100% true

I am pretty much switched over to cycling to get around the city and beyond. In most cases I can get there faster cycling then when taking the bus. I've saved a whole bunch of money on gas and bus fair which is nice right now but it pains me to think that when the screws get turned to their fullest and we actually run dangerously low on oil that I'll be affected in every other part of my life.

 

I have heard similar stories many times. One of my favourites is the CEO of Volkswagen had one made to prove it could be done, but he was then encouraged to "retire" and the car was completely destroyed. The technology is getting better, but we are not yet there. Remember that you cannot create energy, only transform it. That means that every vehicle needs to consume as much energy as it needs to move. Cold fusion does not work, hydrogen uses too much energy to create it, atomic power is still too dangerous for motorcars, solar power is not strong enough for normal use, wind power does not work for obvious reasons. One day we will get cars that do not require fossil fuels, but there is no current system that is economical and safe enough today.

 

You do realize USA it's not the only country on the planet?

I want to think that if MAYBE, MAYBE there was a car like this one, some other country would already use it. MAYBE

 

Well since the two people above you in this thread are in Canada and the UK I think they do realise that. Please check before making remarks like that.

 

yeah unfortunately i dont take much stock in what priests say, but i am fully aware that the electric car was around in the 70s and the only reason the hydrocar hasnt been marketed is because the oil and auto companies buy the patents from people for insane amounts and sit on them, and if you have to sell bc no one can afford to go to court with them, so you bring up a solid point and an iteresting argument to say the least, but there is so much corruption that its rediculous and has honestly made me lose most of my faith in humanity. present company exculded of course

 

Reminds me of the story of the guy who invented a light globe that never blows, and was promptly killed.

Calls BS for both stories.

 

Weee for Necro Bumpage. -.-;

And it's an urban legend, although some TV shows have shown it has some merit to it.

 

well i got a diesel i can run mine for like a month or two on a tank can i get a few million for it if so u can have the dam car this is so not true

 

I call BS

 

100% false. This story has been making the rounds since at least *I* was a teenager. Here's the full scoop, courtesy (who else?) Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp

Lex

 

Thanks, Lex! I was trying to find it on snopes myself, because I've been seeing that email since I was in high school!

Bzzzt!

Yes, electric car prototypes existed as early as 1970 (Ford Comuta in the UK). There were a variety of kit-cars and other electric vehicles available in the late 1970s at the height of the gas crisis. Hybrid-Electric prototypes existed as early as 1992 (again, Ford). Ford has functional Hydrogen-Fuel-Cell vehicle prototypes right now, as well as Electric Ford Rangers (no, they weren't all crushed like "Who Killed the Electric Car" says they were) which they continue to test and develop. I've actually driven both an Electric Ranger and one of the Hydrogen-Fuel-Cell Ford Focus test cars, so I can directly vouch for their existance.

BUT, the reason that they have never been mass-marketed is because of consumer demand. History has plainly demonstrated that Americans will buy the largest vehicle they believe they can afford to drive, with that desire for large vehicles only being tamped down by spikes in gas prices. For clarity, that is less true of Europeans because of traditionally high European petrol and diesel prices. But, in North America, cars continued to grow until the 1950s, which gave us huge land-yachts with goofy tail-fins and the like. The recession of the late 1950s showed up in the early '60s with the release of cars like the Ford Falcon (a very small car for that era). The good economy of the 1960s and the desire for large powerful cars gave birth to the muscle car era, and by the time of the gas crisis of 1973, cars had grown to massive proportions with engine sizes to match.

The gas crisis and subsequent U.S. government regulation spurred the smaller cars of the 1980s, but people only bought small cars if they couldn't afford a larger car. In the '90s, when gas was at historic lows, SUVs became the vehicle of choice because people wanted the space and power and towing capability. That trend held until 2004 when gas started increasing in price. In 2008 when gas prices passed $4.00 per gallon in the U.S., the Toyota Prius and other hybrid-electric cars became incredibly popular. Now that the economic recession has lowered gas prices, dealers almost can't GIVE Priuses away.

Let's consider 1997/1998. Two very different, yet both very notable vehicles were released to the market. The Honda Insight was a little two-seater hybrid-electric car that could get incredibly high mileage. It was small, easy to park, and cheap to operate. The Ford Expedition was a large SUV built on the Ford F-150 truck platform. It offered seating for seven, 4x4, a large V8 engine, and enough towing capability to tow a small house behind it. The Honda Insight lasted roughly two years before being discontinued due to lack of demand. The Ford Expedition is still available today.


Now, in fairness, the auto industry (and NOT just the U.S. automakers) have consistently and SUCCESSFULLY lobbied the U.S. Government to defeat higher mileage standards and higher emissions standards and the like, and I'm sure that oil companies have played a role in that, as well. But ultimately, the only way we'll see these advanced technologies proliferate in the automotive sector is if consumer demand drives it. The only way that will happen is if gas prices get high and STAY high, which is the reason why Europe has such fuel-efficient and very small cars.

 

whether its true or not, thats one cool ass car!

 

Do you really think that 1) with Obama in office that he would allow such a thing to continue considering his 'stance' on renewable energy, and 2) that if the car companies actually had something of the like that they would care what the government would say, they could make A LOT of money off something like that, and right now they'd be all for selling more cars, and 3) many of the current oil companies are pushing renewable energy because they know that their days are numbered if they don't and 4) even the electric hybrids only get like 50 mpg, on a good day with a professional driver with the wind at its back, so a car that gets a 100 mpg isn't technically impossibly but improbable and too expensive to justify mass production. Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

I forgot where i read it, but apparently, some company (i think BMW?) patented the hydrogen fuel cell car a long time ago, but some big oil company, i think it was Shell, bought it the patent for millions of dollars because for the oil companies, its brings in billions of dollars to not have that car on the market.

And while Obama is doing great, he also allows farmers from foreign countries be reduced to zero income because the united states exports huge amounts of food with subsidies the citizens pay for in taxes.

3. companies may be saying that they are pushing renewable energy but there is still so much oil out there, these price jumps arn't mostly there because of scarcity of resources.

Last, a car 100mpg may be improbable, but don't justify everything the government does as completely socially rational. We may be a democracy, but we are also a capitalist country and while we may worry about gas efficiency and saving the world, people care more about making their money here and now. Saving gas and protecting the environment is a costly procedure that is funded by taxes from large corporations such as exxon, shell, microsoft, and etc.

lots of fragmented thoughts... sorry

 

I've heard this story a couple times before and not just from priests.

I think its not about it being true or false, but the moral, so to speak of the story. Big companies have such a tight hold over us,a nd if we find a way to get away from that, they will do everything in their power to stop it.

 

If you want to look at conspiracies, a more realistic study case would be the GM electric car in 1999. Leasees were very pleased with the vehicle but were unable to buy it out at the end of the term.

And as far as Hydrogen fuel cells. It's not a source of energy as much as a method of energy storage. A very explosive method.

Patents expire after 20 years, so if it was a long time ago, anyone would be free to use the technology. As far as bringing in millions for oil companies, a significant amount of electrical power comes from fossil fuels. Energy is needed to create hydrogen gas. So the oil companies win either way.

 

Ballard is a major supplier of Hydrogen Fuel Cell componentry. They supply to Ford, BMW, and pretty much every other auto company that's doing anything wiith HFC vehicles. They are not now, nor have ever been, part of Shell as I understand it.


As for a 100-mpg car... It's possible, but no one would want that car. It would basically be a slightly-larger version of a go-kart. It would have a very slow top speed and would be horribly unsafe at pretty much any speed. Let's remember that today's cars are designed for the occupants to escape essentially uninjured from a crash, even one at 55 or higher miles per hour, and are also capable of going 70 or 80 or 90 or faster, and they can get to that speed in a matter of seconds.

Think about how far engine technology actually HAS advanced. Modern engines can power a 3,000-4,000 pound metal object to speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour and can do 0-60 in less than 10 seconds (and that's in an AVERAGE automobile), AND they can do that while getting 20, 30, 40, even 50 miles per U.S. gallon of gasoline.

Consider this-the 1984 Chevrolet Caprice (civilian model) was powered by a 305-cubic-inch (5.0 L) V8 engine that created 150 horsepower and 240 pound-feet of torque. Mind, though, that the huge torque number was needed to move that boxish 3,800-plus pound car. That car, on a good day with the wind at its back, could maybe get 21 miles per gallon and do 0-60 in an unspectacular time. By comparison, my 2006 Honda Element is powered by a 2.4 liter 4-cylinder that creates 160 horsepower and 160 pound-feet of torque (using pre-2006 numbers for direct comparison purposes). My car weights 3,500-plus pounds and is tall and somewhat boxy. But, I can still do 0-60 in 9ish seconds and get 25-29 mpg on the highway. So, with literally half the engine, my car can outperform the car of 25 years ago. Oh, and my car is a five-star crash rated car with front and side airbags, a seven-speaker sound system, and all the creature comforts like air conditioning.

And yes, it's true that European cars are far more fuel-efficient than American cars. They're also far far smaller and slower. A European Focus with a diesel engine isn't exactly going to rocket from 0-60. Like I said before, we can't really have our cake and eat it too. We either want big comfortable safe quick cars, or we want super-high-mileage efficient cars. We can't have both, not with current technology.

 

im not going to lie i stopped reading at Bzzzt. but clearly you have a strong opinion on this so i wont argue, but i will say that i dont care either way, economics is boring to me, and i like to think that demand would have to go up if people just made the damn car and stopped making the shitty ones, but as i said i dont care, i drive an SUV myself and love it bc i am always up in the mountains.

 

My four-year old Toyota Prius does 60 mpg, and things have progressed quite a bit in the past four years. We are getting very close.

 

There's a VW Lupo 3L.

3 Lietres of Diesel per 100km. That's about 103 MPG i think.

VW Lupo was 3*** Euro NCap. But we're talking about a 4 year old car now.

And someone mentioned something about OPEC.

OPEC is a facade for the world, the real powers in it are Saudi and Russia. If they pulled out due to some catastrophic failure in diplomacy, the world would certainly be up shit creek. That's why the Saud family are the most powerful in the world and are free to do whatever they please, because telling them to change their hypocritical, idiotic and farcical laws would result in 10,000,000 barrels of Oil a day not getting to the market.