Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Isn't that what I said? Or, isn't shifting manually for the driver the same
as an electronic device that shifts a manual transmission?
"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote:
> Ahhh, but your caveat is "traditional" there are other 'automatic
> transmissions' that 'shift' manually for the driver. To the operator it's
> "Automatic!"
>
> So things are -=not the same=- and it's you who doesn't have a clue!
>
as an electronic device that shifts a manual transmission?
"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote:
> Ahhh, but your caveat is "traditional" there are other 'automatic
> transmissions' that 'shift' manually for the driver. To the operator it's
> "Automatic!"
>
> So things are -=not the same=- and it's you who doesn't have a clue!
>
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Isn't that what I said? Or, isn't shifting manually for the driver the same
as an electronic device that shifts a manual transmission?
"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote:
> Ahhh, but your caveat is "traditional" there are other 'automatic
> transmissions' that 'shift' manually for the driver. To the operator it's
> "Automatic!"
>
> So things are -=not the same=- and it's you who doesn't have a clue!
>
as an electronic device that shifts a manual transmission?
"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote:
> Ahhh, but your caveat is "traditional" there are other 'automatic
> transmissions' that 'shift' manually for the driver. To the operator it's
> "Automatic!"
>
> So things are -=not the same=- and it's you who doesn't have a clue!
>
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
In article <1179759181.230339.287330@z28g2000prd.googlegroups .com>,
bill <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I dont understand why VW described it as a 6 speed manual transmission
> > that shifts automatically. If its a manual its a manual, if its an
> > automatic its automatic. It only has forward neutral and reverse so
> > its automatic
>
>
> Automatic transmission is a specific type of automatic shifting
> mechanism.
No, it's not.
An automatic transmission is simply one that's automatic and doesn't
require the driver to shift. It can take on any form--for example, like
the Prius's power split device. Or a belt-driven CVT.
Or even the Honda automatic transmission, which is nothing like the GM
trannies.
> What they've done is taken a standard manual shift transmission and
> strapped an automatic shifting aparatus to it.
Which makes it (wait for it....)....an automatic transmission.
bill <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I dont understand why VW described it as a 6 speed manual transmission
> > that shifts automatically. If its a manual its a manual, if its an
> > automatic its automatic. It only has forward neutral and reverse so
> > its automatic
>
>
> Automatic transmission is a specific type of automatic shifting
> mechanism.
No, it's not.
An automatic transmission is simply one that's automatic and doesn't
require the driver to shift. It can take on any form--for example, like
the Prius's power split device. Or a belt-driven CVT.
Or even the Honda automatic transmission, which is nothing like the GM
trannies.
> What they've done is taken a standard manual shift transmission and
> strapped an automatic shifting aparatus to it.
Which makes it (wait for it....)....an automatic transmission.
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
In article <1179759181.230339.287330@z28g2000prd.googlegroups .com>,
bill <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I dont understand why VW described it as a 6 speed manual transmission
> > that shifts automatically. If its a manual its a manual, if its an
> > automatic its automatic. It only has forward neutral and reverse so
> > its automatic
>
>
> Automatic transmission is a specific type of automatic shifting
> mechanism.
No, it's not.
An automatic transmission is simply one that's automatic and doesn't
require the driver to shift. It can take on any form--for example, like
the Prius's power split device. Or a belt-driven CVT.
Or even the Honda automatic transmission, which is nothing like the GM
trannies.
> What they've done is taken a standard manual shift transmission and
> strapped an automatic shifting aparatus to it.
Which makes it (wait for it....)....an automatic transmission.
bill <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I dont understand why VW described it as a 6 speed manual transmission
> > that shifts automatically. If its a manual its a manual, if its an
> > automatic its automatic. It only has forward neutral and reverse so
> > its automatic
>
>
> Automatic transmission is a specific type of automatic shifting
> mechanism.
No, it's not.
An automatic transmission is simply one that's automatic and doesn't
require the driver to shift. It can take on any form--for example, like
the Prius's power split device. Or a belt-driven CVT.
Or even the Honda automatic transmission, which is nothing like the GM
trannies.
> What they've done is taken a standard manual shift transmission and
> strapped an automatic shifting aparatus to it.
Which makes it (wait for it....)....an automatic transmission.
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
No.
"jp2express" <jp2mail-tempforum@noSpamyahoo.com> found these unused words:
>Isn't that what I said? Or, isn't shifting manually for the driver the same
>as an electronic device that shifts a manual transmission?
>
>"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote:
>> Ahhh, but your caveat is "traditional" there are other 'automatic
>> transmissions' that 'shift' manually for the driver. To the operator it's
>> "Automatic!"
>>
>> So things are -=not the same=- and it's you who doesn't have a clue!
>>
>
"jp2express" <jp2mail-tempforum@noSpamyahoo.com> found these unused words:
>Isn't that what I said? Or, isn't shifting manually for the driver the same
>as an electronic device that shifts a manual transmission?
>
>"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote:
>> Ahhh, but your caveat is "traditional" there are other 'automatic
>> transmissions' that 'shift' manually for the driver. To the operator it's
>> "Automatic!"
>>
>> So things are -=not the same=- and it's you who doesn't have a clue!
>>
>
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
No.
"jp2express" <jp2mail-tempforum@noSpamyahoo.com> found these unused words:
>Isn't that what I said? Or, isn't shifting manually for the driver the same
>as an electronic device that shifts a manual transmission?
>
>"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote:
>> Ahhh, but your caveat is "traditional" there are other 'automatic
>> transmissions' that 'shift' manually for the driver. To the operator it's
>> "Automatic!"
>>
>> So things are -=not the same=- and it's you who doesn't have a clue!
>>
>
"jp2express" <jp2mail-tempforum@noSpamyahoo.com> found these unused words:
>Isn't that what I said? Or, isn't shifting manually for the driver the same
>as an electronic device that shifts a manual transmission?
>
>"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote:
>> Ahhh, but your caveat is "traditional" there are other 'automatic
>> transmissions' that 'shift' manually for the driver. To the operator it's
>> "Automatic!"
>>
>> So things are -=not the same=- and it's you who doesn't have a clue!
>>
>
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
bill <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1179759181.230339.287330@z28g2000prd.googlegr oups.com:
> On May 21, 9:02 am, EdV <systme...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I dont understand why VW described it as a 6 speed manual
>> transmission that shifts automatically. If its a manual its a manual,
>> if its an automatic its automatic. It only has forward neutral and
>> reverse so its automatic
>
>
> Automatic transmission is a specific type of automatic shifting
> mechanism.
Yes...
> The normal automatic transmission has significant losses
> associated with it, amounting to approx 5-10% of power throughput.
Not quite that much any more. This was true in the days of the
Oldsmobile Hydra-Matic (1940), and the Buick Dynaflow (1948). These days
it's almost 100% efficient.
And in any case, the inefficiencies have nothing to do with the
SHIFTING, but instead to do with the method of disconnecting engine
power from the gearbox PRIOR to shifting.
> What they've done is taken a standard manual shift transmission and
> strapped an automatic shifting aparatus to it.
>
The gearbox setup is unimportant. You can have a selective-shift
sliding-gear box, constant-mesh dog-clutch box, or a planetary unit or
anything else, all automatically controlled.
You can have a non-automatic planetary unit too, like the Ford
Model-T's. (I'd be inclined to call that one a "manual", but the pedants
among us would insist on the more correct term "pedal".)
Bendix first developed an automatic clutch in 1932. This was offered on
regular manual-style transmissions on several US makes. These worked
well when set up properly, but were hideously high-maintenance, finicky
and unreliable.
The primary reason automakers eventually reverted to planetary gearboxes
for automatic operation was that it was practically impossible to impose
automatic control on a regular sliding-gear or constant-mesh
manual-style box with the technology of the day.
These days, with computer controls, there is no technical reason a
manual-style transmission cannot be used with an automatic (or
semi-auto) clutch and shifter. And so they do exist: SAAB had the
Sensonic in 1995. Ferrari's F1 team had the Selespeed unit around 1990.
The technology may eventually filter down to plebeian road cars one day,
but that day would have to come once the mainstream automakers decide to
replace their entire transmission tooling.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:1179759181.230339.287330@z28g2000prd.googlegr oups.com:
> On May 21, 9:02 am, EdV <systme...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I dont understand why VW described it as a 6 speed manual
>> transmission that shifts automatically. If its a manual its a manual,
>> if its an automatic its automatic. It only has forward neutral and
>> reverse so its automatic
>
>
> Automatic transmission is a specific type of automatic shifting
> mechanism.
Yes...
> The normal automatic transmission has significant losses
> associated with it, amounting to approx 5-10% of power throughput.
Not quite that much any more. This was true in the days of the
Oldsmobile Hydra-Matic (1940), and the Buick Dynaflow (1948). These days
it's almost 100% efficient.
And in any case, the inefficiencies have nothing to do with the
SHIFTING, but instead to do with the method of disconnecting engine
power from the gearbox PRIOR to shifting.
> What they've done is taken a standard manual shift transmission and
> strapped an automatic shifting aparatus to it.
>
The gearbox setup is unimportant. You can have a selective-shift
sliding-gear box, constant-mesh dog-clutch box, or a planetary unit or
anything else, all automatically controlled.
You can have a non-automatic planetary unit too, like the Ford
Model-T's. (I'd be inclined to call that one a "manual", but the pedants
among us would insist on the more correct term "pedal".)
Bendix first developed an automatic clutch in 1932. This was offered on
regular manual-style transmissions on several US makes. These worked
well when set up properly, but were hideously high-maintenance, finicky
and unreliable.
The primary reason automakers eventually reverted to planetary gearboxes
for automatic operation was that it was practically impossible to impose
automatic control on a regular sliding-gear or constant-mesh
manual-style box with the technology of the day.
These days, with computer controls, there is no technical reason a
manual-style transmission cannot be used with an automatic (or
semi-auto) clutch and shifter. And so they do exist: SAAB had the
Sensonic in 1995. Ferrari's F1 team had the Selespeed unit around 1990.
The technology may eventually filter down to plebeian road cars one day,
but that day would have to come once the mainstream automakers decide to
replace their entire transmission tooling.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
bill <ford_prefect42@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1179759181.230339.287330@z28g2000prd.googlegr oups.com:
> On May 21, 9:02 am, EdV <systme...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I dont understand why VW described it as a 6 speed manual
>> transmission that shifts automatically. If its a manual its a manual,
>> if its an automatic its automatic. It only has forward neutral and
>> reverse so its automatic
>
>
> Automatic transmission is a specific type of automatic shifting
> mechanism.
Yes...
> The normal automatic transmission has significant losses
> associated with it, amounting to approx 5-10% of power throughput.
Not quite that much any more. This was true in the days of the
Oldsmobile Hydra-Matic (1940), and the Buick Dynaflow (1948). These days
it's almost 100% efficient.
And in any case, the inefficiencies have nothing to do with the
SHIFTING, but instead to do with the method of disconnecting engine
power from the gearbox PRIOR to shifting.
> What they've done is taken a standard manual shift transmission and
> strapped an automatic shifting aparatus to it.
>
The gearbox setup is unimportant. You can have a selective-shift
sliding-gear box, constant-mesh dog-clutch box, or a planetary unit or
anything else, all automatically controlled.
You can have a non-automatic planetary unit too, like the Ford
Model-T's. (I'd be inclined to call that one a "manual", but the pedants
among us would insist on the more correct term "pedal".)
Bendix first developed an automatic clutch in 1932. This was offered on
regular manual-style transmissions on several US makes. These worked
well when set up properly, but were hideously high-maintenance, finicky
and unreliable.
The primary reason automakers eventually reverted to planetary gearboxes
for automatic operation was that it was practically impossible to impose
automatic control on a regular sliding-gear or constant-mesh
manual-style box with the technology of the day.
These days, with computer controls, there is no technical reason a
manual-style transmission cannot be used with an automatic (or
semi-auto) clutch and shifter. And so they do exist: SAAB had the
Sensonic in 1995. Ferrari's F1 team had the Selespeed unit around 1990.
The technology may eventually filter down to plebeian road cars one day,
but that day would have to come once the mainstream automakers decide to
replace their entire transmission tooling.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:1179759181.230339.287330@z28g2000prd.googlegr oups.com:
> On May 21, 9:02 am, EdV <systme...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I dont understand why VW described it as a 6 speed manual
>> transmission that shifts automatically. If its a manual its a manual,
>> if its an automatic its automatic. It only has forward neutral and
>> reverse so its automatic
>
>
> Automatic transmission is a specific type of automatic shifting
> mechanism.
Yes...
> The normal automatic transmission has significant losses
> associated with it, amounting to approx 5-10% of power throughput.
Not quite that much any more. This was true in the days of the
Oldsmobile Hydra-Matic (1940), and the Buick Dynaflow (1948). These days
it's almost 100% efficient.
And in any case, the inefficiencies have nothing to do with the
SHIFTING, but instead to do with the method of disconnecting engine
power from the gearbox PRIOR to shifting.
> What they've done is taken a standard manual shift transmission and
> strapped an automatic shifting aparatus to it.
>
The gearbox setup is unimportant. You can have a selective-shift
sliding-gear box, constant-mesh dog-clutch box, or a planetary unit or
anything else, all automatically controlled.
You can have a non-automatic planetary unit too, like the Ford
Model-T's. (I'd be inclined to call that one a "manual", but the pedants
among us would insist on the more correct term "pedal".)
Bendix first developed an automatic clutch in 1932. This was offered on
regular manual-style transmissions on several US makes. These worked
well when set up properly, but were hideously high-maintenance, finicky
and unreliable.
The primary reason automakers eventually reverted to planetary gearboxes
for automatic operation was that it was practically impossible to impose
automatic control on a regular sliding-gear or constant-mesh
manual-style box with the technology of the day.
These days, with computer controls, there is no technical reason a
manual-style transmission cannot be used with an automatic (or
semi-auto) clutch and shifter. And so they do exist: SAAB had the
Sensonic in 1995. Ferrari's F1 team had the Selespeed unit around 1990.
The technology may eventually filter down to plebeian road cars one day,
but that day would have to come once the mainstream automakers decide to
replace their entire transmission tooling.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Tegger <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in news:Xns9937B54D67FDEtegger@
207.14.116.130:
>
> And in any case, the inefficiencies have nothing to do with the
> SHIFTING, but instead to do with the method of disconnecting engine
> power from the gearbox PRIOR to shifting.
....Plus slippage at idle and on acceleration. I forgot that.
Slippage at idle is a fundamental function of the fluid coupling, and the
reason it was adopted in the first place.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
207.14.116.130:
>
> And in any case, the inefficiencies have nothing to do with the
> SHIFTING, but instead to do with the method of disconnecting engine
> power from the gearbox PRIOR to shifting.
....Plus slippage at idle and on acceleration. I forgot that.
Slippage at idle is a fundamental function of the fluid coupling, and the
reason it was adopted in the first place.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Tegger <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in news:Xns9937B54D67FDEtegger@
207.14.116.130:
>
> And in any case, the inefficiencies have nothing to do with the
> SHIFTING, but instead to do with the method of disconnecting engine
> power from the gearbox PRIOR to shifting.
....Plus slippage at idle and on acceleration. I forgot that.
Slippage at idle is a fundamental function of the fluid coupling, and the
reason it was adopted in the first place.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
207.14.116.130:
>
> And in any case, the inefficiencies have nothing to do with the
> SHIFTING, but instead to do with the method of disconnecting engine
> power from the gearbox PRIOR to shifting.
....Plus slippage at idle and on acceleration. I forgot that.
Slippage at idle is a fundamental function of the fluid coupling, and the
reason it was adopted in the first place.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Useful Info wrote:
> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>
Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil.
> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>
Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil.
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Useful Info wrote:
> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>
Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil.
> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>
Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil.
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
"Broderick Crawford" <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:46524ea6$0$4873$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Useful Info wrote:
>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>>
> Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil.
>
>
What on earth makes you think that? Zero consumption vehicles, like
bicycles, are popular and encouraged in the US. I have owned several myself
over nearly half a century and have never encountered a "not enough oil"
goon squad.
The consumption would not be an issue, but crash-worthiness and emissions
are showstoppers. ZEV and P-ZEV vehicles are in great demand by regulators,
especially in California, but AFAIK diesels are still not available in
passenger cars there because of the emissions. The safety info in the
referenced article is not encouraging either; side impact standards
(mandatory in the US) appear to be lacking: "as safe as a GT sports car
registered for racing". That's damning with faint praise; if they could say
it met US safety standards they certainly would have said so. Fuel economy
really doesn't matter to grieving families.
Mike
news:46524ea6$0$4873$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Useful Info wrote:
>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>>
> Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil.
>
>
What on earth makes you think that? Zero consumption vehicles, like
bicycles, are popular and encouraged in the US. I have owned several myself
over nearly half a century and have never encountered a "not enough oil"
goon squad.
The consumption would not be an issue, but crash-worthiness and emissions
are showstoppers. ZEV and P-ZEV vehicles are in great demand by regulators,
especially in California, but AFAIK diesels are still not available in
passenger cars there because of the emissions. The safety info in the
referenced article is not encouraging either; side impact standards
(mandatory in the US) appear to be lacking: "as safe as a GT sports car
registered for racing". That's damning with faint praise; if they could say
it met US safety standards they certainly would have said so. Fuel economy
really doesn't matter to grieving families.
Mike
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
"Broderick Crawford" <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:46524ea6$0$4873$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Useful Info wrote:
>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>>
> Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil.
>
>
What on earth makes you think that? Zero consumption vehicles, like
bicycles, are popular and encouraged in the US. I have owned several myself
over nearly half a century and have never encountered a "not enough oil"
goon squad.
The consumption would not be an issue, but crash-worthiness and emissions
are showstoppers. ZEV and P-ZEV vehicles are in great demand by regulators,
especially in California, but AFAIK diesels are still not available in
passenger cars there because of the emissions. The safety info in the
referenced article is not encouraging either; side impact standards
(mandatory in the US) appear to be lacking: "as safe as a GT sports car
registered for racing". That's damning with faint praise; if they could say
it met US safety standards they certainly would have said so. Fuel economy
really doesn't matter to grieving families.
Mike
news:46524ea6$0$4873$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Useful Info wrote:
>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>>
> Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil.
>
>
What on earth makes you think that? Zero consumption vehicles, like
bicycles, are popular and encouraged in the US. I have owned several myself
over nearly half a century and have never encountered a "not enough oil"
goon squad.
The consumption would not be an issue, but crash-worthiness and emissions
are showstoppers. ZEV and P-ZEV vehicles are in great demand by regulators,
especially in California, but AFAIK diesels are still not available in
passenger cars there because of the emissions. The safety info in the
referenced article is not encouraging either; side impact standards
(mandatory in the US) appear to be lacking: "as safe as a GT sports car
registered for racing". That's damning with faint praise; if they could say
it met US safety standards they certainly would have said so. Fuel economy
really doesn't matter to grieving families.
Mike
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "Broderick Crawford" <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
> news:46524ea6$0$4873$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Useful Info wrote:
>>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>>>
>> Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil.
>>
>>
>
> What on earth makes you think that? Zero consumption vehicles, like
> bicycles, are popular and encouraged in the US. I have owned several myself
> over nearly half a century and have never encountered a "not enough oil"
> goon squad.
>
> The consumption would not be an issue, but crash-worthiness and emissions
> are showstoppers. ZEV and P-ZEV vehicles are in great demand by regulators,
> especially in California, but AFAIK diesels are still not available in
> passenger cars there because of the emissions. The safety info in the
> referenced article is not encouraging either; side impact standards
> (mandatory in the US) appear to be lacking: "as safe as a GT sports car
> registered for racing". That's damning with faint praise; if they could say
> it met US safety standards they certainly would have said so. Fuel economy
> really doesn't matter to grieving families.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a
protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out the
competition. They WILL NOT make fuel efficient vehicles. Hybrids should
get over 100mpg by rights. Americans don't make a single car that gets
50mpg. Europe makes several, every car company makes 2 or 3 that get 50
to 80mpg. Diesel hybrids get 120 to 150mpg. The US will avoid these.
Give me a choice, my motorcycle don't have air bags, seat belts or crash
test and works just fine. I want a car WITHOUT seat belts and air bags.
I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to. We don't need
forced communist compliance at all.
> "Broderick Crawford" <bcrawford2150@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
> news:46524ea6$0$4873$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Useful Info wrote:
>>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
>>>
>> Don't worry, the US will ban it. They do not want to sell less oil.
>>
>>
>
> What on earth makes you think that? Zero consumption vehicles, like
> bicycles, are popular and encouraged in the US. I have owned several myself
> over nearly half a century and have never encountered a "not enough oil"
> goon squad.
>
> The consumption would not be an issue, but crash-worthiness and emissions
> are showstoppers. ZEV and P-ZEV vehicles are in great demand by regulators,
> especially in California, but AFAIK diesels are still not available in
> passenger cars there because of the emissions. The safety info in the
> referenced article is not encouraging either; side impact standards
> (mandatory in the US) appear to be lacking: "as safe as a GT sports car
> registered for racing". That's damning with faint praise; if they could say
> it met US safety standards they certainly would have said so. Fuel economy
> really doesn't matter to grieving families.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a
protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out the
competition. They WILL NOT make fuel efficient vehicles. Hybrids should
get over 100mpg by rights. Americans don't make a single car that gets
50mpg. Europe makes several, every car company makes 2 or 3 that get 50
to 80mpg. Diesel hybrids get 120 to 150mpg. The US will avoid these.
Give me a choice, my motorcycle don't have air bags, seat belts or crash
test and works just fine. I want a car WITHOUT seat belts and air bags.
I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to. We don't need
forced communist compliance at all.