backtop

Gadgets 157 MPG Vehicle for only $13,000
Brandon Hill (Blog) - February 27, 2006 5:15 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 219 comment(s) - last by Xenoterranos.. on Mar 9 at 1:47 AM
Loremo AG set to debut 2+2 coupe that gets over 150 MPG

I'm happy when my little hatchback gets 31 MPG on the highway, but German-based Loremo AG is set to debut a 2+2 coupe at the Geneva Auto Show that gets a whopping 157 MPG.

The $13,000 Loremo LS weighs just 992 lbs and features a two cylinder turbo-diesel engine pumping out a hardly earth shattering 20HP. The mid-engine, RWD coupe gets roughly 157 miles per gallon and has a cruising range of 807 miles. It goes 0-60 in 20 seconds and has a top speed of 99 MPH.

A more powerful $17,800 Leromo GT will also be available. It weighs in slightly more at 1,036 lbs and features a 3 cylinder turbo-diesel with 50 HP. It gets 87 miles per gallon, has a cruising range of 497 miles, goes 0-60 in 9 seconds and tops out at 137 MPH.

Both will come standard with airbags, radio and particle filter. Options will include a dashboard computer, A/C, MP3 player, navigation system, and leather.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
This is the future of the automobile folks!
By Heatlesssun on 2/27/2006 5:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
Like it or not, eventually the dinasour guzzeling cars we drive today are going to become dinasours.

It's something that American's don't want to think about. All we want is cheap gas and more roads, but the world is using more and more oil at an almost exponential rate.

China in about 20 years will use more oil than the WHOLE world does now. Oil is just going to keep getting more and more exspensive because we keep using more and more of it. Supply and demand.

Light cars CAN be made safe. We don't have to ride around in tanks for safety.




RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By NFS4 on 2/27/2006 5:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
Light cars can be made safe, but you can't fight the laws of physics. A buddy of mine was coming home late from work one night on a two lane backroad.

He fell asleep and crossed the center line hitting a pickup truck head on with his 2004 Mini Cooper S (at about 50-60MPH I would assume). He died at the scene and the pickup truck driver walked away.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By TSS on 2/27/2006 6:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
you cant change the laws of physics but you can stay awake behind the wheel. no matter what excuse, if you havea chance of falling asleep while driving, either pull over or dont drive at all.

anyways, this is definatly a good car, if it atleast does what it says it does. looks futuristic too. now all thats left is computer driven cars.


By Mr Perfect on 2/28/2006 3:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, the on-board driving computer has crashed. Expect the rest of the car to follow shortly. Have a nice day.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By smitty3268 on 2/27/2006 6:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
At 50-60mph you're going to be lucky to walk away no matter what you're driving. While heavy vehicles like SUV's might be safer in a head on collision, it would be a mistake to assume they are safer overall. Many, many people die in SUV's all the time, and with small cars you don't have to worry about flipping over if you lose control for a moment or two.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 6:34:06 PM , Rating: 4
Err, no thats not how it works. Assume the driver of a 4000lb vehicle doing 60 mph hits one of these head-on. That's equivalent to them hitting an equal-weight vehicle doing only 15 mph...and anyone can survive that.

For the poor sap in this lightweight car, though, its equivalent to their hitting an equal-weight car at 105 mph...an accident that no one is likely to survive.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By smitty3268 on 2/27/2006 6:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
If I were in a 4000lb vehicle I still wouldn't want to smash into another 4000lb vehicle going 15mph if I were going 60. In fact, I wouldn't want to smash into it if it was parked.

That's assuming that both vehicles are going 60, though. If you thought I was talking about 1 going 60 and the other being parked you would be right.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 7:07:28 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry, you still don't understand the physics here. Its not equivalent to hitting another vehicle doing 15 while you're doing 60...but rather to that of BOTH vehicles doing 15 mph. Or equal to you hitting a tree while doing 15 mph.

To summarize. An F150 @ 60MPH head-on with Loremo @ 60 MPH is equal (for the F150 driver) to hitting a tree while doing 15 MPH. For the Loremo driver, its equivalent to hitting a tree while driving 105 MPH.

Big difference.


By smitty3268 on 2/27/2006 7:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
Or equal to you hitting a tree while doing 15 mph.

Hmm, yes you are right. Assuming that both vehicles absorb an equal amount of the collision, of course, which depends on exactly how they collide and the way in which they are designed. In my defense, I don't think there are too many 1000lb vehicles here in the states, but I suppose that was your point.

Nevertheless, I stand by my original statement, which was: small cars may be less safe in a head on collision, but they can be safer in other ways. For example, you don't have nearly the risk of flipping over if you lose control of the vehicle for a second or two. I was just trying to point out that stats show heavy vehicles really aren't any safer than lighter ones most of the time in real world accidents. There will always be some cases where one is obviously better than the other.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By mindless1 on 2/27/2006 8:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
You are randomly making up nonsense.

No it's not like both doing 15 MPH, and no it's not like anything hitting an immobile object like a typical (medium-large) tree.

The tree is far worse, because it's not just a matter of mass, or mobility of the object but also impact zones. BOTH vehicles absorb a great deal of the impact and this completely negates any of your ideas about X MPH- they're simply, completely invalid.

Most significant in such a crash are that most american trucks still have fixed bumpers on a full frame. Second most significant is not the weight of the smaller car, but rather it's smaller passenger compartment and the force exerted on the driver through the front firewall and windshield no matter what the car had weighed. With a small car even a breakaway steering column may be deadly simply due to distance, not (lack of) weight.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 8:53:53 PM , Rating: 4
Look kid, I'm not making anything up. It's a simple problem in physics. Momentum is conserved, therefore assuming one vehicle of mass x and a second of mass x/5, you have initial p(init) = p(final) = 60(x)- (60(x/5)) = 48(x). Therefore, vehicle A (the heavier one) experiences a delta v of 60-(48)/(6/5) = 20mph, whereas Vehicle B (the lighter one) experiences a delta v of (-60)-40 = 100 mph. Assuming the same dT, the occupants of the smaller vehicle therefore experience 100/20 = five TIMES the g forces as do those in the larger vehicle.

Note this does not take into account crumple zones or any other factors influencible through engineering. However, those factors are-- in a head-on collision between two vehicles of significantly dissimilar mass-- trivial .

Weight wins. Period.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By smitty3268 on 2/27/2006 10:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
Your physics are indeed correct, but I believe the poster above was talking about design. Design is a much more important factor than pure weight, but since both vehicles are presumably well designed then this might even out. And yes, a collision with the tree would be worse, because all of the force is being applied to a small area. If a true head on collision were to occur a much larger area of the vehicle would be available to absorb some of the impact.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 10:55:12 PM , Rating: 3
As I've already shown, design is a factor, but in a head-on crash, mass is THE primary factor. If the mass ratio is large enough in your favor, design is totally unimportant...you won't experience enough of deceleration to even notice the crash. Design can only do so much, and it can't circumvent basic laws of physics.

As for a collision with a tree or other small object
"concentrating" force-- here is a situation where design can prevail. The very best case is a occupant cage strong enough to withstand crumpling entirely, and to communicate the force of impact equally across all points. You can't do better than this; the energy has to go somewhere. It is this best-case scenario to which I was comparing collision energies. If you wish, substitute a "fixed, immoval barrier" for the word "tree".


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By smitty3268 on 2/28/2006 1:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
If the mass ratio is large enough in your favor, design is totally unimportant...

Agreed, but a 4-1 mass ratio isn't that large, all things considered. Especially if you allow the car with lower mass to be made of a different material - one that is lighter and stronger, and no doubt more expensive. Not that I'm saying that is the case here (I don't know) but a 4-1 mass ratio can easily be overcome if it needed to be.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 9:36:02 AM , Rating: 3
A 4-1 mass ratio is huge, about equivalent to a full-size car colliding with a dump truck. And for the Loremo, a 4-1 ratio isn't the worst case...if it strikes a large SUV or pickup, it can be 6-1 or more.

As for "stronger materials" overcoming this difference, its you're still missing the point. Even assuming infinitely strong materials, the occupants of the lighter vehicle are STILL being subjected to several times the g forces. A much lighter vehicle striking a heavier one gets thrown backwards, violently so. You experience an impulse acceleration of several hundred g's...strong enough to break bones and damage internal organs, even if the occupant cage experiences no failure whatsoever.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By mindless1 on 3/1/2006 3:39:54 AM , Rating: 2
you haven't shown anything, except that you can't wrap your head around more than simplistic concepts. You are the "kid" here.

Fact is, tiny cars are crash-tested into almost immovable dozen ton barriers. That alone makes your simplistic concept completely void. Unlike what a prior poster suggested, having both vehicles designed to absorb shock is not any kind of equalization, on the contrary is a HUGE benefit.

Yes, the smaller vehicle, even the larger one are subjected to very significant forces. Nobody has argued otherwise, only that your ideas about it are completely wrong.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 8:52:04 AM , Rating: 4
> "Fact is, tiny cars are crash-tested into almost immovable dozen ton barriers"
Lol, you still don't get it. The mass of the barrier is irrelevant...the important point is the barrier is immovable . That in itself changes the dynamic totally...and thats the ENTIRE reason crash tests are done against fixed barriers. It removes the mass of the vehicle from the equation. Because the barrier is fixed, its momentum-- both before and after the crash-- is zero. Therefore the only momentum involved is that of the tested vehicle itself.

Against a fixed barrier, a half-ton mini-car can (and usually does) score better than a 10 ton truck. Are you actually naive enough to believe that, should the two collide head-on, that the mini-car would still "win"?

Answer, please.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By Snarfy on 3/7/2006 5:20:44 AM , Rating: 2
Dood, Mindless, i tkinda fits your name. Uhh and Masher, what's wrong with you? The kid obviously doesn't understand his physics, no need to humiliate him... Come to think of it, 90% of this thread has been an intellectual d1c|< measuring contest... What's up with that...