300 MPG anyone?

libbybapa · Post by **libbybapa** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:32 pm

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/gw/vw1litre.htm

Andrew

lyeinyoureye · Post by **lyeinyoureye** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:44 pm

Hopefully it'll be out in 2010. But even then, it'll probably be a Europe only deal...

Big pick.

surfcam · Post by **surfcam** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:43 pm

I think oil will have to stay near or above $100 a barrel for this car to have any chance in the market place. The Honda insight failed and it was one of the best mileage gas cars on the road. People are more interested in impressing people with their cars that how many mpg it gets.

Vincent Waldon · Post by **Vincent Waldon** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:45 pm

6th picture down... that's gotta be Hagar at the wheel ??!!!

82vdub · Post by **82vdub** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:57 pm

I read an online article (I think on CNN.com) about 6 months ago that said on a scale of what people thought was important in a new vehicle (AC, cruise control, etc), that fuel economy ranked about in the mid 30's for importance. That number moved to the upper 20's when the price of gas went to $3/gallon. Yep, new car buyers are more concerned with how many cup holders it has and other features on a car than fuel economy.

duffer · Post by **duffer** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:58 pm

Looks a bit like an up-dated, aerodynamic
version of the old Messerschmidt bubble car.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:02 pm

Gee, you'd think maybe our not so Big Three would get to work and build us something similar. Oh. No. That would defy logic. As H.L. Mencken put it; "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

A1-2-A3 · Post by **A1-2-A3** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:11 pm

Harry wrote:Gee, you'd think maybe our not so Big Three would get to work and build us something similar. Oh. No. That would defy logic. As H.L. Mencken put it; "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

No kidding!! Like when the Smart car goes to the states it gets a gasser engine!! How dumb are these people! The whole reason for the car was MPG and they took that out cause the American public is scared of smelly slow diesels! At least here in Canada we got a good taste of what the Smart really was.

You ever look at the big escalades, excursions and quad cabs on the freeways with there dim witted owners taking up my space and breathing my oxygen? They have usually 1 person in them that has more money than brains and does not even know how to handle a vehicle of that killing mass and those idoit cell phone talking no brainers do kill...But they are out to save the enviroment!

I would not trust the big three to build me a sandwich..When it comes to American reliability for electronics they don't even try anymore since the 80's failures they have given up. They leave that to the germans and japanese so it will be done right.

duffer · Post by **duffer** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:47 pm

I don't really agree with the above.
The "Big Three" got screwed by the
Japanese, in the post war years,
because they couldn't compete with
the cheap labour, the preferential
treatment, they the (Japanese) received
which was intended to help them get
on their feet, but which continued, for
decades, long after the war was over.

That, coupled with the unfair trading
prectices, of the Japanese, (see the
U.S. & European motorcycle industry)
and unionized autoworkers who got fat,
lazy and thought that the world owed them
a living, and that was the final blow
to the erstwhile dominant "Big Three".

Gearhead · Post by **Gearhead** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:35 pm

A1,

I resemble that remark. I don't want to be lumped into the "dumb American" category... but who does? I have one of those big crew cab trucks that was purchased and paid for in full when it was necessary for hauling crew and equipment to job sites. It currently has 290k miles and is absolutely trouble free. It's one thing Ford did right, but you can't get this engine anymore. The truck will not be sold because it's paid for, hauls things and people when necessary, and runs on veg oil. It does, however, spend a great deal of time in the driveway since the Rabbit arrived. It has also convinced quite a few people that diesels can be fast and somewhat environmentally responsible when your choice of fuels is properly considered.

As a resident of the USA, I'd love to have the availability of diesel smart cars, but the general public is a bit moronic and near sighted to be interested. People are jumping all over Hybrids, and while they are better than Suburbans, they don't work for me as my driving is almost all highway. Besides, they burn gas. I'd love to have a 300mpg VW, but they wouldn't sell here, because I don't think 26" wheels are going to fit in the wheel wells.

82vdub · Post by **82vdub** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:36 pm

I'd love to have a 300mpg VW, but they wouldn't sell here

And I highly doubt that vehicle would meet or exceed the crash test ratings either. I honestly can't see how the Smart car would either, FWIW.

CoolAirVw · Post by **CoolAirVw** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:23 pm

82vdub wrote:
I'd love to have a 300mpg VW, but they wouldn't sell here
And I highly doubt that vehicle would meet or exceed the crash test ratings either. I honestly can't see how the Smart car would either, FWIW.

Take a look at crash testing video linked below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s

libbybapa · Post by **libbybapa** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:33 pm

The idea that small lightweight cars cannot be as safe or safer than heavier cars is not accurate. The fact that car is lighter weight means that it has less inertia to dissipate in a crash. If the energy of the crash is absorbed intelligently in the design (crumple zones) then the lighter weight car can often be safer for the passengers of the vehicle and at the same time cause less damage to the other car(s) and passengers in a multiple car collision.

Andrew

lyeinyoureye · Post by **lyeinyoureye** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:51 pm

Exactly. Larger vehicles are a wash safety wise, since they are safer in crashes against smaller vehicles, but more dangerous in solo crashes, so that only thing they really do in terms of overall safety is make the road more dangerous for everyone.

82vdub · Post by **82vdub** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:00 pm

I understand physics and crumple zones, but I guess one's "mind" makes it appear to be too small to pass basic crash tests. But, that's all in the mind.