OT: Cool Eco toys from Frankfurt?

[Tobias]

I've seen a couple that got my attention. How about you?

I tried posting a link to newest VW 1L and BMW diesel hybrid sportscar, but can't seem to get them accepted. :confused:

Anything new of interest to you?

[RPS]

The VW is a complete design failure compared to original goal. It only gets about 150 MPG. :rolleyes:

[fiamme red]

What's old is new again.

http://tsutpen.blogspot.com/2009/09/future-is-now-1.html

http://i422.photobucket.com/albums/pp308/jlapper/electriccar1973-1.jpg

[RPS]

That thing is/was a death trap. The VW seems like a real car they could produce if they wanted. The listed weight of about 1100 pounds would make it safer than a motorcycle or bicycle, but still short of a "real" car.

I'd still love to test one.

[cmg]

Here's a link that's a little more up to date. http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/top-vw-1-liter-car.htm Be prepared to pay for the amount of oil profit that is lost because your using this vehicle and add the research dollars that went into it. or am i sounding skepticle?

[paulrad9]

That thing is/was a death trap. The VW seems like a real car they could produce if they wanted. The listed weight of about 1100 pounds would make it safer than a motorcycle or bicycle, but still short of a "real" car.

I'd still love to test one.

Is the problem that this vehicle is under weight or are most cars on the road over-weight for their purpose?

Maybe someone closer to physics can give some insight, but my understanding is that there is less of an impact when two vehicles of 1,000lbs collide than when two vehicles of 3,500 collide. For some people, they want to be in the vehicle of 4,000 lbs so when they collide with the 3,500 lb vehicle they feel that they have a better chance of walking away than the person in the smaller vehicle. Of course, there is always someone who then wants to drive a 4,100 lb vehicle...

[RPS]

Is the problem that this vehicle is under weight or are most cars on the road over-weight for their purpose?

Maybe someone closer to physics can give some insight, but my understanding is that there is less of an impact when two vehicles of 1,000lbs collide than when two vehicles of 3,500 collide. For some people, they want to be in the vehicle of 4,000 lbs so when they collide with the 3,500 lb vehicle they feel that they have a better chance of walking away than the person in the smaller vehicle. Of course, there is always someone who then wants to drive a 4,100 lb vehicle...
Small cars can be quite safe when hitting an object that is not moving, but the real problem comes in when two vehicles of dissimilar mass run directly into each other. In a case like that everything is stacked against the smaller vehicle, and when the weight difference is significant it puts the smaller and lighter vehicle at an incredible disadvantage.

It would be great if most of us drove small cars so we wouldn't have to worry as much about being hit by large SUVs and trucks.

[zap]

snip

Anything new of interest to you?

[Tobias]

Here's a link that's a little more up to date. http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/top-vw-1-liter-car.htm Be prepared to pay for the amount of oil profit that is lost because your using this vehicle and add the research dollars that went into it. or am i sounding skepticle?
That was the older concept version of the car. The newer one seems closer to production. It's much heavier and has much larger real-world engine.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/200...KFURT/909139997

When many manufacturers at Frankfurt are showcasing electric and hybrid cars it’s nice to see bike-like minimalist design in the mix. Going after fuel economy by pursuing improvements in weight, aerodynamic drag, and efficient power trains in lieu of switching to different sources of power (just like bikes – improved bike with same engine type :rolleyes: ) should make for interesting comparisons. I do love competition.

[Tobias]

While on fuel efficient cars; Motor Trend suggested last month that 3 may be the new 4 – as in cylinders. It seems (according to reports) that both BMW and Mercedes are working on 3-cyclinder diesel engines as a means of making small cars even more efficient. The first sign of this trend I’ve seen is the new BMW plug-in concept’s 1.5 liter engine which is definitely in previous 4-cylinder size territory, but it’s a 3-cylinder. Seems like half of the infamous 3-liter I-6. And with over 100 HP per liter out of a diesel.

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/arti...umentid=1087843

[jpw]

Here's a link that's a little more up to date. http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/top-vw-1-liter-car.htm Be prepared to pay for the amount of oil profit that is lost because your using this vehicle and add the research dollars that went into it. or am i sounding skepticle?

You're sounding like an accountant :-)!!!
That VW looks very cute.

[Acotts]

snip

What is that?!

[tuscanyswe]

What is that?!

Remake of a very nice car!?

[paulrad9]

While on fuel efficient cars; Motor Trend suggested last month that 3 may be the new 4 – as in cylinders. [/url]

That makes perfect sense when you think about the incremental improvements made with small ICEs over the years coupled with the higher energy density of diesel fuel. I wouldn't be surprised if a new 3 cylinder diesel is more powerful than a 4 cylinder gas engine.

One problem may be the patterns people follow and the 'minimum' power they'll expect in a car. Tell them that a six cylinder is as powerful as an eight and they'll then ask, "yeah, but that means the eight is even more powerful so I'll take the eight instead". Many people won't drive four cyclinders because they believe it's below them

[Acotts]

Remake of a very nice car!?

Thats the GullWing right? Is the red one just a concept car, or is it something that might actually make it to production?

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . they are really gonna sell that gull wing update. Looks like that 4,100 lb car someone lse mentioned.

BBD

[BumbleBeeDave]

It looks like what Ferry Porsche would have designed if he were smokin' something when he designed the original VW for Adolph. Looks like the car you would drive home in after you debarked from the Hindenberg . . .

BBD

[paulrad9]

It looks like what Ferry Porsche would have designed if he were smokin' something when he designed the original VW for Adolph. Looks like the car you would drive home in after you debarked from the Hindenberg . . .

BBD

Maybe he was spending time with Woody Allen?
http://www.jayohrberg.com/resources/_wsb_505x348_Woodey+Allen+Sleeper+Car+post.jpg

From (http://www.jayohrberg.com/Sleeper_car.html)

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . I think that was Serotta Pete . . . :p

BBD

[Tobias]

That makes perfect sense when you think about the incremental improvements made with small ICEs over the years coupled with the higher energy density of diesel fuel. I wouldn't be surprised if a new 3 cylinder diesel is more powerful than a 4 cylinder gas engine.

One problem may be the patterns people follow and the 'minimum' power they'll expect in a car. Tell them that a six cylinder is as powerful as an eight and they'll then ask, "yeah, but that means the eight is even more powerful so I'll take the eight instead". Many people won't drive four cyclinders because they believe it's below them
Predicting what Americans may buy under different circumstances is probably more difficult than it seems. I’d guess that 3-cylinder engines would find initial market resistance because we expect 4-cylinders for economy cars as the standard. However I think that expectation can change over time just like the V-6 is now the normal engine for family sedans in place of the old V-8. And high fuel costs could speed things up very fast as we’ve seen in the last few years.

Beyond appearing odd (no pun intended), 3-cylinder engines are not very smooth due to lack of mass balance. Fours are far from perfect, but 3 cylinders are really rough by comparison unless they use balance shafts. I find it interesting that the Motor Trend report indicated 3-cylinder diesels and did not mention gasoline engines. This may be because gas engines typically can run faster than diesels, and lack of balance is a bigger problem at higher RPM.

It will also be interesting to see how much fuel economy difference there will be between 3 and 4 cylinder engines if of similar displacement. At present 3-cylinder gas engines are limited to about 1-liter in size, with larger engines going to 4-cylinder. However, if the best engine size for economy is based on around 500 to 600 CC per cylinder, then small cars like the Honda Fit with a little 1.5 liter engine would likely be more fuel efficient if it had a large 3 than a small 4.

[zap]

Gullwing-production car-al & carbon (carbon fiber drive shaft too)-light for a car of that sort in this day and age.

Hot.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q3/2011_mercedes-benz_sls_amg-second_drive


Suzuki or some such had a 3 cyl. (gas) car in the 80's if I'm not mistaken.

[RPS]

It will also be interesting to see how much fuel economy difference there will be between 3 and 4 cylinder engines if of similar displacement. At present 3-cylinder gas engines are limited to about 1-liter in size, with larger engines going to 4-cylinder. However, if the best engine size for economy is based on around 500 to 600 CC per cylinder, then small cars like the Honda Fit with a little 1.5 liter engine would likely be more fuel efficient if it had a large 3 than a small 4.
On Saturday I saw a beautiful BMW motorcycle parked at a Target store that reminded me that design trends do change over time (regarding engine displacement and number of cylinders). It had a 1200 CC boxer twin (I think in the 100 to 110 HP range) that could easily power a small car like the VW 1-L with power to spare. From what I’ve read the VW 1-L is reportedly a 2-cylinder diesel with about 36 HP (same power as many of the early air-cooled Beetles).

On Sunday we were out riding our tandem and stopped at a park where we talked with a man who had just bought a brand new Harley Davidson Rocker C (like a factory chopper). It had an air-cooled twin-cam with 96 cubic inches (that’s like 1.6 liters) out of two cylinders. What’s interesting is that it’s rated at 54 MPG highway which is better than many smaller-engine motorcycles.

[RPS]

Suzuki or some such had a 3 cyl. (gas) car in the 80's if I'm not mistaken.I think that's correct.

The Geo Metro had a 1-liter inline 3 with about 55 HP for many of the years it was available, and the relatively new Smart also offers a 1-liter inline 3 but with about 70 HP. The first three cylinder I saw was a Saab 2-cycle that sounded quite strange compared to cars of its time -- and before that model I think Saab had a 2-cycle 2-cylinder. :rolleyes: In those days compact cars like the Saabs had far less than 50 HP; yet somehow people got around just fine ……... maybe cars were seen a little more utilitarian like a bike and less like a living room on wheels.

I wouldn’t have a problem with a small car having a 3-cylinder, but then I wouldn’t have a problem with a twin (or even single if in a second or third car) if the vehicle was small enough and offered significant fuel economy.

[Tobias]

News starting to come out of Frankfurt confirms this may be the greenest auto show ever, and also that Europeans will remain ahead of us for a long time when it comes to higher fuel economy.

Besides the futuristic yet somewhat impractical L1 concept, VW introduced a Polo variant that is a real-world fully functional car that also happens to get over 85 MPG combined, making it more fuel efficient than a Smart. And that 85 MPG seems strangely relevant in that a while back the US government sponsored a program to develop an 80 MPG affordable car – and as I recall not much came out of it. Wonder what happened to that program or the cars that never materialized – unless we count the 200+ MPG Volt. :rolleyes:

From the MSN article: “And there's no doubting the significance of the Polo variant. Powered by an all-new 1.2 turbodiesel 3-pot, this emits just 87g/km of CO2. That's 2g/km less than the latest Toyota Prius. Combined fuel economy is a staggering 85.6 mpg, and yet the common rail engine still produces a respectable 75 horsepower.”

Full article: http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1090503

[Tobias]

I wouldn’t have a problem with a small car having a 3-cylinder, but then I wouldn’t have a problem with a twin (or even single if in a second or third car) if the vehicle was small enough and offered significant fuel economy.
The idea of three cylinder engines seems strange enough, but two seems like looking forward to the past. In doing a little research it seems twins have been used successfully before – latest I found for US was the Honda 600 – but was surprised to learn Fiat just introduced a new SGE 900 cc Turbo twin-cylinder engine for use in Europe. Fiat claims to lead in European fuel economy and maybe they know something we don’t about what drivers will accept if their choice is boiled down to small, slow, electric, and short range versus small, slow, gas/diesel and long range.

Maybe it will come down to cost differences.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/10709113623/fiat-panda-aria-concept-car-unveiled-at-frankfurt

[Polyglot]

The idea of three cylinder engines seems strange enough, but two seems like looking forward to the past. In doing a little research it seems twins have been used successfully before – latest I found for US was the Honda 600 – but was surprised to learn Fiat just introduced a new SGE 900 cc Turbo twin-cylinder engine for use in Europe. Fiat claims to lead in European fuel economy and maybe they know something we don’t about what drivers will accept if their choice is boiled down to small, slow, electric, and short range versus small, slow, gas/diesel and long range.

Maybe it will come down to cost differences.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/10709113623/fiat-panda-aria-concept-car-unveiled-at-frankfurt

Fiat has quietly become a world leader in engine-building. The common-rail diesel engines stem from Fiat research (at the time they did not have the money to fund research on their own so they licensed the idea widely to other builders.) Now that they are financially better off they might just surprise everybody...

[Z3c]

I am sorry, but given the amount of knowledge you could have about this vehicle that this seems like a rather condemning statement. There are a lot of things that factor into safety besides mass. Some of the largest POS SUV's have crappy safety ratings. Do you seriously think VW didn't ponder safety when designing this vehicle? Unlike here in the U.S., most Euro folks won't drive a deathtrap because they read before buying.

That thing is/was a death trap. The VW seems like a real car they could produce if they wanted. The listed weight of about 1100 pounds would make it safer than a motorcycle or bicycle, but still short of a "real" car.

I'd still love to test one.

[RPS]

I am sorry, but given the amount of knowledge you could have about this vehicle that this seems like a rather condemning statement. There are a lot of things that factor into safety besides mass. Some of the largest POS SUV's have crappy safety ratings. Do you seriously think VW didn't ponder safety when designing this vehicle? Unlike here in the U.S., most Euro folks won't drive a deathtrap because they read before buying.
To be clear, my comment about being a “death trap” was directed at the 1973 electric car and not the VW L-1

http://i422.photobucket.com/albums/pp308/jlapper/electriccar1973-1.jpg

And by no stretch of the imagination could that car survive any significant accident.


As I stated, the VW L-1 is a real car, and I would drive one without hesitation because it offers excellent protection for its size. However, physics being what it is, there is no way an 1100 pound car (or lighter by some reports) will do well when colliding with a large SUV or pickup truck. It may be safe for its size, but that’s only part of the equation.

[RPS]

Fiat has quietly become a world leader in engine-building. The common-rail diesel engines stem from Fiat research (at the time they did not have the money to fund research on their own so they licensed the idea widely to other builders.) Now that they are financially better off they might just surprise everybody...
The Fiat Multiair technology seems promising. I hope they succeed in mass producing it.

Ford has also announced they are seriously looking at very small 2 and 3 cylinder engines for future cars.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090915/CARNEWS/909159994

With EcoBoost (Ford’s name for turbo charged direct injection) they can get plenty of power from very small displacement, and IMO even a 1.6 liter 4-cylinder is more powerful than “needed” for a small economy car (hence the need for fewer cylinders) if the intent is to optimize fuel economy and not performance. Another logical option is to drop the turbo and go with slightly larger displacement (or small and non-turbo as Fiat is looking at).

It's funny that Europeans have known that fuel economy is not rocket science – mostly make cars smaller, lighter, reduce drag, and use small engines -- but we just don't like this approach in the US. Downsizing is the fastest, easiest, and most economical way to improve fuel economy yet we continue to fight it. Advancements like Fiat’s Multiair as great as they may become IMO are more like the icing on the cake when applied to small cars like the Panda. In the US we would probably apply this technology to a 6,000 pound SUV and then wonder why we still don’t get 40 MPG.

What I hate to see is every new technology being used to create more performance-oriented power that is mostly superfluous instead of being applied to improve efficiency. EcoBoost in itself is a good idea (technically speaking, I’m not so sure about economically), but when used to create excessive power like in the new Ford Taurus SHO it defeats the stated primary purpose of the technology. The SHO doesn’t actually get significantly better mileage than similar cars with V-8s and is worse than other sedans with a V-6 or I-4 (granted these have less tire-scorching power). In essence we can still say unequivocally that when everything else is equal, performance is not good for the planet. And who actually needs 365 HP in a family sedan?

Even today Detroit is still trying to sell performance. Some things never change.

[palincss]

It's funny that Europeans have known that fuel economy is not rocket science – mostly make cars smaller, lighter, reduce drag, and use small engines -- but we just don't like this approach in the US. Downsizing is the fastest, easiest, and most economical way to improve fuel economy yet we continue to fight it. Advancements like Fiat’s Multiair as great as they may become IMO are more like the icing on the cake when applied to small cars like the Panda. In the US we would probably apply this technology to a 6,000 pound SUV and then wonder why we still don’t get 40 MPG.

What I hate to see is every new technology being used to create more performance-oriented power that is mostly superfluous instead of being applied to improve efficiency. EcoBoost in itself is a good idea (technically speaking, I’m not so sure about economically), but when used to create excessive power like in the new Ford Taurus SHO it defeats the stated primary purpose of the technology. The SHO doesn’t actually get significantly better mileage than similar cars with V-8s and is worse than other sedans with a V-6 or I-4 (granted these have less tire-scorching power). In essence we can still say unequivocally that when everything else is equal, performance is not good for the planet. And who actually needs 365 HP in a family sedan?



Make gas as expensive as it is in Europe and suddenly the "need" for 6,000 lb SUVs evaporates. That's exactly what happened last summer when gas hit four bucks a gallon, right? $4 is very cheap by European standards.

As for excessive power and turbos, IIRC Saab made people take notice of turbocharging for passenger cars, and the Saab Turbo was a high performance car (although obviously not 365 hp). But I quite agree with you about 365 hp being excessive. My BMW 525I has only 184 hp and it's more than fast enough in every possible way. At 3700 lb it's a far cry from 3 tons, but it's no lightweight, either.

[RPS]

My BMW 525I has only 184 hp and it's more than fast enough in every possible way. At 3700 lb it's a far cry from 3 tons, but it's no lightweight, either.
With recent engine advances, 184 HP is in Honda Accord 4-cylinder horsepower range. ;) This should make us question why we even need V-6s for most family cars and small- to mid-size people movers.

Not to sound too anti Ford, but from the beginning they’ve been touting the “fuel economy” advantages of EcoBoost engines, right? And then they come out with the Taurus SHO that is rated at 17 city and 25 highway. Who are they kidding; is this their idea of a leap in technology?

In fairness to Ford the Taurus SHO gets the same MPG (i.e. – 17/25) as the normal V-6 Taurus when both are equipped with all-wheel-drive; so the extra "turbo" power doesn’t come with an efficiency penalty. However, simplicity and light weight still win out -- the FWD Taurus with standard V-6 gets 18/28; considerably better.

Compare that to a (slightly smaller) V-6 Accord at 19/29 or the I-4 automatic at 21/31 MPG and all of the sudden EcoBoost technology seems to achieve more speed than MPG. Sadly they've done so much marketing already that I'd bet the average American thinks they are getting a fuel economy deal.