backtop

Print 54 comment(s) - last by aqaq55.. on Dec 15 at 8:02 AM

The 2010 Audi A3 TDI was crowned "Green Car of the Year" at the LA Auto Show. The car averages 42 mpg highway and 30 mpg city on a peppy clean diesel engine.  (Source: CarCollery)

The 2010 Toyota Prius gets 50 mpg, but missed out on this year's honors.
Clean diesel bests hybrids like the Prius

It was an Academy Award-esque shocker at the Green Car Journal's 2009 Green Car of the Year awards on Thursday.  The award, bestowed at the LA Auto Show each year, honors the vehicle that had the greatest positive impact on the environment.  The 50 mpg third-generation Prius, in the eyes of many observers, certainly seemed a shoe-in for such honors.

However, when the award was announced, it was Audi, not Toyota accepting the honors.  The 2010 Audi A3 TDI, a vehicle with a clean diesel engine, took home the trophy.  The sporty, yet economical car features 42 mpg highway and 32 mpg city fuel economy on a 2.0L 140-horsepower inline-4 diesel engine.

Priced from $29,950, the vehicle retails for a bit more than the Prius, but features some additional luxury touches. 

The award demonstrates a logical shift in thinking for the green community that has long been missing.  The thought is that while hybrids and electric vehicles, which feature smaller sales, are good, mass market vehicles are better.  That sentiment was echoed in the enthusiasm green car advocates showed for small fuel-efficient vehicles at the LA Auto Show, including the Chevy Cruze, the Hyundai Sonata, Volkswagen Golf TDI, and the Ford Fiesta.

Jake Fisher, senior engineer at Consumer Reports, comments, "Cars like the Cruze and the Fiesta will certainly have a bigger impact on the environment because they will be high-volume vehicles."

Mass market appeal seems the best way to make the largest impact.  Johan de Nysschen, Audi of America's president, who once called buyers of GM's Chevy Volt "idiots", emphasized this in his acceptance speech.  He stated, ""Green is no longer progressive.  Green is expected."

With the new generation of fuel-efficient gasoline and diesel engines coming online, combined fuel economies in the 30 mpg to 40 mpg range can finally will be realized.  If these vehicles can comprise the majority of sales, displacing vehicles with traditional fuel economies of around 20 mpg, this will lead to a third less fuel consumption and carbon emissions.

What's great, though, is that many of these cars like the Audi A3 TDI and the Ford Fiesta seem fun to drive as well.  For that reason, the 2010 Audi A3 TDI seem a befitting recipient of its Green Car of the Year honors.  As Ron Cogan, the editor and publisher of Green Car Journal sums up, "The love of cars and the love of the environment are not mutually exclusive."


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By corduroygt on 12/7/2009 10:19:56 AM , Rating: 5
Pretty much the same car, same engine, same MPG, but the Golf costs 8k less, at 22k. And they're both going to be equally (un)reliable, but the VW would cost less to fix.
A 22k hatch makes much more sense than a 30k one...




RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By mherlund on 12/7/2009 10:29:48 AM , Rating: 2
One could say the same thing with any Lexus over a Toyota. It is the additional luxury features that sets it apart from the VW (and the Audi name), which is what the people who will pay more want.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By wannabemedontu on 12/7/2009 11:47:33 AM , Rating: 3
and we can't forget there is no comparison on the reliabilty factor of the Toyota/Lexus brand compared to VW/Audi - world's apart.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Johnmcl7 on 12/7/2009 5:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
Toyota only managed 4th equal to Skoda who are part of VAG and use all VAG parts, Skoda have been scoring consistently high for years:

http://www.whatcar.com/NonCar/AC/19699419442.jpg


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By jmke on 12/7/2009 10:33:31 AM , Rating: 2
haven drive plenty of VW (golf, bora, passat) before going to Audi (A2/A3/A4/A6), Audi's internal finishing is definitely a step higher... and overall driving experience is better imho


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Stuka on 12/7/2009 10:42:54 AM , Rating: 1
The current VW platform is not the Hecho en México platform of yore you are basing your statement on. They have improved vastly since then. Also, the A3 and Golf, while based on the simlar underpinnings are very different animals; just as the Lexus HS is not just a rebadged Prius.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By lelias2k on 12/7/2009 10:50:34 AM , Rating: 2
If you're comparing the A3 to the Golf it's because you probably never driven one or the other, if not both.

And I mean not just a test drive, although I'm pretty sure you would already see lots of differences if you did one.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By MaDS on 12/7/2009 4:20:48 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, he's not saying anything incorrect. It's actually the same car (with indeed the same engines and other technology). Ofcourse the Audi has somewhat better materials in the interior, albeit the gap has closed immensely since the introduction of the Golf VI.

As far as driving is concerned: both cars handle about the same.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Keeir on 12/7/2009 4:34:33 PM , Rating: 3
Hrm. Keep in mind that in the US we only get 5 Door "Sportback" A3s.

I agree that they are similar, but the Golf does wieght significantly less.

I have driven both, and there is a noticable difference in the driving experience (in the US spec models)


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By MaDS on 12/7/2009 4:45:20 PM , Rating: 2
The Sportback is indeed a little bigger, but still very much the same car with the same technology.

What I meant was that the original poster had a valid point in asking why the Golf wasn't chosen, since it's way cheaper. If the point was that the Sportback is a more practical car, well, the Golf has a Variant version which is longer than the Sportback. I don't know if it's sold in the US though.

I have also driven both. While there's a difference in experience resulting from the nicer interior, the handling itself is pretty much the same. Which is logical, because underneath it's the same car.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Keeir on 12/7/2009 6:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
Nope.

The US Golf and A3 version are quite different. At least as different as two models of car in the same relative size from the same automaker can be.

Yes its true that the US TDI Golf and US TDI A3 use similar engines. However, the Audi A3's configuration sounds more refined and quiet (US Spec), especially on the inside.

Turning Circle is different, as well as Steering Ratio.

Audi A3's brakes are larger both frount and rear, and apparently are ventilated discs.

Pretty much every single Dimension is different from Front Head Room to Rear Track Size.

The list can literally go on and on.

I know in Europe that they sell 3 Door A3s with downspecs that match up close to the 3 Door Golfs. And they sell upmarket Golfs with longer size that match well with A3 sportbacks. But in the US, this is not the case. They are very different. Different Shape, Different Size, Different Engine Choices, Different Steering, Different Handling, Different Market Choices (drastically different options).


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Lord 666 on 12/7/2009 10:58:14 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed about the VW making more sense over Audi. Wished either brand would offer the TDI with all wheel drive like they do in Europe.

Love my 2006 Jetta TDI, but definitely envious of the huge improvement of performance in the current US versions.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By The0ne on 12/7/2009 12:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
What are R32? Those are good too, for driving :)


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Lord 666 on 12/7/2009 12:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
R32 is 6 cylinder petrol with AWD. Sweet ride, but I've grown up a while ago.

However, the existance of a R32 that has AWD and similar power curves to current TDI, it begs to question why there isn't a AWD TDI Jetta or Passat. In Europe, the entire Audi line has AWD and TDI options.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By fic2 on 12/7/2009 1:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree. I live in Denver and snowboard pretty much every weekend. I need an AWD car to be able to do that. Just to get to work some days (like today). I would buy an AWD/TDI combo in a heartbeat, but until then I am in a Subaru. I never understood why VW won't bring the AWD/TDI cars over here.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Keeir on 12/7/2009 2:01:05 PM , Rating: 2
Two reasons

#1. Cost

AWD is easily a 1,000+ dollar option
Diesel is also a 1,000+ dollar option

Most people who want Diesel in the United States are concerned with saving money (not in my opinion, but thats the general sentiment)

#2. HP and acceleration issues.

Unfortunely, most people in the US are fixated on this number. The extra wieght of AWD and Diesel combined with the lower peak horsepower of Diesel would put a 140 HP TDI into the 10s range. Clearly unacceptable. So you need the tuner upgrade to 170 hp to even consider it... which adds more cost and might not pass emission.

I have heard that Golf "GTD" might move over using the 170hp tuned engine. So if the A3 TDI sells okay, maybe then we will see a 170 hp 2.0 TDI in Quattro A3 or A4. (A4/Avant would be even better with a 6 cylinder TDI)


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Lord 666 on 12/7/2009 3:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
1. Even for cost insensitive customers of MB, there wasn't an option for the previous model of the E320 diesel with AWD. Taking on another $2,000 is irrelevant, yet the lack of AWD and RWD only is the very reason why I didn't buy a MB E320 CDI. The Jetta at least has FWD and handles like a snow bunny.

2. The current Jetta TDI 2.0 does 0-60 between 8.2 and 8.5. Adding another 300 pounds for AWD will not slow it into the 10s. http://www.vw.com/jetta/completespecs/en/us/#engin...

For the Passat, it will accept the 3.0 CDI motor thats in the current Toureg without an issue along with the AWD tranny.

Not even the subject of this blog, the A3 TDI, has Audi's quattro AWD system, but is offered in Europe.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By MaDS on 12/7/2009 4:24:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The current Jetta TDI 2.0 does 0-60 between 8.2 and 8.5.


If you're talking about the 140HP, this is incorrect. The manual 2.0 TDI 140HP will do 0-60 in about 9.3s. Here in Europe we also have a 2.0 TDI 170HP and this one will do 0-60 in about 8.6s.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Keeir on 12/7/2009 4:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
Unit Conversion.

0-100 km/h is a bit different than 0-60 mph.

The US spec version (of the Golf and Jetta) is also tuned with slightly higher power and some different gearing ratios.

VW is claiming 8.6 seconds for DSG or Manual Golf 2.0 TDI.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By MaDS on 12/7/2009 4:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
Unit conversion doesn't account for much more than, say, 0.2s.

What do you mean, slightly higher power? It's the same engine with 140HP.
Could you point me to a link that shows the different gear ratio's?

Also, it wouldn't be the first time a manufacturer is overly optimistic about the performance numbers.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Lord 666 on 12/7/2009 5:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
Did you check the link from VWoA site I gave further up on the post? On it they include both the 0-60 time and gear ratios. I've driven the 2009+ VW TDI, the manufacturer published times are within reason. http://www.vw.com/jetta/completespecs/en/us/#engin...

Here is the fuel economy page, its possible the slower 0-60 speed in the UK is for more mpg
http://www.vw.com/jetta/completespecs/en/us/#milea...


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By MaDS on 12/7/2009 5:28:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you check the link from VWoA site I gave further up on the post? On it they include both the 0-60 time and gear ratios.


I'm pretty sure the 0-60 times on that link are for the 2.5 5cyl gasoline-powered Jetta.

Now, about the gear ratios: you showed me some, but you didn't point out that there are differences between US- and Euro-spec cars. We have BlueMotion versions which have longer gear ratio's (and a little less performance), but I'm talking about the regular non-BlueMotion version with the normal gear ratios.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Lord 666 on 12/7/2009 5:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
The numbers are valid for both the 2.5 and TDI, yet there is a noticeable difference in fuel economy. Makes sense there would be gear ratio differences between US and EU.

Check out a Motortrend page on the US 2009 VW TDI; http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/oneyear/112_09... It states,

"Getting our hands on a Jetta TDI wasn't easy: VW underestimated its popularity and imported a mere 1300 to the U.S.-all of which have sold. The popularity comes for good reason as the TDI scoots from 0 to 60 in 8.4 seconds and achieves a combined fuel-economy rating of 33 mpg (in over 7000 miles, we've gotten 34.9 mpg). At $23,090, the TDI, priced right between the petrol-powered SEL and SE trims, represents a strong choice for economy-conscious customers who don't want to sacrifice straight-line performance."


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Keeir on 12/7/2009 7:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now, about the gear ratios: you showed me some, but you didn't point out that there are differences between US- and Euro-spec cars. We have BlueMotion versions which have longer gear ratio's (and a little less performance), but I'm talking about the regular non-BlueMotion version with the normal gear ratios.


This is tough to see unless the manufactures release the information. And I pretty much only trust the manufacturer.

But check out the US Spec Jetta. The Jetta has 4 different sets of greating ratios which are -all- different.

And even when the systems are geared the same, Automatics can make different choices. You'd be crazy as an Automaker not to do it if the result was 1-2 higher mpg on the EPA tests from on model to another or one test to another.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Keeir on 12/7/2009 4:28:48 PM , Rating: 2
1. Its illogical to me as well, but it really does seem to be percieved notion about car buyers.

2.
Hrm.
I go the VW page and I see 9.5 seconds listed for the Jetta SportWagen Automatic. I think it would be difficult for a 4motion to be under 10. (Jetta Wagen)

I go to the Audi Site, and the A3 TDI with DSG automatic is listed at 8.9 seconds.

So I head on over to audi.co.uk to look at the A3 Sportback version.... and what do I discover? They won't sell you a 140 hp 2.0 TDI with quattro. Nor will they sell you an automatic quattro with diesel (in the A3 line anyway). (The only availble option is a 170 tuned engine I mentioned earlier for the Golf GTD)

Hmmm... look at the A4 lineup. One 1 car is sold (in britian) with Quattro AND Automatic, which is the 3.0 TDI.

Something is very strange here. Since the vast majority of US cars, even Luxury cars, are sold with Automatic Transmissions, if Audi can't make an Automatic Diesel Quattro, they may not feel like making a Manual Diesel Quattro. Regardless of how sweet such a car would be :(.

I believe the principle reason for this is the power limited nature of Diesel cars, resulting is relatively poor acceleration. Although it should be noted in Europe Manual preference can be higher than 75% for the same model of car, thus Audi may just not care to do it.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Lord 666 on 12/7/2009 5:21:56 PM , Rating: 1
Check out http://www.audi.co.uk/new-cars/a6/a6-saloon/pricin...

The A6 has six options of TDI, DSG, and Quattro with an option of the 2.7 or 3.0.

Transmission limitations are not new, but shouldn't apply to a diesel like they way they do to hybrids ;)


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Keeir on 12/7/2009 7:17:14 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, but we are moving significantly upmarket from the A3/Golf Range.

Furthermore, the First one I see liested with TDI + Quattro + Automatic is the 190 PS 2.7 TDI for the Saloon. Most others are the 240 PS engine.

An A6 is ~4,100 lbs
An A3 is ~ 3,300 lbs (A FWD Drive Gasoline one is 3,200)

Going with a minimum of 190 PS/4,000, the A3 140 HP engine doesn't quite reach that. Keep in mind that the lowest HP that Audi bothers to sell the A6 in the United States is 265.

I am not saying that the transmission is limited per say. I am saying that for the US area, Audi doesn't see a market for a Quattro Diesel A3 using a manual stick (140 PS/140 HP Engine) and that a Automatic with Quattro may decrease performance, fuel economy, or reliability to the point where its not an attractive offering. They obvious feel like Britian doesn't have a desire for such a car either. The A3 only sells like 5,000 units a year (In the US) as it is... a Manual Diesel Quattro would sell maybe 100-500 units (based on US car buying habits). When/if they bring over a 170 PS/170 HP (important PS DNE HP, 170 PS is more like 167 HP) engine, I could see adding an Automatic to the A3 with Quattro.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Spuke on 12/7/2009 4:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
which adds more cost and might not pass emission.
I don't know where you live but in CA, diesel cars exempt from emissions retests so that's a non issue here but YMMV in another state. I believe AZ is the same way.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Keeir on 12/7/2009 6:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
Err.. I meant initally. I assume they still have to pass to start with?


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By Major HooHaa on 12/9/2009 3:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
When comparing diesel and petrol engines, don't get hung up on horsepower ratings. The Petrol engine produces its maximum power at close to the redline, while a diesel produces its maximum lower down the rev range.

A diesel also produces much more torque at low revs than a petrol engine. This extra low-down pulling power is what makes a diesel suited to the need of a 4x4, when the car is trying to pull itself through tough terrain.

You will also get better "Miles Per Gallon" figures and lower CO2 emissions from an equivalent diesel engine.


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By The0ne on 12/7/2009 3:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I've grown up a while ago.


Just curious, what does that mean? I love Rally, I love a good AWD system so I don't think I will "grow" out of it. I know there are tons of college kids with VM's but still...


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By The0ne on 12/7/2009 3:54:08 PM , Rating: 2
that's VW :) and not VM (virtual machines) hehehe


RE: Why Audi and not Golf TDI
By aqaq55 on 12/15/09, Rating: 0
I would rather...
By btc909 on 12/7/2009 2:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
... drive a "boring" Prius with better MPG & a lower cost than a VW or Audi. Over the years I've heard of nothing but problems with VW's. "04 Jetta, your car has no oil in it, where did it go?" Along with the usual rounds of interior trim pieces falling apart inside of the car. No thanks, I like the idea of a clean diesel but i'm not putting up with the problems.

I still remember the VW Toureg in the Costco parking lot obviously dead with a very nice shinny set of tools rolled out next to the vehicle. During the same week, another Toureg dead along side of the freeway. No thanks.

VW must be the Dodge / Chrysler of automotive companies.




RE: I would rather...
By Keeir on 12/7/2009 3:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
hrm, while it may be cool to bash on VW here (and with fairly good reason as they were fairly inept through the 80s and 90s), they have for the most part been improving.

They appear in the middle of JD Power
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings/quality-ratin...

And they are in the middle of the Consumer Reports as well. (It should be noted that the Toureg is one of the worst cars. The Golf that the A3 is based on is conversely one of the best cars for reliability)

Ultimately, people who abuse thier cars more and expect more from thier cars are likely to buy VWs over Toyotas. They also feel the most cheated as a VW does cost a bit more than a Toyota.

Its also important to note that for the most part, ALL car companies are better than the -best- car companies from the 80s.


RE: I would rather...
By Spuke on 12/7/2009 6:11:20 PM , Rating: 3
I hate to do this but that link is initial quality. If you look at the Dependability Study, it paints a whole different picture of VW.

http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pre...

Of course, you could just look up the individual car to see how it fares.


RE: I would rather...
By Keeir on 12/7/2009 7:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
Ah Good catch.

I had heard the Audi had improved past industry average and assumed the same way true for VW


RE: I would rather...
By brandonicus on 12/7/2009 6:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 2002 Jetta and you are right about the oil problem, but it's actually not that bad. The oil only starts to get low after about 3000 miles. Also, I have put 200,000+ miles on it and never had a problem. I have only owned three cars in my lifetime, but so far it has easily been the most dependable...hoping it stays that way...(knocks on wood)


I...wait, hold on...
By Motoman on 12/7/2009 1:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
...this seems to be based on a...rational...assesment of the state of the auto industry and it's technology. Rather than cow-towing to the beating drums of electric/hybrid activists.

It's like it makes sense...which is very confusing. How can such an award be given based on a decision making process that makes sense? I'm so confused...




RE: I...wait, hold on...
By Keeir on 12/7/2009 2:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe for the World the A3 TDI makes some sense. Since the A3 probably does sell in other countries

The US consumes an absolutely abysmal amount of A3/Golf. Both together are less than 20,000 a year I believe. Or roughly what the Prius sells every month.

I can say that the A3 is alot more exciting to Auto Journalist than the warmed over Prius (from an Auto Journalist point of view the 2010 Prius is just a refinement). Which I would say, doesn't seem to make sense to me...


RE: I...wait, hold on...
By Spuke on 12/7/2009 6:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
The Prius sells around 10,000 a month. The A3 and Golf sell about 1800 a month with the vast majority going to the Golf.


RE: I...wait, hold on...
By Keeir on 12/7/2009 7:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, let me clarify then.

The 2010 Prius has been selling this year since intro at a rate that puts its average montly sales higher in the US than the projected sales of the Golf+A3 for the year.


By cruisin3style on 12/7/2009 8:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see sales numbers of Prius' and Audi A3 TDIs.

I am 1000000% sure the A3 TDI is more fun to drive, especially if the torque figure google helped me find for it is accurate, which to me means the car is fuel efficient and yet worlds more badass than a prius.

But still, I'm not sure a luxury diesel costing significantly more than the prius is any more "mass market" than the Prius. But I could be wrong, and I AM from the US where diesel is not what it is elsewhere.

I'd just like to see the sales figures.




By Nichols1986 on 12/9/2009 9:27:27 AM , Rating: 1
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular, most stylish and avant-garde shoes,handbags,Tshirts, jacket,Tracksuit w ect... For details, please consult http://www.coolforsale.com Christmas sale, free shipping discounts are beautifully gift.




Diesel wins?
By The0ne on 12/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Diesel wins?
By lelias2k on 12/7/2009 10:55:57 AM , Rating: 1
My first experience with a modern diesel came 5 years ago in Germany, with an Audi A6.

From the inside you really have to pay attention to notice it's a diesel. And apart from the characteristic low RPM, the engine was a great pleasure to drive, both in the city or on the Autobahn.

As for the price of gas, speak for your city. Here in San Diego Diego diesel has been cheaper than gas for a long time...


RE: Diesel wins?
By dubldwn on 12/7/2009 12:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here in San Diego Diego...

That's funny, because I think that kid *does* live in San Diego.


RE: Diesel wins?
By dubldwn on 12/7/2009 12:47:55 PM , Rating: 3
By the way, it appears as though diesel is ~20 cents more than regular gas in metro San Diego.
http://www.sandiegogasprices.com/GasPriceSearch.as...


RE: Diesel wins?
By Lord 666 on 12/7/2009 11:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
There are many advantages of modern diesel cars versus hybrids. But what will be true solution are diesel hybrids using the best of Toyota's battery technology and VW/Honda's urea-free catalytic converter to keep diesel clean.


RE: Diesel wins?
By TSS on 12/7/2009 11:24:15 AM , Rating: 2
This whole award is strange. The vehicle with the most positive enviromental impact?

Which car has a positive impact on the enviroment?

at the very least it should be called the least negative impact on the enviroment.


RE: Diesel wins?
By Hulk on 12/7/2009 12:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
Not talking about the diesel here but I've actually been comparing the Volkswagen GTI to the A3 and with comparible equipment they cost about the same. I actually think the Audi though has the nicer interior among upgrades.


RE: Diesel wins?
By The0ne on 12/7/2009 12:11:19 PM , Rating: 1
But if hardly anyone buys one then where's the saving in anything? I see many state CNG vehicles and many OLD diesel cars running but rarely any newer tech diesel vehicles on the road, and I drive/cruise quite often everywhere, not to mention looking at every car I see on the road :)


RE: Diesel wins?
By The0ne on 12/7/2009 12:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
actually misread your comments lol. Was a rough morning, sorry ^^


RE: Diesel wins?
By elgueroloco on 12/9/2009 2:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, cars do have a positive impact on the environment. Imagine if every car on the road were replaced by 1 or more horses or oxen. Think what that would do to the environment, food prices, etc. Cars are a much cleaner way to go.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki