I was looking around the web and there are a few up and comming ultra low emission cars due to come out (none of that hybrid not so green carp).
However, these makers have been saying this for over three years now so what is going on ?
For example :-
The Loremo car www.loremo.com
Axon Automotive www.axonautomotive.com
These are just two examples but if you look at their press section's, you will see that they are just going to car shows and showing the cars off while getting a few more rewards.
Why not do some real work and get them on the road ?
It is almost as if these makers are being paid off NOT to produce ultra efficient cars.
{Links amended so they'll work}
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 11/02/2010 at 19:16
|
I suspect cost would be the main reason... it can be done now, but at a price, and how many people are prepared to pay? I've said before that an electric car, with a minimum range of 250 miles, supermini sized and a top speed of about 80 would be well worth having, but it would have to be at a realistic price for people to go out and buy one... and I'd suggest that for most people that would have to be around £6/8,000.
Look at the the price of Hybrids and the premium you have to pay and their (reletively) poor sales compared to their conventional cousins...
And yes, there may be something in that last sentance re a possible conspiracy theory...
|
|
|
|
Perhaps they don't go far or fast enough, or are very expensive, or all three.
|
|
|
|
Depends how you define efficiency. An Axon single seater doing 100mpg is far less efficient than a 40mpg Ford S-Max with 6 in it. Effectively the Ford does 240 passenger miles per gallon against 100 in the Axon. Superficially what looks like more fuel use is actually far less, plus it keeps all those pesky three year olds out from behind the wheel.
|
|
|
for a start, we don't get given the specific fuel consumption (efficiency) figures for cars, only the economy figures.
I speak to an industry insider regularly on this subject. Cars get weighed down with safety stuff they have to have and a load of toys that they have to have to sell them. Then they have to pass emmisions regs, they have to be made drivable too.
Making the engine more efficient, makes it make more power from a given amount of fuel. Then what most people do is put their foot down and use the extra power, so it uses the same amount of fuel as before.
My parents have run Skodas for 30 years. I'll bet some of the early ones they had would struggle to get to 30 mpg and not really have the power to pull the skin off a cold rice pudding. Their 08 Fabia 2 1.9Tdi will be heavier than any of their old Estelles, has more than double the power, probably has 30mph more top speed and will average 70mpg. Ultra efficient enough for you?
|
The electric car industry seems to be out of touch with reality. A recent Autocar had the "first drive" of a Smart Electric Drive, and it will be available on lease at.... £700 per month (estimated) - for comparison a Ford Ka 1.2 is available for £176 per month. Charging costs for Smart: £1 for every 60 miles of range (full charge range 85 miles) - Ka: probably £5 for 60 miles. The whole exercise doesn't add up.
By the way, getting back on topic, although it was a first drive, it won't be available until 2012 - not too sure what they are doing during the next two years
|
|
If we didn't have ridiculous safety regulations making cars 30+% heavier than they need to be and catalytic converters forcing us to run over rich fuel mixtures we'd have simple lightweight leanburn petrol superminis easily delivering 80+mpg right now.
|
I was in Kwikfit yesterday having my aircon regassed (special winter rate £25)... and there was an ultra efficient car in having an exhaust leak fixed.
The owner was 89 so it was being driven by a young man in his 50s.. He said it averaged 70mpg.
It was a 1983 Citroen Visa, 650cc two cylinder engine..
They don't make them like they used to..
|
Its ok decrying the "safety" equipment and consequent weight penalty on new cars, but personally I'd rather have a decent chance of getting out alive and without serious injury in a modern car than get an extra 10mpg and drive a Visa in modern traffic. I agree that without all that extra weight cars could be more efficient, but the roads are a lot more dangerous and busy than they used to be when those sorts of cars were made...
You pays your money and takes your choice... buy an old car as a daily driver if thats what you want, but I'll just keep mine for high days and holidays!
|
Remember the Smart was a big step forward in compact and economical motoring and now they are a common sight on the roads.
Then there are microcars - the minimalist French variety or the more mainstream Japanese types - now joined by the Indian Tata Nano.
In the pipeline is the Murray T25, smaller than a Smart but with 3 seats. It looks neat but would people want to drive something so small?
I think the way ahead is the diesel / electric hybrid. That's what the first 100 mpg. normal-sized car is likley to be ( if there hasn't been one already, that is)
The manufacturers are getting pretty serious about pure electric cars too. For urban and local use where range isn't important, electric cars are ideal. If you asked people if they would be able to make do with an electric car with a range of 100 miles, most would say no. But if you asked them whether such a car would suit their requirements as a second car, a lot would say yes.
|
Diesel / Electric is a good way to go, but is anyone actually building / developing a diesel electric car ?
I think there seems to be a lot of 'up and coming' cars but nothing actually out that the consumer can buy.
The point I was originally making was that for the past three to four years there has always been news stories of this new car or that new car yet no production (up to this point) has actually been done.
Are the manufactures holding back or is it a case of once one manufacturer is selling a revolutionary type of car then all the other car manufacturers will be ?
Edited by diddy1234 on 12/02/2010 at 10:48
|
|
Audi A2s did very efficient models, but they were rubbish to drive as everyone wants to drive inefficiently and they can't.
|
|
|
Diesel / Electric is a good way to go
If you consider the driver behind the current energy saving/alternative fuel business, you will see that it's driven entirely by environmental considerations.
The Climate Change Bill, which became law in 2008, means that our domestic "greenhouse gas" emissions must fall by at least 34% (relative to 1990 figures) by 2020, and by 80% by 2050. Note, whether you "believe in" the environmental stuff is irrelevant - those are the set targets. I think those figures are correct - if not, you can correct me.
So, there is a need (again - simply to meet these "legal" targets, not depending on whether you personally think it's a good thing) to reduce the use of fossil fuels by a very great deal. All sorts of different techniques will (and are starting to be) be used, but one thing that is clear is that cars are very likely to go entirely electric, and probably in the next few decades (unless there's a miracle of innovation that allows us to get around 150MPG). There won't *be* any diesel/electric/ petrol hybrid, hydrogen or whatever - it'll be electric, electric, electric, electric. All we need is a good-enough storage system, and that'll be that.
My personal hope is that we'll end up with something that goes like stink, and is more reliable than cars are currently. Given a srorage system, I don't see why that's difficult.
|
|
|
|
Remember the Smart was a big step forward in compact and economical motoring
Except in price... which rather knocks the "ecconomical" bit as thats part of the equation...
And I reckon they are still overpriced even now...
Edited by b308 on 12/02/2010 at 12:05
|
|
|
I think the way ahead is the diesel / electric hybrid. That's what the first 100 mpg. normal-sized car is likley to be ( if there hasn't been one already that is)
Wasn't there a version of the Daihatsu Charade in about 1983 which claimed 100mpg? Bog standard petrol engine too (EDIT: or was it a diesel? Anyway). Great little cars those were. Tried to convince my Mum to buy one to replace a Triumph 2000, but she went for a Colt Mirage instead.
Edited by Alanovich on 12/02/2010 at 15:27
|
|
|
|
|
If we didn't have ridiculous safety regulations making cars 30+% heavier than they need to be and catalytic converters forcing us to run over rich fuel mixtures we'd have simple lightweight leanburn petrol superminis easily delivering 80+mpg right now.
Which also means the car hitting you will likely be 30% heavier, so there's more energy to absorb. Bit of a never ending spiral there.
|
"Which also means the car hitting you will likely be 30% heavier, so there's more energy to absorb. Bit of a never ending spiral there."
I had wondered this.
Does this mean in 50 years time we will all be driving around in electric Hum-vee's :-)
Edited by diddy1234 on 12/02/2010 at 13:35
|
|
|
|
|
The electric car industry seems to be out of touch with reality. A recent Autocar had the "first drive" of a Smart Electric Drive and it will be available on lease at.... £700 per month (estimated) - for comparison a Ford Ka 1.2 is available for £176 per month. Charging costs for Smart: £1 for every 60 miles of range (full charge range 85 miles) - Ka: probably £5 for 60 miles. The whole exercise doesn't add up.
If electrics were to take off the situation would become worse. Your quids worth of leccy for 60 miles is tax free and your fivers worth of petrol is about two thirds tax so if electric cars wre to appear in any sort of number that tax would be recouped somewhere. Hence the push for road priceing.
|
VW did an experimental diesel / electic hybrid Golf Mk 4. It had a version of the 3-cylinder 1.4 TDI engine with an electric motor-generator replacing the normal flywheel. This drove through a conventional mechanical transmission, I think.
Mercedes did a diesel / electric plug-in hybrid version of the Sprinter van. I don't know if it's still available.
www.gizmag.com/go/3906/
Edited by Sofa Spud on 12/02/2010 at 11:25
|
electric motor-generator replacing the normal flywheel.
BMW did a prototype 7 series and seemed to make some noise about releasing something like this.
The electric motor has a similar effect to a super/turbo charger in this configuration -- provides a truckload of extra torque on acceleration. Cool idea but can't see it having much attraction in the real world really...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was looking around the web and there are a few up and comming ultra low emission cars due to come out (none of that hybrid not so green carp).
They're coming to the M4 (aka 'hydrogen highway') soon:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8511319.stm
|
Lots of people doing research and producing prototypes, but few with the financial clout to go into the market, or the willingness to take a risk on the market.
Tesla seem to be an exception, and it looks like they are bringing out their saloon (the Model S) within the next two years.
Mind you, they are about to go public (a good investment?) and already sell plenty of components to other manufacturers, so will have more cash than most.
Large companies often have too much inertia, and the small ones too little money. So the small ones either look to get acquired or find cash from elsewhere.
GM recently said that its "geniuses" had said that the technology was 10 years away, until Tesla made it happen.
As an aside, Toyota seem to be planning a car that can be charged from a socket, in a few years, but Tesla have that now (albeit the Roadster, with the Model S to follow in a couple of years).
The distance that they can travel on one charge seem to make them a problem in the US (where even a journey to the shops, can seem like a 10,000 mile round trip), but may be far more suited to the UK, where you would almost run out of road before you ran out of power.
I reckon that I will probably keep my current car for another 3-5 years, and I would not be at all surprised if my next one is pure electric. If they can get the range up to 500 miles, and you can plug it into any power socket, who needs petrol or diesel?
Edited by SteelSpark on 12/02/2010 at 15:52
|
|
|
I will chip in as an owner of a relatively efficient car, my Charade.
Certainly economy cars have barely moved on in the last 7 years. I know this because my car's CO2 is 114 and it does an average of around the 58 mpg mark - it also has a 4 star NCAP rating, so safety is OK too.
Now try and find a small petrol car on sale today that betters that significantly... it doesnt exist - the Aygo etc is the closest, but it is barely any better. Yes it can be rivalled, but it doesnt get knocked out of the ballpark by anything and with those figures, it would be a contender today.
It was one of the earlier cars that got into the £35 a year road tax band, but by now I would have thought in seven years they could have found more than a couple of mpg - 65-68 average surely should be where we are, but we are not. I can only assume that the market isnt there. It will be in the future and Im sure its being worked on, but right now, progress has been flat in small cars.
Bigger cars however have made huge strides I think and the eco models of some of the bigger cars are very impressive leaps forward over cars from 7 years back in terms of economy. Only problem is, to get great economy, they seem to favour some rather iffy diesel engines. Id like to see an 'eco pack' avalable on a range of engines, petrol included, so that those of us who want petrol power have that option.
|
In the US,GM supplied a retirement community with electric cars at at very reduced price as part of an advertizing campaign-these vehicles were supposed to have a range of 100-150 miles.The pensioners started to complain that the batteries were going flat after less than 50 miles.GM investigated and found that the pensioners were making full use of the available torque, driving foot flat to the floor and turning on the A/C.
Just remember that the UK market is very skewed-more than 70% of new cars are bought by firms who have little incentive to get economic cars but buy ones to keep their employees happy.
|
|
|
|
|
