backtop


Print 87 comment(s) - last by tastyratz.. on Jul 15 at 12:35 PM

An electric version of the car will follow

A former Formula One engineer has developed an ultra-compact city car, called the T.25, that is even smaller than a Smart car and averages about 74 mpg. The T.25 was designed by Gordon Murray and his team in Shalford, south east England. It took them three years to complete the design, and many features on the tiny vehicle reflect those used on one of the most famous “supercars” ever built: the McLaren F1

Murray's T.25 has a top speed of 80 mph, s only four-feet-wide by eight-feet-long, and has a turning radius of six feet. The vehicle features a central driving position and central instrumentation/controls, much like the McLaren F1, and offers a customizable interior that can set up six different ways to either seat two people in the rear or use it for cargo space.

Weighing in at only 550 kilograms (1,200 pounds), the T.25 is an easily maneuverable car that was developed with Formula One technology, materials, and philosophy, which makes the vehicle parts easy to replace in case of an accident. Also, the side mirrors are placed within the overall width of the car making it more difficult to lose them, and the fuel caps are on both sides of the vehicle for convenience. The sale price for a T.25 is set at $9,000.

In addition to the T.25, Murray has also developed two other new concepts: the T.27 and iStream. The T.27 is the T.25's electric relative with a range of 80-100 miles and has a price tag of $18,000. Currently, this is the only information available on this model.

According to Murray, iStream completely changes the way the manufacturing process is designed by simplifying the auto assembly line. The iStream will "allow all major components to be fitted directly on to the chassis prior to the body panels," which are pre-painted as well, and this streamlining could ultimately lead to smaller and more efficient auto plants that will reduce carbon emissions with the vehicles they're producing. 

The iStream was analyzed by Holger Erker, managing director of the German engineering consultancy IPE Engineering, and showed plenty of interest in the new idea.

"It is the most radical change in, let's say, the last 100 years of car body making," Erker said. "With iStream, one of the most cost intensive production steps -- body panel press shop -- is completely eliminated." 

Murray worked as a Formula One designer from 1969-2006. In 2007, he opened the Gordon Murray Design consultancy. He won the "Idea of the Year" award in November 2008 at Autocar Magazine's annual awards ceremony for his proposed manufacturing process (iStream) for the T.25.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Conversion?
By Spivonious on 7/12/2010 8:14:15 AM , Rating: 3
Since this was designed in the UK, I'm assuming the mileage is in miles/imperial gallon. Converting to US gallons makes it 61.6mpg, which considering the size of the car and engine, is really poor.

Also, we all know that UK MPG testing results in higher numbers than US MPG testing, so the car probably is more like 50-55mpg.




RE: Conversion?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/12/2010 8:18:37 AM , Rating: 5
To expand on your post, I looked up the U.S. mpg figures for the Smart; the damn thing is only rated at 33/41 (city/highway)

I don't know about you guys, but that seems awfully pathetic for a car of that size.


RE: Conversion?
By Runiteshark on 7/12/2010 8:28:24 AM , Rating: 3
I also believe this car is coated with carbon fiber bits, which clearly would not be on a production cheapy car.

Smart cars are retarded. Anyone who gets one over a Yaris, Fit, or Versa is a goddamn moron.


RE: Conversion?
By quiksilvr on 7/12/2010 9:04:48 AM , Rating: 3
Especially when you look at the price tag. The Yaris Sedan is CHEAPER. o_O


RE: Conversion?
By nOpeMan on 7/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Conversion?
By quiksilvr on 7/12/2010 1:03:07 PM , Rating: 4
They have been both out for over 10 years. They Yaris was originally sold as the Platz (Echo in the US) back in 2000. In 2006, it was renamed to Yaris.

Do you research before you troll.


RE: Conversion?
By MrWho on 7/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Conversion?
By BladeVenom on 7/12/2010 11:13:12 AM , Rating: 5
That accounts for it being overpriced.


RE: Conversion?
By BryX on 7/12/2010 12:59:35 PM , Rating: 3
So brand loyalty means something more then empirical testing or design analysis? As if...0_o

And if it were made by Apple and sported an iPod wheel instead of a conventional steering wheel would you buy it because by defacto Apple marketing it would be 'the best car yet'?

Your sir, are ridiculous.


RE: Conversion?
By BryX on 7/12/2010 1:04:00 PM , Rating: 4
And when the touch wheel fails, I don't think 'holding it different' is going to help.


RE: Conversion?
By MrWho on 7/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Conversion?
By sebmel on 7/12/2010 2:45:39 PM , Rating: 1
It is reasonable of you to suggest that the Merc brand ought to be say something... unfortunately that reputation was established some time ago and they haven't maintained it. The Japanese have set higher standards of reliability for quite some time.

Some Merc cars have poor reputations... I liked the packaging of the A-class... without all but the driver's seat you had a van that could park in a tiny space... it was shorter than the Ford Ka. Servicing costs and reliability aren't good.

The Yaris, on the other hand is a great little car and will give you 55mpg easily, if you aren't heavy footed. The down side, however is their crash worthiness. Take a look at what happens to a Yaris in a higher speed crash:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcTf78b8WfY


RE: Conversion?
By tastyratz on 7/12/2010 4:13:18 PM , Rating: 3
Smart car applies in specialty application and should be treated as such. Anyone who gets one is not getting it purely for gas mileage which is good but not great even if its a marketing point.

Their size lends them incredible maneuverability in a metropolitan setting. If I lived in Boston a smart car might make a lot of sense - even if it didn't get record breaking gas mileage.

And now this car? Makes more sense.

To expand on this article: The car performs this feat with an inline 3 cylinder engine that has 51hp. Before crying about the engine output remember its weight. Power to weight ratios are inline with many economy sedans with more than double the hp and double the weight...


RE: Conversion?
By Spuke on 7/12/2010 4:45:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Their size lends them incredible maneuverability in a metropolitan setting.
The ability to cut people off in traffic has never been a priority with me. LOL! Other than that, a Ford Fusion Hybrid (41 city/36 hwy) is a far more practical car that actually fits humans in it.


RE: Conversion?
By tastyratz on 7/13/2010 11:20:06 AM , Rating: 2
Narrow spaces, tight parking lots, cramped traffic - a lot more than "cutting off"

I would imagine Roseanne would have a harder time navigating a crowded hallway over Anna Farris. Same principle.

quote:
a far more practical car that actually fits overweight Americans in it.


Fixed.

The smart car again is dimensionally suited to special audiences. If you don't fit in a smart car maybe you should fit in a diet program.
If it doesn't fit your needs or lifestyle then maybe you should buy a car that does.


RE: Conversion?
By Spuke on 7/13/2010 2:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Narrow spaces, tight parking lots, cramped traffic - a lot more than "cutting off"
Still doesn't explain the need for a narrow car. If you're not driving on the sidewalk, any car made has plenty of room to maneuver. Driving faster than the prevailing traffic is not only stupid, it's dangerous. Maybe you should get a used car and spend the difference on stress management classes.

quote:
a far more practical car that actually fits overweight Americans in it.
Ah. Ye ole fat American insult. It seems you Europeans aren't too far behind. I direct your attention to the following links:

http://www.obesityday.eu/

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and...

Maybe you should take a humility class while you're at it too.


RE: Conversion?
By tastyratz on 7/15/2010 12:35:59 PM , Rating: 3
Heh,
I'm an American actually. Call it inside intel but I see a lot of fat people around. Hope I didn't let out our dirty little secret.


RE: Conversion?
By Fourth Liver on 7/13/2010 12:59:11 AM , Rating: 2
Smarts weren't specifically designed to compete with the yaris, fit, etc.

It's a tiny sports car that happens to get reasonable gas mileage. I've driven one, it's fun as hell. My friend Chris could have bought (almost) any car in the world. It was between a Smart and an Exige, but he bought a smart. He also has a Quattroporte and a Countach.

It comes standard with a sequential manumatic tranny, stiff suspension, and racing seats. They designed it to have room for a turbo.

Smarts are not the poor man's subcompact; they are sportscars.


RE: Conversion?
By theapparition on 7/12/2010 9:53:25 AM , Rating: 3
Once this thing gets fitted with all the required safety hardware, and additional ammenites that American consumers demand, I think you'll find that it gets awefully close to the Smarts efficiency.

But yes, it makes no sense that a Jetta can get better fuel economy than a Smart.


RE: Conversion?
By AssBall on 7/12/2010 10:10:49 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I wondered about that, too.

quote:
which makes the vehicle parts easy to replace in case of an accident


Oh yeah, except for the driver...


RE: Conversion?
By Spuke on 7/12/2010 2:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To expand on your post, I looked up the U.S. mpg figures for the Smart; the damn thing is only rated at 33/41 (city/highway)
That's just retarded. Doesn't the Fusion Hybrid get the same mileage?


RE: Conversion?
By muhahaaha on 7/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Conversion?
By SLeeeper on 7/13/2010 2:17:04 AM , Rating: 2
It has been years since any car company has been serious about MPG. After the 1973 OPEC embargo, the US government got involved. Here is a list of cars we used to have available:
http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/08/super-cheap-hi...


RE: Conversion?
By B3an on 7/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Conversion?
By rikulus on 7/12/2010 8:41:25 AM , Rating: 3
yes


RE: Conversion?
By Fracture on 7/12/2010 8:41:44 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. That means the car is consuming MORE US gallons per mile, making it a less efficient MPG.


RE: Conversion?
By chrisld on 7/12/2010 9:11:22 AM , Rating: 2
The VW Bluemotions get the same or better mpg but are real sized cars.

What is all this hype over hybrids that get worse mpg than the VW diesel and now this matchbox on wheels?

Something is only good if it's better than what's already out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlueMotion

(no connection to VW)


RE: Conversion?
By Jeffk464 on 7/12/2010 12:22:59 PM , Rating: 1
VW is coming out with a cool looking coupe with the 2.0 turbo diesel. Sporty, good looks, and was supposed to be about 65mpg.


RE: Conversion?
By Jeffk464 on 7/12/2010 12:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
Ah common, why cant they ever get their streamlining from being low and sleek like a sports car? Why do they have to be skinny and dorky looking?


RE: Conversion?
By Spuke on 7/12/2010 2:53:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ah common, why cant they ever get their streamlining from being low and sleek like a sports car? Why do they have to be skinny and dorky looking?
Because low and sleek is the old, busted jawn. Skinny and dorky is the new hotness.


MPG is misleading
By Awax on 7/12/2010 7:57:00 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.mpgillusion.com/
Please use GP(100)M : 1.35 GPM for 74MPG.

Or better : use the f*cking metric system ! Only US, Liberia and Myanmar don't use it !
74 MPG is then 3.18 l/100km.




RE: MPG is misleading
By PorreKaj on 7/12/2010 8:00:21 AM , Rating: 1
or 31km/l

i allways found the xxL/100km misleading. km/l is the better.

But DT is a US site :P so fuckit. use Google Chrome and write 74mpg in the address bar. it will calc it to km/l without leaving the site


RE: MPG is misleading
By Spivonious on 7/12/2010 8:05:59 AM , Rating: 3
What difference does it make? Does your speedometer also say hours per 100 miles?

I do have a question for the author: Is this UK MPG or US MPG?


RE: MPG is misleading
By 91TTZ on 7/12/2010 9:48:01 AM , Rating: 2
MPG is not misleading in any way. There is no reason to use the system you linked to since it doesn't offer anything new.

From the site:

25.0 MPG = 400 GP10K
50.0 MPG = 200 GP10K

How is stating the mileage in this way better? It's saying the same thing. If you double the mpg, the gallons per K is reduced by half. How is this an improvement?


RE: MPG is misleading
By Yawgm0th on 7/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: MPG is misleading
By fic2 on 7/12/2010 2:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
So a 10% improvement (10mpg->11mpg) will save more money than a 33% improvement (30mpg->40mpg)? I don't know how you get that.


RE: MPG is misleading
By Solandri on 7/12/2010 3:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
This is why MPG is such a horrible way to measure fuel economy. Because people like you make seemingly logical conclusions which are just plain wrong. GPM or liters per 100 km is a much better way.

When you drive, you don't typically drive until you use a set amount of fuel. You drive until you've reached a destination, which is a fixed distance. MPG, with gallons in the denominator, yields a linear comparison scale for the same amount of fuel burned. It does not produce a linear comparison scale for same amount of miles driven. So when you compare 10 MPG to 40 MPG, to compare them over the same distance, you have to compare 1/MPG1 to 1/MPG2, which is beyond most people's intuition as your post clearly demonstrates.

Say your daily commute is 50 miles round trip. At 10 MPG you burn 5 gallons a day. At 11 MPG you burn 4.54 gallons a day, for a net savings of 0.46 gallons a day.

At 30 MPG you burn 1.67 gallons a day. At 40 MPG you burn 1.25 gallons a day, for a net savings of only 0.42 gallons a day. So yes, your 33% improvement saves less money than the 10% improvement.

Essentially, using MPG instead of GPM means you downplay the amount of fuel wasted by low MPG vehicles, and exaggerate the amount of fuel saved by high MPG vehicles. If you list the above vehicles in GPM (or GP100M), then it's plainly obvious that the savings from the higher fuel consumption vehicle is better:

First case: 10 GP100M -> 9.09 GP100M
Second case: 3.33 GP100M -> 2.5 GP100M

So if both vehicles are driven 100 miles, you can plainly see that the first upgrade saves you more fuel than the second upgrade, even though as a percentage the second upgrade is much bigger. The primary consequence of this is that we shouldn't be concentrating on improving the mileage of econoboxes. We should be concentrating on improving the mileage of the trucks hauling stuff on our freeways, and getting single-occupant commuters to switch from SUVs to econoboxes.


RE: MPG is misleading
By Spuke on 7/12/2010 3:46:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We should be concentrating on improving the mileage of the trucks hauling stuff on our freeways, and getting single-occupant commuters to switch from SUVs to econoboxes.
I agree but I will say that anyone that wants to drive a different car will have already done so. I don't believe in forcing people to do things against their will (not saying you do).


RE: MPG is misleading
By EricMartello on 7/12/2010 4:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Say your daily commute is 50 miles round trip. At 10 MPG you burn 5 gallons a day. At 11 MPG you burn 4.54 gallons a day, for a net savings of 0.46 gallons a day.

At 30 MPG you burn 1.67 gallons a day. At 40 MPG you burn 1.25 gallons a day, for a net savings of only 0.42 gallons a day. So yes, your 33% improvement saves less money than the 10% improvement.


50 mile round trip
--------------------
10 MPG = 5 gallons
11 MPG = 4.55 gallons
0.45 Gallons Saved = 9% Improvement

50 mile round trip
--------------------
30 MPG = 1.67 gallons
40 MPG = 1.25 gallons
0.42 Gallons Saved = 25% Improvement

It seems to be a simple case of diminishing returns...and while the financial difference between the two above examples is close to zero, the difference between 11 MPG and 40 MPG is quite substantial - you'd be able to complete 360% more 50 mile round trips at 40 MPG than you would at 11 MPG. The point being that MPG isn't necessarily downplaying or exaggerating anything one way or the other.

It's still a fairly linear comparison between 10 MPG and 40 MPG:

You're paying 4 times more with the 10 MPG car.

You're getting 4 times more range for the same quantity of fuel with the 40 MPG car.

Knowing the MPG allows you to estimate the range of the car, so if both had a 10 gallon tank the 10 MPG car could only go 100 miles while the 40 MPG car can do 400 miles.


RE: MPG is misleading
By Spuke on 7/12/2010 7:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're getting 4 times more range for the same quantity of fuel with the 40 MPG car.
Are you talking range per gallon or range per tank?

quote:
Knowing the MPG allows you to estimate the range of the car, so if both had a 10 gallon tank the 10 MPG car could only go 100 miles while the 40 MPG car can do 400 miles.
I see what you're saying and agree with diminishing returns but most fuel inefficient cars have larger gas tanks. You pay more to fill a larger tank but usually get more range.

Example:
My car: 28 mpg hwy per hand calculation, 13 gallon tank, 264 mile range
My truck: 19 mpg hwy per hand calculation, 29 gallon tank, 551 mile range

I compared hand calculations because there are no EPA figures for trucks over a certain weight.

Cost per tank for my car: CA 91 octane, $43
Cost per tank for my truck: CA diesel, $95

Notice that the cost of filling my truck is essentially the same as filling my car. I just do it less often (more upfront cost) in the truck. I would compare city driving but I have no city figures for my car (live and commute in rural area). Maybe someone can fill in that gap with their own figures.


RE: MPG is misleading
By Fritzr on 7/13/2010 1:44:58 AM , Rating: 2
Using the DOE national average prices posted 7.12.2010
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp
Gasoline $2.718 USGal
Diesel $2.903 USGal

Car=$13.384 per 100 miles
Truck=$15.279 per 100 miles

So the almost 20 cents extra and 9 mpg less in fueling the truck is less than a 2 cent per mile difference ... hmmm really need to run the numbers when comparing the mileage rating and purchase cost differences.


RE: MPG is misleading
By Spuke on 7/13/2010 2:32:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
mmm really need to run the numbers when comparing the mileage rating and purchase cost differences.
I would appreciate that. Thanks. I really expected a huge difference. Unless my numbers are off or I'm leaving something out.


RE: MPG is misleading
By DominionSeraph on 7/15/2010 9:26:11 AM , Rating: 2
Gallons per mile is unwieldy. To figure out how many gallons over a trip you're looking at a large multiplication of a fraction, and gas is sold by the gallon not by the fractional gallon per mile.

Even to figure out the absolute dollar amount is a mess of a calculation where you have to plug in an exact number to start off with. With MPG you can just multiply by 1000 as in 30MPGx1000=30,000 miles = 1000 gallons x gas price (say $2.65)= cost over 30k miles. ($2,650) Easy calculation.

Compare to .033 gpm. What are you going to multiply this by? 50,000 gives you... uhhh... let's see... 15, plus 1 so 16, 5, move decimal over, uhhh... 5 places; but it's really 0.033333333 so that'd be.... 166666666666, but decimal goes where? I'd say 1666.666 gallons just becuase that looks right. Now multiply by gas @ $2.65/gal...
Right, like I'm gonna do that in my head.

MPG is still best because fuel costs are a significant portion of car ownership regardless of whether you have a truck that gets 15mpg or a car that gets 35, so the percentage reduction still tells you the percentage in felt costs. If we were talking about 300MPG cars it'd be a different story -- fuel costs can be ignored at that level.


Perfect car.....
By jabber on 7/12/2010 8:36:08 AM , Rating: 2
...for those of us that live 5 to 10 miles from our place of work that would take 10-20mins by car across town or 45mins+ if we took the bus.

As I live in a city and 5-6 miles from where I work, I would consider such a vehicle.

I drive a very small car at the moment and love the fact I can dart through gaps in traffic the twats in their BMW M5s and Range Rover Sports have to just dream about. Oh yeah they are more powerful but a lot slower across town.

Great fun.




RE: Perfect car.....
By BZDTemp on 7/12/2010 8:50:47 AM , Rating: 1
with 5-6 miles you should think about a bicycle. Cheap, fun, fast and god for your health.


RE: Perfect car.....
By Pessimism on 7/12/2010 9:24:42 AM , Rating: 5
Cycling to work is a pipe dream unless you live in a more forward thinking European country that has showers in large office buildings for this purpose. Noone wants to sit in the cube next to the dude who has been marinating in his own crack sweat for 6 hours. B.O. is disgusting.


RE: Perfect car.....
By Jeffk464 on 7/12/2010 2:19:27 PM , Rating: 3
6 miles on a bike is nothing, but yeah it sucks if the roads are not bike friendly or weather is bad. I can cruze at 12 mph on a bike without breaking a sweat, but I don't like the idea of some car turning me into road pizza.


RE: Perfect car.....
By EricMartello on 7/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Perfect car.....
By Spivonious on 7/12/2010 9:53:34 AM , Rating: 2
I'd love to, but I'd get run over by cars on the no-shoulder, speed limit 55mph road to work.


RE: Perfect car.....
By Yawgm0th on 7/12/2010 10:18:23 AM , Rating: 1
And oh-so-effective when there are 16 inches of snow on the ground...


RE: Perfect car.....
By jabber on 7/12/2010 3:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
No way. I'd love to in a 'perfect world' of flat roads, no rain and cool climate.

But the world aint perfect.

Cyclist = Roadkill in waiting!


RE: Perfect car.....
By Jeffk464 on 7/12/2010 7:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
Sucks, I love cycling. But I have learned to only go in places that seem safe for bikes, which never seems to be along a useful commute route. Kind of means its a hobby and not a useful way of getting around.


RE: Perfect car.....
By Drag0nFire on 7/12/2010 1:03:58 PM , Rating: 3
Is anyone else reminded of the Top Gear episode where Jeremy Clarkson drives the P50? It's hysterical...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOhjdFMJgvI


RE: Perfect car.....
By Spuke on 7/12/2010 3:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, that was goddamn funny! I haven't laughed that hard in a while.


hmmmm
By DominionSeraph on 7/12/2010 10:19:59 AM , Rating: 2
My motorcycle only gets 50mpg, but it cost $2000 less than the T.25, goes from 0-60 as fast as a $200,000 Ferrari, and has twice the T.25's top speed.

It just seems to me that there's gotta be a better micro car design to be had. How hard can it be to throw a motorcycle engine into something resembling a roofed Lotus 340R? Perhaps extend and narrow it and go with tandem seating for better aerodynamics?




RE: hmmmm
By Nutzo on 7/12/2010 11:22:04 AM , Rating: 2
The increased friction of 4 tires, and the added weight of the body/frame will reduce the milage. When cars get this small & light, the weight of the driver and passengers start to have a impact on milage too.

I remember taking a long trip on my motorcycle many years ago. There where 2 of us & we averaged 55-60 mpg. We though that was great until I realized that we would have used less gas if we had take my Accord at 35mpg. (2 bikes @ 60mpg each = 30mpg average)


RE: hmmmm
By DominionSeraph on 7/12/2010 1:52:36 PM , Rating: 1
Your Accord likely blows away those motorcycles in the aerodynamics department, though.

I saw an article several years back that showed two pictures side-by-side: A brand new shark-nosed Katana 600 and a 1950's motorcycle with this useless-looking rounded fairing. They then went on to compare various things about the bikes: Horsepower (the old bike had like 1/3rd the horsepower), weight (Katana was much lighter), tires (bias-ply vs radials) -- on and on and the Katana was just light-years ahead.
Then they said:

Top speed.
Katana: 140
'50's bike: 160

Even though that old bike had nowhere near the power, it had waaaaay better aerodynamics.
Bikes have ridiculously high coefficients of drag. (Like around 0.60.) They get by by having a ton of power for their frontal area.
(An 08 Accord has a coefficient of drag of 0.31 to 0.33. The Prius 0.25. The EV1 was 0.195)

Here, I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_ca...

235mpg.

Throw a Hayabusa engine in there and you could probably get 220mph top speeds and still get 80mpg highway.


RE: hmmmm
By Jeffk464 on 7/12/2010 7:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
I could see myself driving that volkswagen L1, its a pretty mean looking econo machine. Awesome mileage and it looks like they kept the "zoom zoom" in it.


RE: hmmmm
By Wererat on 7/12/2010 12:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
Seraph,

The problem seems to be that as soon as the fourth wheel goes on, a cluster.... of environmental, safety, and generally bureaucratic regs kick in which combine to add an ever-increasing burden of cost and weight to the car.

E.g. 1990 Mustang - 2834 lbs. 2009 Mustang - 3336 lbs. Take 500 pounds off any mid-sized or smaller car and the mpg would soar.


RE: hmmmm
By DominionSeraph on 7/12/2010 2:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
Soar? I doubt you'd get 1mpg highway. Drag and mechanical driveline losses are significant. In highway driving the added inertia is meaningless so it's just a little added rolling resistance.


RE: hmmmm
By Jeffk464 on 7/12/2010 7:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I don't think of my safety as an annoying government regulation.


RE: hmmmm
By Kurz on 7/13/2010 2:47:01 AM , Rating: 2
>.>

The Regulation is put forth by people who don't understand physics.


Please change the title
By amanojaku on 7/12/2010 7:52:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Formula One Engineer Designs $9,000 Micro Car Which Delivers 74 MPG
I got a woody thinking someone made a 74MPG compact or mid-size. You know, a car with a TRUNK that could hold four people. 74MPG isn't that big of an achievement for a micro as even subcompacts can get north of 60MPG these days. Well, maybe not in the US, but globally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fiesta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlueMotion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_C1




RE: Please change the title
By amanojaku on 7/12/2010 7:53:54 AM , Rating: 5
Btw, I meant the CAR holds four people. I don't haul people around in my trunk. :-)


RE: Please change the title
By Awax on 7/12/2010 8:09:26 AM , Rating: 1
4 dead body in black bags ?


RE: Please change the title
By icanhascpu on 7/12/2010 2:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
THX FOR CLEARING THAT UP FOR US BRO.


RE: Please change the title
By shin0bi272 on 7/12/2010 8:04:11 AM , Rating: 2
heh this "car" looks like a "trunk". Seriously, try the fish.


iCenter? iStream?
By zebrax2 on 7/12/2010 8:01:21 AM , Rating: 3
Does it really have to come with an i in the beginning? Stream is pretty cool name, iStream on other hand just sound cheesy




RE: iCenter? iStream?
By shin0bi272 on 7/12/2010 8:08:11 AM , Rating: 1
they should call it the iCrap lol


RE: iCenter? iStream?
By marvdmartian on 7/12/2010 10:30:47 AM , Rating: 2
You certainly will, when you see that Ford Excursion, driven by some overstressed soccer mom, bearing down on you in your rear view mirror!!


RE: iCenter? iStream?
By Zingam on 7/12/2010 8:11:05 AM , Rating: 1
What about the TM "iShit"!


RE: iCenter? iStream?
By reader1 on 7/12/10, Rating: 0
T25
By Fred242 on 7/12/2010 1:53:21 PM , Rating: 3
The bigotry of some of your posters is sad. The diesel Smart produces the lowest co2 emissions/km of any production vehicle (86gms/km) in the UK and being under 100gms/km is exempt from many vehicle taxes, and city centre access charges. I'm not a rabid greenie, I am using the CO2 figure as it directly relates to fuel consumption. It is also the shortest production car (the T25 will be slightly shorter) so you can always find a parking space. We don't all live in Wyoming and these things matter if you live in a city. As for the T25 it gets over one of the major disadvantages of the Smart in that you can carry 2 passengers while greatly reducing the resources needed to make the car in the first place. What ever your views on CO2 emissions, oil is a finite resource, so what do expect is going to happen when every Chinaman, Indian and their mother-in-laws all want a car? Do you think we could sustain a situation where they all drove huge pickup trucks? Or is driving just for Americans? The other issue is road congestion. You can get two T25s driving side by side in a standard width highway lane and three or more in a standard parking space parked at right angles to the curb. Less is more.




RE: T25
By Schrag4 on 7/12/2010 2:21:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think the reason posteres here are slamming this car is because it's totally impractical for their needs. As far as I can tell, this thing is a commuter ONLY. And it looks to me like it's only marginally safer than a motorcycle.

I could get one of these to commute, but I don't want to own 3 cars. And I don't want the hassles of only owning a single vehicle that can transport our 5 member family. There are times my wife drops the kids off mid-day and I pick them up on my way home (while she's still at work). And, generally speaking, my family is the rule, not the exception.

Anyway, I don't care if people drive these things. Just don't force ME to drive one of these. THAT's likely the true source of all the negative comments. We don't want these, but they'll likely be forced on us soon, if things keep heading they way they're heading.


RE: T25
By Harinezumi on 7/12/2010 6:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think a motorcycle is a much better comparison for this vehicle than the typical car. The price tag for it seems to be comparable to the upper end of the motorcycle price range, the fuel economy is up there, and it has a comparable carrying capacity.

It does, however, lack a number of deal-breakers that motorcycles would have for me as a commuting option. It's got a roof, so there's no need to worry about getting rained on. It's got 4 wheels, so there's no more risk of losing your balance and spinning out of control than in a regular car. It's got 4 walls, so I can listen to my radio while I commute, and there's a solid piece of plastic on a metal frame between myself and the idiot trying to merge into me while talking on his cell phone. It might not be much help if someone runs a red light and t-bones me, but I'd much rather have that than a pair of jeans and a jacket for a rear or side-by-side collision.


Uh Oh
By Lifted on 7/12/2010 7:59:40 AM , Rating: 3
Tiffany, you may not have been aware, but all of those links in your article should be to other dailytech articles. Linking to outside sources is a no-no.




RE: Uh Oh
By johnsonx on 7/13/2010 2:19:45 AM , Rating: 2
lol, the mick-trick


Medicore
By btc909 on 7/12/2010 1:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
60mpg US range for a car this size is medicore. I laugh when people claim they are getting 60mpg out of a Smart car.

A car that is what a 1/3 of the size getting 80-90mpg US average makes sense. The manufacture is probably sand bagging to have room for improvement in the future.




RE: Medicore
By lamerz4391 on 7/12/2010 7:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
Medicore? What's that?


:D
By Zingam on 7/12/2010 8:07:43 AM , Rating: 1
That crap IS NOT A CAR. Sorry!




RE: :D
By adiposity on 7/12/2010 12:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
Car:

1 : a vehicle moving on wheels

automobile:

a usually four-wheeled automotive vehicle designed for passenger transportation


STILL a car..
By royalcrown on 7/12/2010 8:23:40 AM , Rating: 2
Just the kind that will keep you a virgin. I bet it's fun to drive, like go karts !




mpg is not everything
By vapore0n on 7/12/2010 8:54:40 AM , Rating: 2
I like how if you want to sit someone in the back seat, that someone needs to stick his foot up your ass and put his arm in your shoulder to be able to fit in.




Polo did 75+ mpg
By tanishalfelven on 7/12/2010 10:03:11 AM , Rating: 2
Hell, the diesel VW polo (a 4 seater proper car) can manage the same milage. i know disel's a different fuel but come on.

My fit manages 55 on the highway at 55mph.

and more importantly, its hideous .

finally, the reason for car low mileage these days is all sort of heavy safety and luxury equipment. which is POS doesn't have.




weak
By Maverick2002 on 7/12/2010 12:44:53 PM , Rating: 2
If you're going that small, just buy a motorcycle. A Porsche 918 Spyder gets 78mpg and does 0-62 in 3.2 seconds.




I'm waiting for the Apple Car!!!
By Orac4prez on 7/13/2010 12:48:29 AM , Rating: 2
Steve Jobs is going to produce something far better very soon! Rumour has it, it is going to run the iKnow Operating System. You'll never get lost because it will always know where you want to go. It'll have great features - some of which we already know and love. Like it will have the Parental control features. It will stop drivers from viewing unwanted content - the windows will blacken whenever a scantily dress woman (iCandy) goes past, or heaven forbid you are about to have an accident. It's better the user doesn't know about those things (iCan'ttakeit)! There are expected to be some draw backs with early models - they will only run on the I-5 and other I-roads initially. Driving on other roads? - there'll be an app for that very soon. Of course, all changes to road rules and speed zones will have to be approved by Apple. Chairman Jobs rules!




Basically....
By Yawgm0th on 7/12/10, Rating: 0
"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki