Are Electric Cars Really Green?

[sendler2112]

I've been for decades of the opinion that cars should be designed more like velomobiles.

Thanks for posting that. Regulatory fool proofing personal transportation with massive amounts of metal and $7,000 worth of air bags is completely counterproductive to getting the efficiency and affordability and resource conservation we need. And the next big push of mandated self driving systems coming at us will take the availability of fast (greater than 20 mph) personal transportation even farther away from an emerging middle class world.
.
If you are one step ahead of the pack you are a genius. Two steps ahead you are crazy. This discussion has gone three steps ahead. But a very different future for mankind is only 100 years away and the general public is unkowingly running out of time. We need to pull out all the stops now and use the current energy wealth to rebuild all infrastructure toward sustainability.
.
Be vocal. Lead by example. Be seen every day riding on something really efficient.
.
Tandem or solo seat fully streamlined two, three, or four wheel and electric drive is needed. The Chevy Bolt unfortunately had to conform to the status quo so it costs $37,500, is really big, and not as aero as it could have been. Even the Aptera was a little over built.
.
.

.
.
Elio would have been a good progression but the reality of regulations and finances has doomed it from the start.
.
.

.
.
Arcimoto is trying.
.
.

.
.
Zero is doing relatively well since there are no crash regulations for motorcycles. If your commute is too demanding for an ebike, buy a Zero and outfit it with a wind screen and a big solo tail trunk so it can carry things and learn how to ride it to work every day there is no ice on the roads.
.
.

.
.
Or one of the Honda world motorcycles which are designed to be affordable and fuel efficient.
.
.

.
.

 

[nutnspecial]

If you are one step ahead of the pack you are a genius. Two steps ahead you are crazy. This discussion has gone three steps ahead.

This is a great quote adaptation worthy of 'ES quotes' imo? Nice.

You may realize I (and others of course) may not agree completely with an all E approach being reasonable or even possible under todays infrastructure/institutions. I wanted to say I feel your message and attitude is very positive and reasonable.

While looking for the source of your quote adaptation, I happened across this and was reminded of Tesla himself's belief- "Every person in the whole world should have sources of free energy (...) The electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can feed ... the world, without the need of coal, oil or gas." Found here http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Quotes

 

[Warren]

Chalo,

"I think if four wheels made sense for ultralight vehicles, there would be a lot more of them."

If the good sense of things was demonstrated by how common they were, we would be living in a different world.

 

[The Toecutter]

And the next big push of mandated self driving systems coming at us will take the availability of fast (greater than 20 mph) personal transportation even farther away from an emerging middle class world.

This is technology that I will never trust simply because someone else decides the algorithms governing the car's behavior, and not myself. The AI may determine that the best course of action is to run over a lone cyclist at the side of the road than to crash into the oncoming SUV that has veerd out of its lane, because it thinks less deaths will be caused. There's also the issue of hacking/malfeasance of the self-driving cars' algorithms, or the government getting involved and letting all of the data they've illegally collected on each of us determine who lives and dies(note China wanting to score people on their political views/loyalty to the state, much like a credit score).

There is nothing safer than a highly-attentive operator behind the wheel. An AI is a very poor substitute for using one's brain. The problem is that many drivers in the U.S. don't even know how to drive safely, or even care. An AI is not going to fix this.

IMO, it's a major disaster waiting to happen in terms of civil liberties, safety, and autonomy.

Be vocal. Lead by example. Be seen every day riding on something really efficient.

For my first conversion, I chose a Triumph GT6. It was among the lightest possible cars I could find without having to build one completely from scratch(scratch-built was outside of my budget, time, and/or work space), and its aerodynamics weren't too terrible. Due to limited opportunity to test it, I haven't been able to take many measurements yet, but with aerodynamic modifications, theoretically, well under 150 Wh/mile at highway speeds is possible.

Compared to anything built by a mainstream automaker, this would be a major improvement. Compared to an electric velomobile, it would still be an energy-guzzling pig.

Tandem or solo seat fully streamlined two, three, or four wheel and electric drive is needed. The Chevy Bolt unfortunately had to conform to the status quo so it costs $37,500, is really big, and not as aero as it could have been.

Even keeping the same size and weight, the Chevrolet Bolt has about twice as much drag as it could have. It seems that efficiency was once again not a key design criterion for the car. Among the major automakers, it never is for their commercial products. If the Bolt were a midsized sedan in the shape of the 2000 GM Precept(0.16 Cd), with all other criterion being equal, its Wh/mile consumption at 70 mph would be cut by more than 40%, without the consumer making ANY sacrifices.

The Bolt is a silly, wasteful vehicle, much like the Volt that preceded it.

Given the response and publicity generated by the Aptera, the Elio, the VW 1-litre, and other decently efficient vehicles, it is quite obvious that there is a segment of the population that craves a high-performance AND high-efficiency car, but the major automakers universally ignore this... After all, we can't have such vehicles cannibalizing the sales of more-profitable fuel hogs with big engines.

Notice that you could take the price of new cars, and plot it on an axis being compared with the horsepower, and notice a relationship that is consistent among all major makes and models. Price ends up proportional to horsepower to a point where the relationship changes from geometric to exponential somewhere when the price is in the six figure range. This is fully arbitrary and there is no reason it should be this way, other than automotive bigwigs demanding such. None of the inexpensive little sporty cars(eg. Miata) on the new car market that weigh under 2,500 lbs come standard with V8s, for instance, even though such an engine would be the most logical choice for the application. Sports cars were meant to be raced. If you want a V8, some big whig has determined that you have to pay $50,000+ for the "privilege" and have to get it in an obese 3,000+ lb package with brick-like aerodynamics "fully loaded" with luxury items like heated seats, slathered in leather and padding, power-bullsh*t entirely extraneous and detrimental to the performance of a sports car due to the added mass and drag... even though there are plenty of success stories of individuals transplanting monster V8s into Datsun 240Zs, Triumph Spitfires, Toyota MR2s, ect. for CHEAPER than the cost to buy a new "sports" car, all of which end up getting stellar 30+ mpg fuel economy in spite of their wasteful engines that get half the mileage in heavier, more wasteful vehicles, and of which will run circles around cars that cost 20x as much on practically any track.

Fuel economy and performance are only mutually exclusive BECAUSE high performance cars are designed by the industry to be wasteful on purpose. If you want a taste of what is possible, look up the Opel Eco Speedster prototype. It weighs in at 1,500 lbs, is mid-engined, has a 112 horsepower 1.2L CDTI diesel engine, and a drag coefficient of 0.2. It not only tops out at 160 mph on that anemic amount of power, but it gets 94 mpg US on the European highway cycle thanks to an efficient engine, optimized gearing, and a low mass/low drag body. Imagine something similar, but with say, a modern Corvette engine.

Whichever company decides to get off their butt and make a rear-drive or all-wheel drive front or mid-engined sports car, that has a mass of under 1,000 kg, at least a 400 horsepower inline-6 or V8, a drag area of less than 0.3 m^2, independent front and rear suspension, all in a low-cost no-frills package using conventional materials(steel, fiberglass, plastic, ect), coming in at under $20,000 assembled, is going to stomp the sh*t out of the new sports car market. $1 million exotics wouldn't be able to perform nearly as well, and when driven with traffic rules in mind, highway fuel economy would very likely exceed that of the Toyota Prius(which would be a heavy, unaerodynamic pig by comparison, and its hybrid drive and anemic Atkinson-cycle engine won't be enough to compensate). But then, the industry would be putting planned obsolescence on the chopping block and cannibalizing the sales of more powerful, more profitable and more wasteful vehicles that wouldn't perform nearly as well... Just note how GM canned the V6 Fiero before it reached the dealerships more than 20 years ago because it would have delivered Corvette performance for half the cost, thanks to the car being significantly lighter and with a simpler build with less amenities.

Things shouldn't be this way.

 

[Warren]

Other than the Ecomobile/Monotracer, which is brilliant, my favorite vehicle, with more than two wheels, is the now dead/dormant Edison2 electric VLC.

http://www.edison2.com/electric-very-light-car/

This company was just up the road from me. I saw the X-Prize winning ICE version sitting in the window of one of the founder's commercial properties. He may have had a shot at selling kits, but instead squandered all the prize money trying to design something to pass our onerous four wheeler laws, an insurmountable obstacle for all but an internet billionaire.

 

[The Toecutter]

He may have had a shot at selling kits, but instead squandered all the prize money trying to design something to pass our onerous four wheeler laws, an insurmountable obstacle for all but an internet billionaire.

Most of the obstacles were lobbied into place by the Big 3 during the 1970s and 1980s in a failed effort to kill the foreign competition. As a result, only billionaires can get mass-produced cars onto the market in the U.S., and they do not have the best interests of Joe Sixpack in mind, and are often using expensive marketing departments to convince Joe Sixpack that he wants their bloated high-margin products, instead of building what Joe Sixpack would be naturally inclined to want without ads and peer pressure to convince him(Elon Musk might be the only one resembling an exception to this rule, but even Tesla's vehicles are bloated and loaded with too much complex technology). Without mass production, a car simply will never be affordable to the average 1st world person. Because of these rules, mass production is a $1+ billion endeavor.

The problem of production volume is why EVs weren't affordable in the 1990s when the technology was ready, and is also the reason why velomobiles are so damned expensive. The automakers just don't care. They want you to buy what they want you to buy, and not what you want to buy.

And thus, the most innovative automobile ideas, ignored by the entrenched automakers, never seem to get anywhere. Ours cars are, for the most part, still stuck with some form of the anachronistic 19th/20th century 3-box design based on horse-drawn carriages.

An Edison kit would have been nice. I'd have likely bought one if the price were anywhere south of $10k, and then put as powerful of an engine as I could fit... possibly from a Hayabusa motorcycle...

 

[Warren]

Toecutter,

"An Edison kit would have been nice. I'd have likely bought one if the price were anywhere south of $10k, and then put as powerful of an engine as I could fit... possibly from a Hayabusa motorcycle... "

How about this?

http://www.hyperrocket.com/home.html

"$9480... For a ready to paint frame, body steering and suspension with assembly manual and full support. No powertrain, wheels or brakes included but does include BOM with sources and part numbers."

 

[The Toecutter]

How about this?

http://www.hyperrocket.com/home.html

"$9480... For a ready to paint frame, body steering and suspension with assembly manual and full support. No powertrain, wheels or brakes included but does include BOM with sources and part numbers."

It would need a completely different body to approach the efficiency of the more recent iterations of the Edison VLC. For what it is, it is not bad, and would make for a fine, efficient speed machine, but so too is much better possible.

The post X-prize VLCs are cars built like velomobiles. Dare I say that 100 mpg @ 70 mph with a lossy Hayabusa engine might be obtainable in one, or if you really wanted more economy, maybe 200 mpg with a 500cc 3-cylinder turbodiesel tuned to about 65 horsepower.

WANT.

 

[sendler2112]

Or a 300 MPGe 10kWh electric drive. Too bad The EdisonVLC can never be built or sold since it won't pass crash testing.

 

[The Toecutter]

Or a 300 MPGe 10kWh electric drive.

The Aptera did similar efficiency. Bonus is that more peak horsepower won't lead to efficiency losses at lower levels of power input to the motor, as gasoline and diesel engines do.

Too bad The EdisonVLC can never be built or sold since it won't pass crash testing.

The ironic thing is that the VLC is likely more safe than most new cars currently on the U.S. market in most possible accident scenarios. It's main weakness would be in collisions with 5,000+ lb vehicles. If I crashed into a concrete barrier at 100 mph, I'd much rather be in the VLC, than in the vast majority of vehicles available on the new car market... The engineering that went into that vehicle's impulse resistance is much more impressive than anything the Big-3 put out. The car is designed to deflect impulse away from the occupants pretty much everywhere on its body.

 

[Arlo1]

Why is it I have to end this on every form of media I see it.

This is how you prove this piece of shit Is just an oil funded garbage spewing worthless scum of the earth!
IT TAKES ELECTRICTY TO MAKE GASOLINE SO IF YOU USE DIRTY SOURCES TO MAKE GASOLINE OR TO CHARGRE A BATTERY WHICH WILL MAKE MORE POLUTION?
Electric cars are mush much much more cleaner. Cradle to grave co2 is less the 1/2 of a gasoline in worst case. And they are getting better with solar and other clean sources of electricity growing quickly!

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-green-car-myth-20150713-story.html

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-ucs-electric-vehicles-emissions-study-20151110-story.html

http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/technology/electrics-twice-as-clean-as-gas-vehicles-from-cradle-to-grave-report-says-158578/

https://transportevolved.com/2015/11/12/union-of-concerned-scientists-proves-cradle-to-grave-emissions-better-for-evs-than-gasoline-in-every-u-s-state/

How many links do I need to post?

[youtube]K9m9WDxmSN8[/youtube]

 

[LockH]

IT TAKES GASOLINE TO MAKE ELECTRICITY...

Ooops. Not backwards? It takes electricity to make gasoline, I suspect ya meant to say?

 

[nechaus]

My opinion is that we are all frocked.

People have to much going on in their own lives on a day to day basis to worry about pollution. I truly hate it. People will just end up living with poor health..
Forecasts on population is going to be as high as 11 billion by 2050
I have a feeling this number could be even higher. We will have to wait and see.

I do like how china have put a cap on how many children they can have, by all means they can have more..However, A part of me feels like this goes against my natural evolutionary desire to reproduce and spread the seed.


I like electric cars because of the obvious benefits and that it reduces the local pollution taking it out of hands of the regular joe who does not care.
I often get quite pissed off at diesel drivers not knowing how to actually drive a diesel properly.

My dream would be a engine that can convert unwanted particles and convert it to electricity, if this is even possible.

 

[Warren]

A carbon cap is the only way to reduce CO2 emissions. Any scheme to promote good behavior just gets played by sharks.

"Alternative Fuel Vehicle Adoption Increases Fleet Gasoline Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions under United States Corporate Average Fuel Economy Policy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/02/20160215-cmu.html#more

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.5b02842

http://rlv.zcache.com/my_truck_uses_the_gas_your_hybrid_saves_thanks_car_bumper_sticker-r0be7ee88582a4d338c6fb443cc12dfee_v9uwb_1024.jpg?rlvnet=1

 

[Chalo]

I do like how china have put a cap on how many children they can have, by all means they can have more..However, A part of me feels like this goes against my natural evolutionary desire to reproduce and spread the seed. .

It's an evolutionary imperative for men to murder each other occasionally. We don't tolerate that. But the evolutionary imperative to breed has come to present a more serious existential threat than the urge to murder, yet we do nothing to check it.

If we don't stop crapping out more people as if we were stray dogs, nothing else we do to save ourselves will matter. Still people view overbreeding as a right rather than a crime.

 

[sendler2112]

Still people view overbreeding as a right rather than a crime.

Even more than a right. Unfortunately they see overbreeding as an edict and a mandate. To even speak against it is punishable by death in some backward cultures.

 

[nutnspecial]

Chalo: I dislike the 'following the leader' game, and think independence (ie objectivity)- not dependence, brings ever refined answers. Perhaps we know these answers at birth, and (hopefully) again at death. Here's to people living lives within the reality so clear for everyone (hopefully) at their birth and death.

We don't tolerate that.

with the exception of whenever we're told it's ok- 'imperative' and all that.
are the exceptions backed by the logic as stated?

evolutionary imperative

. . . .evolution to, what exactly? Is evolution or the imperative clear?

save ourselves

. . . .from what? Who is 'ourselves' ?

 

[Warren]

sendler2112,

"Too bad The EdisonVLC can never be built or sold since it won't pass crash testing."

True. They were looking to race car safety features...breakaway parts, roll cage, five point harness.

http://www.edison2.com/blog/2013/4/2/edison2-on-impact-avoidance-float-like-a-butterfly-sting-lik.html

http://www.edison2.com/safety-by-design/

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-K1hUsjHpg5g/UGPrEUfy-WI/AAAAAAAAayw/BH7uMap7QDc/s1600/VLC4+overhead.png

 

[sendler2112]

Looks like he couldn't even get the Edison built in Ukraine and has given up. The last post on Facebook was over two years ago.

 

[Chalo]

Hey, wherever you're going to manufacture something, you'll need enough money to actually do it.

 

[The Toecutter]

With regard to efficiency and performance, the mainstream automakers have been building vehicles almost as good as the VLC, even though their design principles follow the antiquated and still popular 3-box model.

The catch is that they never sold them to the public, even when the public wanted them. They made some prototypes demonstrating their technical capabilities, then let the accountants and stylists take over the engineering with regard to the cars sold to the public, if it makes into production in some form.

We've had the capability to triple today's fuel economy with minimal compromise, way back in the 1980s.

Renault unveiled their EVE concept car in 1980. The EVE was built on a Renault R18 chassis, used a supercharged 1.1 L inline 4-cylinder supercharged diesel engine, and had a 0.239 drag coefficient. This engine output a maximum of 50 horsepower. The curb weight of the vehicle was 1,900 lbs. The combination of these traits allowed it to achieve 70 mpg combined fuel economy.

Expanding upon the previous concept, the Renault EVE+ concept car was revealed to the public in 1983. It used the same 50 horsepower diesel engine as the EVE, but had reduced the curb weight to 1,880 lbs, had reduced the drag coefficient to 0.225, and achieved 63 mpg city, 81 mpg highway.

While the diesel Renault EVE concept cars were being developed and tested, Renault was also working on their gasoline powered Vesta concept cars. The Renault Vesta was revealed to the motoring public in 1981. It had a weight of 1130 lbs, a 0.25 drag coefficient, and a top speed of 75 mph. The Vesta's fuel economy is 78 mpg.

Renault's next generation of their Vesta concept car had reduced weight and reduced aerodynamic drag, which improved fuel economy and top speed. The 1987 Renault Vesta II weighed only 1,047 lbs, had a 0.186 drag coefficient, a 27 horsepower engine, and was able to return 78 mpg city, 107 mpg highway. Its top speed was over 80 mph.

Not wanting to be outdone by Renault, Peugeot and Citroen began the ECO 2000 program. The 1981 Citroen SA103 was able to obtain 65 mpg, thanks to a 0.27 drag coefficient, 948 lb curb weight, and a rear-mounted 700cc 2-cylinder gasoline engine.

The 1983 Citroen SA117 showed a remarkable improvement over its predecessor due to a drag coefficient of 0.21, front mounted engine with a front wheel drive configuration, and a curb weight of only 932 lbs; these improvements resulted in a fuel economy of 79 mpg. The SL117 used the same engine as the SA103.

The 1982 Citroen SA109 used an upgraded 3-cylinder gasoline engine with the displacement increased to 750cc. The car weighed in at 1,058 lbs and had a drag coefficient of 0.321, giving a fuel economy of 67 mpg.

The 1984 Citroen SL110 was the first of the ECO 2000 vehicles revealed to the public. It made use of the SA109's 35 horsepower engine, which allowed a top speed of 88 mph. The fuel economy was 76 mpg combined, and 112 mpg at a steady 55 mph. This was achievable due to a low drag coefficient of 0.22 and 992 lb curb weight.

Peugeot also revealed its ECO 2000 concept car. With a drag coefficient of 0.21, 990 lb curb weight, and a 28 horsepower 2-cylinder gasoline engine, the Peugeot ECO 2000 returned 70 mpg city and 77 mpg highway.

An effort by Peugeot from 1982 were its VERA and VERA+ concept cars. Unlike the ECO 2000, these cars used 50 horsepower turbo diesel engines. The VERA+ had a 0.22 drag coefficient, 1,740 lbs curb weight, and achieved 55 mpg city, 87 mpg highway. The VERA+ also had performance comparable to the commercially available cars of its time, with 0-60 mph acceleration in 13.2 seconds and a top speed of 100 mph.

The 1981 Volkswagen Auto 2000 obtained 63 mpg city, 71 mpg highway, boasting a 0.25 drag coefficient, 53 horsepower diesel engine, and 1,716 lb curb weight.

Volkswagen's E80 diesel concept obtained even better fuel economy. Using a 51 horsepower supercharged 3-cylinder turbo diesel, the 1,540 lb Volkswagen E80 managed to obtain 74 mpg city and 99 mpg highway. It had a 0.35 drag coefficient.

In 1983, Volvo was able to demonstrate that fuel efficiency, safety, practicality, and performance were possible in a production-ready car with its LCP 2000. First and foremost, the car was designed for maximum safety; not only were the rear seats facing backward so that the center of the car could be designed for added structural rigidity and increased resistance against side impacts, but the car passed a head-on passenger-crash survival test at 35 mph, which exceeded the 30 mph requirement of the time. Performance was excellent for the time period and is still comparable to the entry level compact cars sold today, with 0-60 mph acceleration in 11 seconds and a top speed of 110 mph. Fuel economy was rated at 56 mpg city, 81 mpg highway, and 65 mpg combined. The car weighed a mere 1,555 lbs, had a 0.25 drag coefficient, and was powered by an 88 horsepower diesel engine. In volume of 20,000 cars per year, the cost penalty would have been effectively zero over comparable production cars for the period.

The 1982 GM TPC managed an astounding 61 mpg city, 74 mpg highway, using a lightweight aluminum body and engine; the curb weight was light at only 1,040 lbs, but the drag coefficient was an unremarkable 0.31. It used a 3-cylinder gasoline engine which only produced 38 horsepower.

In 1983, GM had upgraded its Lean Machine concept to obtain up to 200 mpg. To obtain such stunning efficiency, the vehicle needed to be as light and as aerodynamic as possible, weighing in at only 400 lbs and having a 0.15 drag coefficient. A 38 horsepower, 2-cylinder Otto cycle engine was able to rocket this machine from 0-60 mph in 6.8 seconds. Top speed was 80 mph.

Not wishing to be surpassed by the American and European automakers, Toyota began experimenting with its AXV series of concept cars.

The first Toyota AXV was powered by a 56 horsepower direct-injection diesel engine; this combined with a low curb weighed of under 1,500 lbs, a 0.26 drag coefficient, and a continuously variable transmission allowed the AXV to achieve 89 mpg city, 110 mpg highway, and 98 mpg combined.

Later incarnations of the AVX were not as fuel-efficient.

In 1991, Honda developed the EPX, a tandem two-seater concept car that used a 1 liter lean-burn engine, weighed under 1,400 lbs, and supposedly returned a fuel economy of 100 mpg. Currently, the car isn't in running condition.

Continuing a trend of fuel efficient concepts, the Honda JVX was unveiled in 1997; using a 1.0 liter, 3-cylinder gasoline engine and an electric motor with a capacitor bank, it was able to manage 67 mpg. Designed for safety, the passenger and driver seat belts are configured to inflate during a crash to help protect the occupants from injuries normally caused by seat belts.

And if gasoline or diesel isn't your thing, ALL of the above would have made for some extremely efficient donor chassis for EV conversion. We're talking cars that could consistently consume < 150 Wh/mi here...

Sources, for any skeptics:

-Renault Club. (2007). 1981 – Renault EVE. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://www.renaultclub.cz/1981_-_renault_eve.html

-Saxon, D. (1988). Technology and the American Economic Transition: Choices for the Future. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-TET-283. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

-Philippe B. de l'Arc – A coeur vaillant, rien d'impossible. (2007). Aerodynamic Drag, Data for airfoils, Wings, Aircraft, Automobiles. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from pboursin.club.fr/res/aero.xls

-Parliament, UK. (2003, October). Memorandum by Stephen Plowden: Cars of the Future. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmtran/319/319we06.htm

-Greenpeace. (2005, December 5). SmILE – Showing Car Companies How it's Done. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/industry/reports/smile.html

-Bleviss, D. (1988). The New Oil Crisis and Fuel Economy Technologies. New York: Quorum Books

-Forza Mondo. (2006, August 20). L'Auto del futuro. Retrieved June 27, 2007 from http://forzamondo.blogspot.com/2006/08/lauto-del-futuro.html

-Histomobile. (2004, October 15). Citroen Eco 2000 concept. Retrieved June 27, 2007 from http://www.histomobile.com/1/Citroen/1984/Eco_2000.htm?lan=1

-Generation Futures. (2006, March 26). Mon avis d'utilisateur sur la Citroën AX 14 TRD, ainsi que son coût kilométrique réel. Retrieved June 27, 2007 from http://generationsfutures.chez-alice.fr/velo/citroen_ax_diesel.htm

-Audi Sport Collection. (2007, June 29). Magazine : L'Audi 2000 face à ses rivales. Retrieved June 29, 2007 from http://www.audisportcollection.com/ASC2006/392.php

-Baldwin, J. (1990, Fall). Eco-Cars – the Volvo LCP 2000 research auto. Whole Earth Review. Retrieved June 29, 2007 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1510/is_n68/ai_8897890/pg_1

-Lovins, A. (1990, December). Make Fuel Efficiency Our Gulf Strategy. New York Times. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Security/S90-26_MakeFuelEffGulf.pdf

-Timion, M. (2007, June 14) 100 Miles Per Gallon? That's so “1992”. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from http://www.100mpgplus.com/articles/magazine/article_unocal.html

-EPCOT Center (1983). The Lean Machine. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from maxmatic Web Site: http://www.maxmatic.com/ttw_leanmachine.htm

-maxmatic (2004, July 23) TTW – Tilting Three Wheelers: GM Lean Machine. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from http://www.maxmatic.com/ttw_leanmachine.htm

-National Research Council. (1992). Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? Washington D.C.: National Academy Press

-Auto Concept Reviews. (2007, April 16). Honda EPX Concept 1991. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from http://www.autoconcept-reviews.com/cars_reviews/honda/Honda_EPX_Concept_1991/cars_reviews_honda_epx_concept.html

-Insightman. (2000, July 22). The Honda JV-X Concept Car Introduces the IMA Hybrid Power-Train. Retrieved August 6, 2007 from http://www.insightman.com/J-VX/J-VX.htm

 

[Warren]

In the US at least, people buy cars by the square foot. Efficiency comes in about 9th out of 10 on their list of preferences. They all whine about wanting a 100 mpg car, but will make no sacrifice want-so-ever to obtain it.

 

[Punx0r]

I don't know about that - many bought a VW diesel :lol:

 

[sendler2112]

Too bad my Gen1 Honda Insight is worn out a 235,000 miles. That was the first and only real production attempt at a super efficiency car. I used to get 65 mpgUS at 65 mph. My Honda Fit that I am driving now gets 40 over the same commute. Nine months a year I am on my Honda CBR250R at 94 mpgUS.
.
.

.
.

 

[speedmd]

In the US at least, people buy cars by the square foot. Efficiency comes in about 9th out of 10 on their list of preferences. They all whine about wanting a 100 mpg car, but will make no sacrifice want-so-ever to obtain it.

"Build it and they will come". Much too easy to buy the story line from the auto makers when they can not make bank on striped down models. Much too easy for them to add huge margins on over-weight, over-sized hogs.