backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 68 comment(s) - last by evident.. on Nov 15 at 2:09 PM

Fisker Hybrid Premium Sports Sedan   (Source: Fisker Automotive)
Fisker promises a driving range of 680 miles with its new hybrid

Up until this point in time, production hybrid cars have been homely-looking (Camry, Civic) to downright hideous in the eyes of some people (Prius, Insight). Fisker Automotive is looking to add a dash of style to the hybrid realm with its new Hybrid Premium Sports Sedan (HPSS).

The sedan was penned by famed automotive design Henrik Fisker whose credits include the gorgeous BMW Z8, Aston Martin DB9 and Aston Martin V8 Vantage. The equally impressive HPSS looks somewhat like a cross between a 2009 Chevrolet Camaro (rear 3/4 view) and a 2007 Maserati GranTurismo (front).

"The sleek design accentuating the long hood is a direct result of our breakthrough chassis which carries the battery pack at the center of the vehicle between the two axles," remarked Henrik Fisker, CEO of Fisker Automotive. "This positioning provides optimal vehicle driving dynamics, maximum safety, proportionate design as well as industry standard performance figures within this car class."

Fisker provided no details on specific powertrain details, but did note that the HPSS will be a plug-in hybrid with a battery-only range of 50 miles. When used in conjunction with a gasoline or diesel engine, the range jumps to an impressive (and very optimistic) 620 miles. The resulting fuel economy is estimated to approach 100 MPG.

Given the rakish looks of the HPSS, one would expect a potent internal combustion engine to be paired to the hybrid system, but the fuel economy numbers provided by Fisker suggest a more meager engine.

Fisker's HPSS will debut at the Detroit Auto Show in January 2009, while deliveries are expected to commence in Q4 2009. Annual production of the HPSS is expected to reach 15,000 while each car will set you back roughly $80,000 USD.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Why?
By Spivonious on 10/31/2007 2:02:34 PM , Rating: 5
People who feel comfortable plunking down $80k for a car probably don't really care about fuel economy.

Why doesn't someone make a 100mpg car that costs under $15k?




RE: Why?
By ButterFlyEffect78 on 10/31/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By Alexstarfire on 10/31/2007 3:09:23 PM , Rating: 3
Except that people define slow in a really funny way. Apparently if a car can't do more than 100 MPH then it's slow. I'll never understand that since you can't legally go 100 MPH anyways. I do see the problem with a lower top speed though, and that's slower acceleration. I'm not sure about you guys, but I don't put the petal to the metal when I accelerate. That means that there is still plenty of acceleration left if I need it. This is usually the biggest problem with the cars that get good gas mileage. I think that if the acceleration were higher and nothing else, that people would buy the car, provided they like how it looks.

A $15k 100 MPG car is quit attainable, but it'd be quite small. Probably smaller than the Insight, which is pretty small already. Of course, a smart person once said "It only satisfies 95% of the population" so it'll never be accepted. I think it's a very good quote because it's really true, probably not 100% true, but very close.


RE: Why?
By TimberJon on 10/31/2007 3:48:39 PM , Rating: 1
a 3rd generation maxima GXE with a 3.0L SOHC V6 tears asphalt on the low end, but can barely get going once at speed. The same generation maxima SE which switches to a DOHC has no low end power and all high-end.

Having a higher HP rating and a "higher top speed" means very little to the people who like to "go fast". We like torque and require more of it than HP if we can get it. Like you said, you cannot legally go 100+ MPH and so it becomes more important to smoke the ricer or poser in the honda with sheer low-end power for short sprints.

In southern california, that means red light to red light.
Give me a V6 or better, Minimum 1 turbo, and at least 30 more torque than HP at the wheels, with a minimum of 240 HP at the crank with no more than 3200 lbs total vehicle weight.


RE: Why?
By Hare on 10/31/2007 4:38:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
so it becomes more important to smoke the ricer or poser in the honda

I see...

Maybe you should just grow up? ;)


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 11/1/2007 11:08:54 AM , Rating: 3
Where's the fun in that?


RE: Why?
By Tsuwamono on 11/2/2007 8:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
I guess i should have thought about that before buying a skyline...

I guess ill go sell it and buy a civic...

</sarcasm>


RE: Why?
By Assimilator87 on 10/31/2007 11:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you want a V6 or better when everyone knows that you get better torque distribution with less cylinders? I want to see a 10L V twin car.


RE: Why?
By lagomorpha on 11/1/2007 12:55:28 AM , Rating: 2
I'd love to see the balance shafts needed to keep a Vtwin that size from shaking violently enough to free itself from its mounts or the car from the road. (Yes similar silly things have been done and it is possible) That being said much of the superior torque characteristics that come from having fewer cylinders are actually a result of having lesser valve area and therefor a higher velocity of incoming air at lower RPM. You can do even more for torque distribution by increasing the stroke or doing clever things with the valve lift or number of intake valves operating at lower rpm. It might not give you the nice "thump-thump" of a fine Italian motorcycle but it also won't vibrate you to death.


RE: Why?
By mindless1 on 11/1/2007 10:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
True, but the green-minded folks who want these are not going to want the perpetual maintenance seen with engines tweaked to get every last ft/lb out of them. For this car, a 6 cylinder would be surprising but reasonable, and a 4 cylinder expected.

Ultimately, people just need to stop thinking of their car as an ePenis. The only reason they think it needs to do 0-100 in 2 seconds is because something else can, but the whole reason that something else can is because it isn't trying to achieve such high MPG. If ALL cars were just optimized towards higher efficiency, we'd still have the crowd who felt elite driving something that did 0-100 in a /mere/ 15 seconds as all they really need is to be faster than the other guy.

Then one day they grow up and just want a comfortable car that corners well, realizing that you'll get to the other stop light and have to sit and wait either way, being the first one to it is just mindless.


RE: Why?
By theapparition on 11/1/2007 10:20:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Give me a V6 or better, Minimum 1 turbo, and at least 30 more torque than HP at the wheels, with a minimum of 240 HP at the crank with no more than 3200 lbs total vehicle weight.

Turbos love higher RPM's, they don't work well at low rpm's.
You want 30ftlbs more torque than HP. HP = Torque * RPM/5250. So HP always equals torque at 5250RPM. To get more torque than hp, the engine would have to have a max redline of 4666RPM. I don't know any engine that redlines that low. So your saying you want a low reving engine with a turbo??? Sounds like turbo diesel in your future.

I understand where your coming from though. Torque is a better metric for daily driving than hp. The problem is, if the engine is designed for maximum power in the low RPM bands, you also hurt fuel economy. The problem comes down to power, economy and emissions. You can't have all three at once. And the primary focus of automakers, still above all others, is emissions.

quote:
it becomes more important to smoke the ricer or poser in the Honda with sheer low-end power for short sprints.

I constantly remind myself to "take-it-to-the-track". As an owner of several very high hp cars, professional driving training, and racing in various HPDE roadcourses, it only takes someone stupid in the next lane to end your life, theirs or some bystanders. Do your thing, and don't worry about the idiots in the next lane.


RE: Why?
By DerwenArtos12 on 11/1/2007 3:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
Turbos love higher RPM's, they don't work well at low rpm's.
You want 30ftlbs more torque than HP. HP = Torque * RPM/5250. So HP always equals torque at 5250RPM. To get more torque than hp, the engine would have to have a max redline of 4666RPM. I don't know any engine that redlines that low. So your saying you want a low reving engine with a turbo??? Sounds like turbo diesel in your future.

Not necessarily true about the turbo's for one. It depends a lot on the size of the turbo and the size of the engine predominantly. A turbo with a big turbine and a small compressor will spool very slowly but, make big boost on a smaller engine up high. If you reverse that, a big compressor and a small turbine will spool very quickly and make big boost fast but, will overboost your engine if you're not careful or, if sized properly will just run out of boost.

Also, your statement about calculating torque is true but, with a dual plane intake or a properly tuned runner length and diameter, it's very easy to build an engine that peaks at 5500 - 6000rpm that has more torque than horsepower, it just depends on how rapidly torque curve falls off after it's peak.


RE: Why?
By theapparition on 11/2/2007 12:39:13 AM , Rating: 2
True with the sized turbos, but even smaller ones need appropriate exhaust velocity to spool, hence the ole' turbo lag.
quote:
Also, your statement about calculating torque is true but, with a dual plane intake or a properly tuned runner length and diameter, it's very easy to build an engine that peaks at 5500 - 6000rpm that has more torque than horsepower, it just depends on how rapidly torque curve falls off after it's peak.

It is impossible to have an engine with a RPM over 5250 to have torque exceed hp at that RPM. No amount of engine design can change the basic equation.

Yes, you can have a very early torque peak, that falls off where HP peaks higher up. Most pushrod engines fall into this catagory, producing a lot of low end torque. The LS1 had 10ftlbs more peak torque than peak hp.

I mistook the OP's request as peak torque and hp at the same RPM.


RE: Why?
By rbuszka on 11/1/2007 8:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well if torque's your goal, you've got no better friend than the electric motor. The reason the Tesla roadster has such insane acceleration is because it takes advantage of the performance characteristics of a motor instead of a gas engine. A smaller motor could be used to bring the performance more in line with today's V6 sedans.


RE: Why?
By evident on 11/15/2007 2:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
you forget about times when accelerating and flooring it may be necessary to get out of a precarious situation, like maneuvering away from a deer or just even going from a ramp onto a highway. if you don't floor it when there's alot of traffic you may cause a pileup or maybe worse


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 10/31/2007 2:16:21 PM , Rating: 5
Because it would be made of Legos, run on crushed hopes and dreams, and no one would buy it.

Seriously though, the tech isn't cheap.


RE: Why?
By Spivonious on 10/31/2007 4:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
run on crushed hopes and dreams


LOL!


RE: Why?
By zombiexl on 10/31/2007 2:40:04 PM , Rating: 5
Its hard to feel smug while driving a 15k car.


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 10/31/2007 4:02:38 PM , Rating: 5
But you could still fart into a wine glass and sniff it.


RE: Why?
By ZimZum on 10/31/07, Rating: 0
RE: Why?
By wien on 10/31/2007 3:35:10 PM , Rating: 5
Oh they don't drive them. They only have one so they can go in talk shows saying they own a hybrid. They've got expensive German and Italian cars to do the driving.


RE: Why?
By Samus on 10/31/2007 5:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
Right, famous (associating with wealthy) people don't care about their MPG because they're concious about spending money...they just have so much money that they're looking for other 'hobbies' because they don't really need to 'work' anymore.

That's why most of them are environmentalists.


RE: Why?
By theapparition on 11/1/2007 10:27:06 AM , Rating: 3
And when that's the only car they own, and they start taking public transportation, and they eschew such luxories as boating trips on yachts that can empty 1000s of gallons a day, or private jet flights, and box up the leftover $5,000 a day catered set food and send it to the needy, then maybe I'll give a rats ass what they do.

Other than that, it's just for show.


RE: Why?
By Oregonian2 on 10/31/2007 3:34:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
People who feel comfortable plunking down $80k for a car probably don't really care about fuel economy.


Sure they do. Reason for buying such cars is NOT for saving money on fuel. It's to look good and show how much you so sincerely care about this world we live in together. Its a fashion statement.


RE: Why?
By S3anister on 10/31/2007 6:19:59 PM , Rating: 3
It's not so much a fashion statement, as it is a symbol of one's status.


RE: Why?
By Oregonian2 on 11/1/2007 2:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
Which is what fashion statements are. :-)


RE: Why?
By zaki on 10/31/2007 4:14:06 PM , Rating: 1
Why dont people with ^ this sort of opinion realize that we should be encouraging good/better fuel economy in all cars. Just because somebody is rich enough to spend 80k on a car doesnt mean he or she doesnt care about the environment. Automobile companies are banking on the idea that people dont just care about money, and somethings are just not about the money.
So for the environment's sake we need to stop having such a cheap ass view about fuel economy. If it costs money..then so be it. Hell its the rich people who have no excuse for driving gas cars, because they have enough resources to invest into a hybrid/electric car.


RE: Why?
By ninjit on 10/31/2007 7:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think the reasoning is 2-fold, publicity and margins.

With a high-end hybrid like this, that costs an arm and a leg, they get lots of publicity (like this news bit), and lots of rich people with gobs of disposable income interested.
As a low-volume product, the components will be expensive too.
And despite all that, they can mark-it up as much as they like, and people will still buy it - so they can start turning a profit quickly.

But after it sells, and they have a more established manufacturing chain, the cost of components will drop, and they can look at introducing cheaper, higher-volume vehicles.

This is also what Tesla is aiming for with their $100k roadster - and they already have a much cheaper electric sedan penned up and are well on their way to building their own factory for it (the roadster is being built by Lotus on their behalf).

As with any new-tech, it takes a while for it trickle down to mainstream at affordable prices. E.g. Fuel-injection, air-bags, cruise-control, etc. etc.

What we just saw nVidia do with the G92 is a perfect example of that.


RE: Why?
By smitty3268 on 10/31/2007 7:29:52 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree, they're exactly the sort of people who do care. Not because they need to save money on gas, but because it's a status symbol. The people driving $15k cars are the ones who don't care whether it's a hybrid or not, they just want to save money.


Do these numbers make sense
By govijay on 10/31/2007 3:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
With a range of 620 miles and at 100 mpg are we talking about a 7 gallon gas tank. Or is the 100 mpg just a marketing joke.




RE: Do these numbers make sense
By Verran on 10/31/2007 3:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
Whenever you're talking about a "plug-in" application, the MPG figures are always some variation of BS. That is clearly the case here.

I think plug-in technology is awesome, buy trying to mix "mpg" ratings with wall power just makes for very misleading figures.


RE: Do these numbers make sense
By tdawg on 10/31/2007 4:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
If it gets 100mpg without ever plugging it in, then the measurement would be valid, since the only fuel put into the system is gasoline. You wouldn't have to worry about accounting for the electricity costs of charging it up thru the wall outlet in your garage.


RE: Do these numbers make sense
By Fisker on 10/31/2007 11:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
The reason I believe in the plug-in hybrid for the future is: most people drive less than 50 miles per day for their daily commute, this means you drive emission free every day in your local environment. You only fill up the car when you drive longer distances. The advantage is not only environmental, but also that we reduce the need for importation of oil! it is cheaper to drive of the electricity from your wall, and hopefully we can generate cleaner electricity in the future in the country where we use it. We are creating a premium car with a new expensive technology, there are other mass market car companies that can address the low end mass market. I love cars and I want to find a way to keep them, with the least damage to the environment. Who said 'green cars have to be small and 'odd' looking? I still want to drive a good looking fast car, and it should be 'green'!!


RE: Do these numbers make sense
By 9nails on 11/1/2007 1:21:58 AM , Rating: 2
Right, except electricity is made from oil!

The electric company burns fuel to make steam to power turbines which spin and generate electricity. So, charging you car at night just shifts the blame of who's polluting the environment, it doesn't help to clean the air at all. And it doesn't change the need for importing oils.

It's still better just to convert your diesel car to to run on veggie oils instead of dinosaur oils.

If your house is solar powered and you store the day's energy in batteries, then you have a good argument. (Just thinking to myself: A solar power/battery storage setup as such would run at about the same cost as this car.)


RE: Do these numbers make sense
By Verran on 11/1/2007 1:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
This is an INCREDIBLY shallow way to view the situation.

Yes, the power company still burns oil (or coal) to make the power that charges your car. But just because the two processes use the same fuel doesn't mean they work on the same efficiency scale. The process the electric company uses is WAY more efficient than the internal combustion engine in your car because of sheer volume and the fact that it doesn't need to be portable. Wall power is significantly "cleaner" than a car burning gas.

People who say "well you're still burning oil, so what's the point?" just show how little they understand the concept. They just want to bash it because they don't like hybrids.


By Hoser McMoose on 11/1/2007 4:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Right, except electricity is made from oil!

Less than 10% of electricity in the U.S. is made from oil. 50% comes from coal, ~17% from nukes, about 17% from natural gas, 7% from hydro, 1% from "renewables" and the remaining 8% or so from oil.

So yes using electricity DOES reduce oil usage.

quote:
it doesn't help to clean the air at all.

Actually it does. Even if the electricity is coming from oil, the efficiency at an electrical power plant of turning that oil into useful energy is so much higher that even when its passed through the power grid, charged into batteries, stored, discharged, pumped through electrical motors and finally used to drive the wheels it's STILL more efficient than an internal combustion engine in a car.

quote:
If your house is solar powered and you store the day's energy in batteries, then you have a good argument.

No real need to store the solar energy in batteries, just pump it onto the grid during the day (when power requirements are near their peak) and take back from the grid at night during off-peak hours. This is actually BETTER for the environment (not only no batteries, but also less of the peaking generating capacity, which tends to be the most environmentally damaging stuff) and cheaper to boot.


RE: Do these numbers make sense
By Cullinaire on 11/2/2007 3:11:32 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you Mr. Fisker. I couldn't have said it better than the founder himself.


Masserati?
By iFX on 10/31/2007 1:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like a Masserati? sedan.




RE: Masserati?
By mjcutri on 10/31/2007 2:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
I think the front grill actually resembles BMW's grill design on recent concepts.

http://www.uncrate.com/men/cars/concept/bmw-concep...


RE: Masserati?
By Hare on 10/31/2007 4:41:12 PM , Rating: 3
I also thought about BMW as soon as I saw this car. Btw, nice link. That car looks awesome. Makes my 3-series sedan look like a wheelbarrow.


RE: Masserati?
By Chris Peredun on 10/31/2007 2:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'd liken it more to an Aston Martin that got stepped on rather harshly.


RE: Masserati?
By wien on 10/31/2007 3:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
So a Jaguar XK then?


RE: Masserati?
By Gul Westfale on 10/31/2007 11:19:14 PM , Rating: 2
well fisker worked at aston before leaving to form his own company. the company's first two models are simply rebodied mercedes SL and BMW 6 series cars, and they do resemble astons quite a lot as well (especially teh grille).


RE: Masserati?
By StillPimpin on 10/31/2007 2:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
You must have written that before reading the...

quote:
The equally impressive HPSS looks somewhat like a cross between a 2009 Chevrolet Camaro (rear 3/4 view) and a 2007 Maserati GranTurismo (front).


part.


RE: Masserati?
By iFX on 10/31/07, Rating: -1
RE: Masserati?
By omnicronx on 10/31/07, Rating: -1
Oh yeah
By Polynikes on 10/31/2007 2:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
This is how you get people interested in hybrids. Electric motors have nearly instantaneous torque. :D




RE: Oh yeah
By FITCamaro on 10/31/2007 2:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but the problem is what to do after you get above 30 mph. Their power falls off the higher you go. Thats why you need a stout gas engine in it. Once you hit 2nd gear, you're already above the good rpm range of an electric motor.

My question with this thing, with what kind of gas engine did they hit 100 mpg? A 1.5L 3 cylinder or a decent V6? Hell even a turbocharged diesel 4 banger wouldn't be bad.

Regardless, at $80,000, its not going to sell to anyone but rich celebrities and other rich people who want to feel good about themselves while living in a million dollar home that burns as much electricity as Al Gore's house.


RE: Oh yeah
By Spuke on 11/1/2007 12:32:56 AM , Rating: 1
Not all million dollar homes are energy whores like Gore's place. Most of those homes at least attempt to be somewhat efficient. But not all million dollar homes are equal. Some are a million dollars just because they're located in a highly desirable, very expensive area not necessarily because they are 8000 sq ft plus monsters with Travertine toilets. Seriously, there are some neighborhoods out here in CA that look typically middle class, nothing special about the homes, but the entry price is $900k plus.


RE: Oh yeah
By degeester on 11/1/2007 12:36:37 AM , Rating: 2
I believe there is a market for this car. The flagship Lexus sedan LS400h is a hybrid but sells for close to 100K. The equivalent gasoline powered Mercedes S class or BMW 6 series are similarly priced. From just the picture Fisker's car is better looking and priced competitively with other luxury sedans.

Look, cash in about 115 shares of Google and you could have this car.


RE: Oh yeah
By FITCamaro on 11/1/2007 10:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
If I had 115 shares of Google to cash in and buy something, it wouldn't be this car. If I had to buy a car, it'd be a far cheaper Vette and then I might take a vacation for a few months.


RE: Oh yeah
By Hoser McMoose on 11/1/2007 6:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you're already above the good rpm range of an electric motor.


Uhh, the electric motor used in the Telsa electric car has a max. RPM of 13,500 and the power is totally usable throughout its entire range. Other electric motors reach 20,000 or 30,000rpm. This is why you can often get by with MUCH simpler gearing and transmission with an electric drive vs. an ICE drive, usually just one or two gear ratios are all that is required.

If an electric motor in a car is toping out at 30mph then that is by design of the gearing, not due to any limitation of the motor. This is likely the case with cars like the Prius where the small electric motors are really only to help with stop and go traffic.


Dirt?
By UppityMatt on 10/31/2007 2:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
Id beat someones a$$ if that was my car and they were driving it on the dirt. Anyways it looks pretty stylish, and i must say one of the few hybrids i like. Too bad the other car companies cant figure out how to merge style and economy. Just my humble opinion




RE: Dirt?
By peter7921 on 10/31/2007 2:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree that is a beautiful car. It is definately a hybrid that will turn a few heads. Hell I want it just for the looks!


RE: Dirt?
By Souka on 10/31/2007 3:39:37 PM , Rating: 1
same here

Also, wouldn't it be nice to pull up to a Prisus at a red-light and ask... "hey, what kinda mileage do you get?" They reply with somehting like "50mpg, way better than your sports car".

You say, "nope sorry dude, I'm getting 100mpg and ain't driving an eggshell car like yours..." When light turns green, you peel out while laughing....leaving the humble prisus owner crying...

My $.02 of dribble....


RE: Dirt?
By SiliconAddict on 10/31/07, Rating: 0
RE: Dirt?
By Spuke on 11/1/2007 12:18:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its pricks like you who are the problem. Not Prius owners.
Prius owners prefer to keep their smugness to themselves.


RE: Dirt?
By FITCamaro on 11/1/2007 10:52:20 AM , Rating: 2
I think what he was trying to say was that the Prius owner wouldn't know you were in a hybrid. It looks like a sports car so they'd think it was some fuel guzzling sports car.


100mpg, Yeah Right
By mmntech on 10/31/2007 2:16:56 PM , Rating: 2
The Prius was originally estimated at 60mpg by the manufacturer but updated testing that reflects real world conditions only put it at 40-45mpg.

It looks good but the ultimate question is how it will perform to make it worth $80k. There are no hybrid card that I know of that can match the acceleration and top speeds of pure gasoline or pure electric vehicles. The problem with these "green" vehicles is the huge weight penalty involved in hybrid drives combined with underpowered motors. Though they use less gas, they're still less efficient in terms of power:weight.




RE: 100mpg, Yeah Right
By andrinoaa on 10/31/2007 4:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
These figures of 40-100mpg are meaningless without qualification - pure bulltish.
If you own a Prius and only drive short distances, you would use substantially less but on long distances you would hit the bottom of the range. DOH. This is ineffect no different to any other car except for the larger differences
in consumption between the extremes.
A plug in hybrid, on the other hand, means you can use extremely small quantities of fuel if your trips are short. So the problem becomes "how do we measure with any sort of relevance.


whatever.
By SiliconAddict on 10/31/2007 5:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
I like the Prius's design. Its not your typical vanilla, cookie cutter shape. It screams geek which I'm perfectly fine with considering I am one.




RE: whatever.
By Runiteshark on 10/31/2007 5:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
See "Honda Element" or the "Scion xB"


Nice looking Hybrid
By Bloodlust on 10/31/2007 2:58:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Up until this point in time, production hybrid cars have been homely-looking (Camry, Civic) to downright hideous in the eyes of some people (Prius, Insight).


QFT. Of all the hybrid cars I have seen, 90% were driven by women, usually the same type as the car - homely and/or hideous.

I'm glad that "green" technology can be integrated into something as nice looking as this car.




RE: Nice looking Hybrid
By mindless1 on 11/1/2007 10:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
As if there weren't a majority of homely hideous women (sorry, Bloodlust used these terms I am just repeating) driving something other than hybrids?

Let's make the distinction here, women who are looking to get noticed would drive a car that reflects that as well, given a choice in the matter, so I feel your observation is a bit backwards, it's not the hybrid that is the variable it is the sports car. For example I'd imagine far more homely or hideous women drive a Ford Tempo than a hybrid, but that doesn't make all Ford Tempo drivers fit this classification.


Oooooooo.
By lumbergeek on 10/31/2007 2:06:05 PM , Rating: 2
She looks like a pretty beastie. If they can pull off an impressive drivetrain and an interior like the DB9 with decent economy and long-lasting batteries she'll be a want-lister.

Different colour tho.




This reminds me...
By A5un on 10/31/2007 10:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
This reminds me of the GM commercials that's been going on for a while now. Yea, those that talk about the upcoming electrical cars when they haven't even been made yet.

In their pathetic effort to appear green, they've gone to advertising that they're planning on building an environmentally safe car. What most annoyed me is that they even gone to recruit kids in the "commercial." All meanwhile people drive down the street in their GMC SUV's in stop and go traffic burning more gas than the two compact sedans just in front of it. How is it that GM can pull this off, advertising to be "green" when they clearly aren't at the moment?

As for this hybrid, well, it looks just as bad as the Prius if you ask me.




Economy
By Fnoob on 10/31/2007 11:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
I truly believe that if the public truly demanded a 100mpg car, it could have been accomplished by now using internal combustion. I still own a '64 VW Microbus that, when running on the stock ~1400cc motor gets ~45mpg. No it doesn't go 155mph, but it does have far more torque than HP - and a very rewarding, connected road feel. You can steer around corners with the throttle. Fantastic. When outfitted with the Porsche I-6 that's in it now... good times. Still gets 30mpg.




approach 100 MPG
By kyleb2112 on 11/2/2007 5:40:25 AM , Rating: 2
"...fuel economy is estimated to approach 100 MPG."

It's the kind of quote that demands tough Lisa Simpson questions:

Newspaper Tour Guide: "And each paper contains a certain percentage of recycled paper."
Lisa Simpson: "What percentage is that?"
Newspaper Tour Guide: "Zero. Zero is a percent, isn't it?"




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki