little better than they are now, but the electric vehicles on the market today have roughly the same performance (mediocre at best) as the EV1 from 15 years ago.

Wind and solar are "piddle power". You could blanket this country with solar panels and probably still wouldn't meet our current (pun--ha!) consumption. Ditto for wind turbines--which are bu'gly (yes, that's a contraction), IMO. There are several hundred of the eyesores 10 miles NW of me. Never mind that I pay about $0.10/KWh for electricity, while the average wind turbine in the U.S. costs about $25/KWh to install and operate over its lifetime. That $25 could feed quite a few people or warm quite a few senior's homes in the winter. All told the "renewable" sources of electricity total just a few percent (about 5%, I think) of our electric grid. The rest is coal, natural gas and nuclear. How would you do cutting your electric usage by 95% to eliminate the use of those "non-green" sources? I'm not interested in going back to the dark ages...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against research into new technologies, but let's keep the big picture of theoretical limitations in mind when looking at these things so we're not throwing money at companies to produce "stepping stone" products that are a step towards something that can't work. There are many companies that have no qualms producing an item at a loss if a grant of some sort puts that balance sheet in the black. In other words, environmental sustainability must also include economic sustainability.

Greg Peterson

03-04-2012, 4:08 PM

I don't think people are denying the technical hurdles. A couple of solar panels feeding a charging center at home and most folks would be largely done with gasoline. At even $3/gallon, the RIO would be relatively short.

In 2010 alone, China handed out $30 billion in low interest loans to the top five solar panel manufacturers. China clearly intends to own the solar market.

Germany has set up a distributed solar array wherein the government subsidizes the installation of solar panels on residential housing. The energy gathered is dumped onto the grid for all to use. Apparently this is less expensive than building another power generating plant (coal or nuclear). Imagine not having to pay an electric bill while also providing your commuting vehicle with the energy it requires.

Oil contains the greatest BTU potential of all energy sources. But it no longer need be the single, dominant energy source in the world. The drawbacks to oil are getting too messy, expensive and dangerous. We're pumping more oil than we have in eight years, one of our biggest exports in 2011 was gasoline and while our oil consumption is down the cost of gasoline is rising.

A barrel of oil, whether it comes out of Iran or Alaska, is sold on the international market. The US simply does not have enough oil to lower the cost. We are not an oil rich continent, at least compared to others.

I see nothing wrong with a sleek, cool looking green sports car raising awareness of going green. It doesn't have to be painful. Looks like it can even be pretty fun. If you have the bucks for now.

Jason Roehl

03-04-2012, 6:31 PM

A barrel of oil, whether it comes out of Iran or Alaska, is sold on the international market. The US simply does not have enough oil to lower the cost. We are not an oil rich continent, at least compared to others.

That's not how the oil market works. There's a bunch of speculation driving the price up on futures contracts, but the price of oil you see on the nightly news is the spot price. Most oil companies drill, ship and run crude through their own refineries without it ever hitting the market. Much of this oil price nonsense could be fixed if the margins on speculation were increased to get more of the gamblers out of the commodities markets.

In addition, supply and demand curves are not linear. It doesn't take a doubling of supply to halve the price. Just a small increase in production can cause the price to plummet. The reality is that our distributions of goods and many services in the U.S. depends on oil. If fuel prices keep marching north like they are now, our economy will end up in round 2 of the recession in pretty short order.

Greg Peterson

03-04-2012, 8:28 PM

Much of this oil price nonsense could be fixed if the margins on speculation were increased to get more of the gamblers out of the commodities markets.

Some would argue this is the free market at work. There would be much howling and gnashing of teeth if any attempt were made to reel in the speculators.

Kevin W Johnson

03-04-2012, 10:05 PM

China is starting to realize the false economy of lowered or no environmental restrictions. Between polluted ground waters, toxic air and dead rivers, the capital and human cost of allowing industry and capitalism to determine the standards is coming home to roost on the people that have to live in that environment.

Historically speaking, industrial capitalist have a particularly careless and short sighted view of environmental protections. The timber industry in Oregon is a fraction of what it was thirty or forty years ago. Left to their own interests, there would be practically nothing left today and the Oregon commercial fishing industry would be all but extinct by now. Logging practices have a direct relationship with Salmon runs as Salmon spawn in many mountain creeks where logging is desirable.

We had thousands of shelves in our warehouse that were clear vertical grain fir. And the grain was tight. Fifty years ago these shelves were as common as they were inexpensive. There's still old growth fir today, but not if commercial logging had had their way. Left to their own agenda, even the redwoods of California would be gone.

Superfund sights are further evidence that industry is a poor steward of the commons. Clean air and water are not something that can be regulated by on a monetary scale, they are a quite simply a fundamental requirement for everyone.

You know, criticizing the EPA doesn't mean one thinks we should eliminate it. He is simply suggesting that we have a sensible balance as far as the EPA is concerned. Rather than the knee-jerk, burdensome regulations enacted without sound evidence, (CO2) well before the technology exists to enact those regulations with minimal impact to people's jobs and livelihood.

He also addressed how other countries have high-MPG vehicles that aren't allowed for sale here in the US, but you ignored that. There's certainly no reason why those vehicles can't be sold here in the states, even if they don't meet some "safety" standrards, there are segments in which they could be used, lower speed travel in large cities, for instance. I'd suggest that we also need to review the standards in which they are deemed "insufficient", as I can't imagine that countries in the EU allow unsafe cars, they do ban tables saws with arbors long enough for dado sets after all.

Glenn Vaughn

03-05-2012, 12:36 AM

I have a 2008 Pontiac Solstice GXP - probably the same engine - 2.0 liter Ecotec. I have driven it to both coasts and averaged over 35 MPG on the trips. The car cost 1/3 of theFisker and is probably cheaper to maintain. The performance is better than that listed for the Fisker as well.

John Coloccia

03-09-2012, 7:55 AM

It's even greener than anyone thought, unless you include the emissions from the flatbed.

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/bad-karma--our-fisker-karma-plug-in-hybrid-breaks-down.html

David Weaver

03-09-2012, 8:12 AM

The thing I wondered about reading the article is "why use a 200 H.P. engine?". Cars use a relatively low % of their rated H.P. except when accelerating. Run the gas engine at its most efficient output and use the battery for the acceleration surges. But then I'm not an engineer.

As long as the car is set up so that it can run economically when it's not running the 200 horsepower, it'll do pretty well on economy as long as it is a big displacement engine or some other high friction thing.

What you're describing is basically what hybrids do, even if they have more rated horsepower than you'd need (and if you drive 75 miles an hour, you do actually consume a fair bit of horsepower, you don't want to have 50 horsepower if you're going to pull a hill, something where there's no real efficiency gain of using the electric motor in combination).

Cars do pretty well for efficiency now, especially hybrids. A hybrid car with direct injection and a turbocharger should do very very well.

David Weaver

03-09-2012, 8:29 AM

Not to mention all the hybrids that will litter the used car dealers in the coming years because neither the dealers or the consumers are going to be willing to pony the the $$$$ to replace the batteries.

From what I understand, if the batteries are cycled properly, they last indefinitely. I didn't get a hybrid last time around in the car game, but I did look at them and that was one of my concerns. Lithiums are a bit new, but from what I could find, the replacement NiMH packs that have been sold for a prius are generally sold for wrecked cars. The same thing was said for the volt (if they don't catch fire!!), that as long as the electronics are in tact and the car cycles the battery between 25 and 90% charge, the batteries will pretty much last indefinitely.

I haven't actually heard of someone replacing a whole hybrid battery. I'm sure someone has, but it most not be common. If the battery price is $3k direct from toyota for NiMH packs (maybe I was looking aftermarket, I can't remember) for the prius, then people will either decide that they like the car or it will be recycled. Same as people do for current cars, the metric will just be a little different.

I fully do not understand the hype with lithium batteries, and the desire to jump right to them when a prius (and camry hybrid, and pretty much every other true hybrid) already pretty much straight up proves that with relatively cheap NiMH batteries you can get a huge gain in mileage if you live in the right place (the more stop and go, the better).

But, anyway, I don't think too many otherwise useful cars will go to junk because of batteries, unless people totally abandon the cheaper batteries.

As someone who lives in the hills in suburbia where there's a stoplight at the bottom of every hill for intersections (you can't get much worse than that for mileage), I see several things inhibiting mileage:
1) peoples' desire to have big heavy cars. I saw a new taurus SHO for the first time I noticed the other day. 4400 pounds? Really? Good God. 600 pounds more than a '59 impala. minivans are in the 4500+ pound range, and "mid size" sedans are all pushing 2 tons. 15 years ago, mid size cars were 1000 pounds less.
2) idling (the hybrids take care of this). If you live on a main route where you're idling 5 minutes of a 12-15 minute drive, that ends up burning a lot of fuel. Not nearly as much as driving, but still a lot. Maybe some of the mechanics can tell us whether or not it's feasible to have a system that maintains lubrication in frequent starts and stops. I guess without having a hybrid, coming up with an algorithm to determine when the car will turn off isn't that easy (though it certainly could come in a car that has an override button on the steering wheel to prevent shutdown if you know a light is turning green soon).
3) stop and go traffic where smart road-making would've made more continuous traffic (too bad, that one will never be fixed, not at least without coordinated electronic synchonization in cars)
4) gasoline inefficiency under acceleration (hybrids already fix this for the most part)
5) high off-the-ground cars (that will never see a need for the clearance) and big tall square shaped vehicles that cut through the wind like a brick. The crossover designs that have less space than a station wagon and the ground clearance of an SUV (and the price of one) are the dumbest things I've ever seen in the world of cars. Absolutely idiotic. Heavy has a HD truck, less room than a station wagon, interior space that's often limited due to the shape of back of the vehicle to make it look cool.... height off the road is high drag. What a stupid idea.

So hybrids do a good job of some of the stuff, and some discretion takes care of a lot of the rest.

David Weaver

03-09-2012, 8:39 AM

Further political comments could result in this thread being locked and removed from public view.

It's a big downer when a thread full of mostly non-offending people gets locked because of one or two, especially given that it's almost universally the only stimulating topics that ever go through this end of the forum. Why not give a 30-day time out to the people who don't follow the TOS instead? I'd imagine that would do a lot more to curb the behavior of the political posters, and few would miss the troublemakers.

As soon as anything interesting ever comes up over here, one or two bad apples posts something (often the same people) in a discussion that most of the others are enjoying, the thread is subsequently locked and we're moderated right back into snoozeville. And nobody probably ever says anything about it because they're afraid they'll get in trouble with the moderators.

Perhaps i'm the only person who feels that way, I don't know.

David Weaver

03-09-2012, 8:44 AM

i heard of a ford over in europe that can get 40-50mpg but cant' be sold in the states....also what about the diesels in europe that are getting very high mpg with no hybrid action....can we look at the whole picture rather than a piece of the pie to make a decision.

Diesel-electric hybrids do even better. When the prius first came out, Chrysler corp made a (diesel-electric) hybrid car that was bigger than the gas hybrids, but was getting in the neighborhood of 72 miles per gallon overall. It had some tricks, like narrower tires, and probably would've been a low 50s mpg hybrid anyway, but back then, mileage in the 70s was eye popping.

For the last 5 years or so, at least here, the price premium for diesel has been eating 15-20% of the 30% gain that diesels have to begin with, and the regurgitation requirement (and what is it now for trucks, a separate urea tank?) have been causing a lot of maintenance trouble. I guess they'll get that ironed out, but it all adds to cost, and puts a premium on proper maintenance.

If fuel was cheap enough in europe such that people were driving everywhere (as opposed to the large % who take public trans) they would probably tighten their emission standards and not allow the basic diesels that are over there now, I'd guess.

Jason Roehl

03-09-2012, 10:16 AM

I've never liked comparing our fuel prices and usage to Europe. For one, they have roughly the same area (3.9 million sq. mi.) as the U.S. (just under 3.8 million sq. mi.), but have a much higher total population (740 million) than the U.S. (310 million). That certainly lends itself to public transport being more viable. But, you have to add to that the culture and makeup of many of their cities. Very few places in the U.S. have a butcher, dairy, bread store, grocer, etc. within walking distance, but that is common in Europe. Many of their cities are much older and have closely packed buildings (in the oldest sections, at least) that wouldn't even allow what we call a mid size car to navigate the streets.

Vehicles have gotten heavier, because heavier is safer, and that is what we want in the U.S. I sure wouldn't want to be in a Smart Car that tangles with a fully loaded tractor-trailer.

David Weaver

03-09-2012, 11:57 AM

Pefect timing for a follow-up from someone testing this car.

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/bad-karma--our-fisker-karma-plug-in-hybrid-breaks-down.html

Title: "Bad Karma: Our Fisker Karma plug-in hybrid breaks down"

Text from the article:

We buy about 80 cars a year and this is the first time in memory that we have had a car that is undriveable before it has finished our check-in process...
....
...
We encountered other problems with a Karma press car that visited the track for a few hours, and we have heard of problems at press events.

*giggle*

It looks to me like some of the design elements are leaning toward buick - the rear and the front, at least.

Joel Goodman

03-09-2012, 4:03 PM

3) stop and go traffic where smart road-making would've made more continuous traffic (too bad, that one will never be fixed, not at least without coordinated electronic synchonization in cars)

I don't own a hybrid but it does appeal to me that instead of slowing down with brakes (friction converting the kinetic energy to heat energy) the hybrids use that excess kinetic energy to generate more electricity when slowing down. That certainly helps in any stop and go situation.

Jerry Thompson

03-09-2012, 4:04 PM

I have not gone through all of the replies to see if there is my take on the car,it is a coal burner. It looks great but it is still dependent on coal,natural gas or what have you.

Jim Matthews

03-09-2012, 4:06 PM

The question in my mind right now is are we shooting ourselves in the foot with the 'EPA' standands. I used to live in Colorado and in one season they added ethanol to the gas to reduce emmisions but I also saw a 20% drop in fuel economy

If you have lived in Denver, and experienced a Winter time Smog inversion, clap your hands...
The problem with using Ethanol or any other alcohol cosolvent in gasonline is that low concentrations (less than 15%) make particulate emissions worse (http://www.worc.org/userfiles/NRDC%20air.pdf).

The user sees an increase in horsepower, but less miles traveled on the tank. It comes down to this, really - pay a farmer or pay an oil company.

I think this thread misses the point, entirely. Would Stacey Kiebler even fit in a Geo Prism?
Furthermore, the rear doors on the Fisker indicate the presence of a useful back seat.

I'm just sayin...

David Weaver

03-09-2012, 8:00 PM

I don't own a hybrid but it does appeal to me that instead of slowing down with brakes (friction converting the kinetic energy to heat energy) the hybrids use that excess kinetic energy to generate more electricity when slowing down. That certainly helps in any stop and go situation.

Eons ago, honda made a CRX that I think they called the CRX-HF, and it also had regenerative braking. It wasn't a hybrid, but it used the braking power to relieve the engine of generating some of the power for the battery.

I don't know how much it contributed, but the car was somewhere in the ballpark of 50 miles per gallon way back in the 80s or early 90s, and weighed less than a ton.

I like the idea on a hybrid, too, as well as the idea that a try hybrid will shut down at an intersection when the battery pack is charged.

I never knew how much idling hurt mileage until i get a car with a cumulative mileage meter (not exactly perfect, but it gives you an idea) and watched the mileage drop with 50 miles on the clock as I sat at an intersection for a couple of minutes. It went down a lot, i don't remember how much exactly, but it wasn't 1 or 2 tenths cumulative to that point, it was more than that.

David Weaver

03-09-2012, 8:03 PM

I don't know what denver gets, but here where much of the population is in a valley, it's stagnant. we don't need anything to affect air quality more than it already does.

If I get a cold here, guaranteed I will have asthmatic issues and have to go to the doctor or it will get to the point that I can't sleep no matter how tired I get.

When I go home in the middle of a cold (like where I grew up 200 miles east), the asthma will clear up on its own.

Thank goodness it takes a cold and coughing/sneezing to trigger it, but people who have worse asthma than I do probably have to be on something all the time here.

Greg Peterson

03-09-2012, 10:53 PM

Vehicles have gotten heavier, because heavier is safer, and that is what we want in the U.S. I sure wouldn't want to be in a Smart Car that tangles with a fully loaded tractor-trailer.

I don't think I would bet on any vehicle winning against a tractor-trailer. However, the Smart Car is pretty impressive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJHpUO-S0i8

Gerry Kaslowski

03-09-2012, 11:48 PM

For all those big bucks, Consumer Reports is reporting that they just had to have their test car towed from their parking lot. The Consumerist (http://consumerist.com/2012/03/consumer-reports-spends-100k-on-fisker-karma-it-breaks-down-in-parking-lot.html)

Jason Roehl

03-10-2012, 2:13 AM

David Weaver

03-10-2012, 10:19 AM

Somewhere I've read (and i don't remember where) that the smart has done fairly well on first contact in real life crashes, but because it's usually seriously lacking in mass compared to what it hits, it gets caught bouncing from the wreck into other traffic and getting hit more times after the first hit.

Notice that even with a mid-size mercedes there, the smart flies easily a lane over, and in a bang-bang scenario, as the smart goes from 50 to zero miles per hour, the guy the next lane over (if there's two lanes of traffic going the same way) is going to pound you broadside or at the front c-pillar in a crash like that. The mercedes remains in its lane for the most part.

I don't like heavy cars because they're fuel pigs, but I can safely say which car in that crash I'd rather be in, even were they to end up in a draw on first contact.

Jason Roehl

03-10-2012, 10:58 AM

Bingo. You only get to use that minimal crumple zone once. If you get thrown into another head-on, you're probably not going to be a cripple, if you know what I mean.

I have a 24-ish MPG minivan (highway) for my family of 5. That would take 3 Smart ForTwo cars to get us to our destination (never mind that we'd be a driver short). That means each of those 3 cars would have to get 72 MPG. In town, we get about 16 MPG, so they'd have to get 48 MPG. And 3 ForTwos take up more space at home and on the road than one minivan (you have to include following distance and all that), leading to more roadway congestion.

Greg Peterson

03-10-2012, 11:41 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j9RqljSJAQ&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Smart ForTwo vs. Mercedes C300 (a mid size car)

No vehicle will "win" vs. a tractor-trailer, but I at least want a shot at walking away.

I was skeptical of the SmartCar's safety. But after seeing the two video's I have changed my mind. Mass is not an indicator of safety, although it can contribute. Absorbing energy and protecting the occupants are be accomplished by good design and materials. I believe the current crop of SmartCars employ side airbags now.

My impression of the SmartCar is that it is not far removed from a Forumula 1 cockpit design, which may go a long way towards explaining its rather high cost.

There did not appear to be a significant difference between the offset head on and stationary impact.

The SmartCar is obviously not designed for family transportation needs. However, most vehicles I see during commuting traffic have one occupant. I don't know about other regions, but out here full size pickup trucks and 4x4's are as common as SUVs. Cost aside, I would have no qualms commuting or driving around the metropolitan area in one of these. As for highway driving, I suspect my 97 Camry would fare no better than the SmartCar in a highway accident simply because its safety design is based on technology from the mid 90's at best. I question whether the 15 year old airbag would even deploy.