backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 69 comment(s) - last by spartan014.. on Jul 29 at 11:55 PM

Loremo LS/GT production bodywork

Loremo LS/GT Prototype
Loremo AG revises the look of its high MPG vehicle

Loremo AG's highly efficient Loremo LS and Loremo GT have been profiled several occasions time on DailyTech. When discussions started to brew about the vehicles, the topic quickly turned to fuel economy and then to their styling.

There was no mistaking the bodywork for something other than futuristic with its low-slung profile, glass roof, and long, aerodynamic tail. With Loremo coming closer to providing a road going version of its vehicle, it made changes to the vehicle exterior to make it more feasible for production.

While the overall shape is quite familiar, changes have been made to provide more interior space for passengers -- this came as a result of increases to the height and width of the vehicle. The vehicle's long tail now slopes down further and is capped off by larger, round taillights instead of the tiny slits of the concept car.

"At the same time, we have managed to keep the low air resistance level despite of the now larger front surface," added Loremo AG in a press release. "The new stylistic featuring will thus effectively solve the problem of reconciling air drag and aesthetics."

The vehicle will be available in three versions: the Loremo LS, GT and EV. The Loremo LS features a 20 HP, two cylinder diesel engine, a 100 MPH top speed, and fuel economy of 120 MPG. The Loremo GT gets a 36 HP, three cylinder diesel engine, a 125 MPH top speed, and fuel economy of around 80 MPG.

Finally, Loremo AG will offer a zero emissions version in the form of the Loremo EV. The Loremo EV features a 20 kW electric motor and has a top speed of 106 MPH. The vehicle has a driving range of 90 miles thanks to its lithium-ion battery pack and relatively light (1,300 pounds) curb weight.

The Loremo LS, GT, and EV will retail for roughly $17,200, $23,580, and $47,200 respectively when they launch in 2009.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Quite Affordable
By AnnihilatorX on 7/28/2008 8:03:43 AM , Rating: 2
The price seems to be quite affordable for the diesel variants. I don't mind buying one for inner city commute.
What's the 0-60 acceleration like?




RE: Quite Affordable
By Oscarine on 7/28/2008 8:08:07 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty terrifying, like about 20 seconds to 60 for the 2cyl, the GT was quite a bit faster like 10 seconds?


RE: Quite Affordable
By strikeback03 on 7/28/2008 8:19:44 AM , Rating: 2
Remember that the only reason they can be even that quick is their light weight, you might see a couple second addition to that time if you buy some groceries.

I wouldn't want to try and merge onto an interstate in one.


RE: Quite Affordable
By AnnihilatorX on 7/28/2008 8:29:34 AM , Rating: 2
lol
well the weight of the car is 550kg, a 60kg person would mean a 10% increase in weight. I suppose that would decrease the acceleration by 10% according to F=ma. With x=at^2 means the time to 60 would be decreased by roughly 5% only though.


RE: Quite Affordable
By Jimbo1234 on 7/28/2008 1:57:52 PM , Rating: 4
Good luck finding a 60 Kg (132 lb) person here in the US. As listed by the CDC, the average male in the US is 190 lb (86 Kg) and the average female is 160 lb (74Kg).

So put one of each in the car and it's not 60 Kg you are adding to the overall mass, but 160. So that is a 29% increase in weight. Good-bye performance (all types - acceleration, braking, handling). Also how do you tune the ride for such mass range?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/bodymeas.htm


RE: Quite Affordable
By Denigrate on 7/28/2008 2:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, but I just know that guys like myself, 6'2" 235lbs, with a 50" chest and 36" waist, skew those numbers. It has nothing to do with guys like my old college roommates who combined weigh about ~800LBS. So there are plenty of 135lbers out there. They are just under 12 yrs old!


RE: Quite Affordable
By daftrok on 7/28/2008 2:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
In other words, Tesla is the way to go. They are coming out with a 4-door sedan with around 200+ mile range fully electric for around $60,000. If I had to choose between this EV and the Tesla, I'd pay 10 grand more and get the Tesla.


RE: Quite Affordable
By strikeback03 on 7/28/2008 3:25:28 PM , Rating: 2
I've known a few people who were under 60kg, and were healthy adults even.

Obviously acceleration numbers were obtained with a driver in the car, hopefully someone more representative of the general population than Danica Patrick. So you would only add the mass of one additional person for the calculation.


RE: Quite Affordable
By Samus on 7/29/2008 1:22:06 AM , Rating: 3
wow our average female population is 160lbs? christ I don't even weigh that much.


RE: Quite Affordable
By juuvan on 7/29/2008 9:04:22 AM , Rating: 2
probably the same way the motorcycle manufacturers cope with the same variation which for the average 600cc sports bike is nearing 100%...


RE: Quite Affordable
By Xajel on 7/29/2008 12:49:32 AM , Rating: 2
this is not entirly true, as if the engine was very powerfull with that weight ( more tourqe ) then the 10% more weight wont equals 10% decrease in accceleration...

imagine a tank enigne vs. rocket engine with the same weight ( let's say 50000kg ) the rocket is much powerfull than the tank engine, and has much better tourqe, so adding another 5000kg wont make you lose the exact same amount of acceleration power in both sides, as the rocket will be able to handle more than 5000kg in order to loose that 10% !!


RE: Quite Affordable
By spartan014 on 7/29/2008 11:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
What has torque got to do with a rocket engine?

:-)


RE: Quite Affordable
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/28/2008 8:31:09 AM , Rating: 5
The GT Doesn't look half bad. Instead of these pie in the sky 100MPG cars, I would rather they build an effecient and balanced 50-80MPG car. If they would simply increase the MPG rating to lets just say 50MPG on many of the new cars coming down the pipe, savings could be had. Is 100MPG a great idea? Sure. But right now the trade off in loss of acceleration kind of sucks (speaking as a DC Metro Area driver). Acceleration is kind of necessary for many things, but it doesn't need to do 0-60 in 2 seconds either.


RE: Quite Affordable
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 9:44:30 AM , Rating: 5
Exactly. I want to be able to merge onto the highway without causing an accident. And to be able to pass without having to plan it for 2 miles. I think the electric model shows why the Volt will cost so much.

And the rear of that thing looks like sh*t.


RE: Quite Affordable
By AnnihilatorX on 7/28/2008 9:47:39 AM , Rating: 2
Hm the GT has 80MPG with 50bhp.
I suppose you can fit 100bhp engine in for 50MPG. That would reduce the acceletarion to 60 to about 6 seconds.

*Article is wrong about the GT's horse power. It's 50bph/36kW for the GT.


RE: Quite Affordable
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/28/2008 12:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
I've read the speed limit on your interstate roads is at most 75mph.
What makes it hard to integrate to that speed, are integration lanes too short or the climbs too steep?

PS: no sarcasm here, I really don't know anything about your highways and roads. :D


RE: Quite Affordable
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 1:16:11 PM , Rating: 5
Some are very short. Some are very long. Its also sometimes a problem of the guy in front of you decides its a good idea to hit the highway at 40 mph. So if you can't accelerate quickly once you get to the highway, you're fodder for the semis just as much as he is. Except you'll get hit first because you're behind him.


RE: Quite Affordable
By 4play on 7/28/2008 12:57:08 PM , Rating: 2
So how much acceleration is necessary? It takes me more than 10s to accelerate to 60 in my chevy blazer; I have no problem with merging, passing etc. Of course it would be way easier in a Corvette, but we can't have everything.

I would leave the balanced "50-80MPG cars" to the large auto makers, these guys should push the MPG as much as they can.


RE: Quite Affordable
By tastyratz on 7/28/2008 1:29:19 PM , Rating: 3
Underpowered cars are not just inconvenient on the highways, they are dangerous. I don't think they should be pushing the limit with gas mileage at the expense of the safety of all those around them.
4 wheel automobiles should have a minimum wtq/lb ratio by law imho.

This is a marketing stunt. If they put a real useful standard engine in these they would hardly get the eye catching numbers they do now.
I applaud them for their non conventional chassis design and concentration on aerodynamics- but its a statement car much more than a functional car. This is similar to the smart cars (tiny cars with low function which get less gas mileage than a corolla)


RE: Quite Affordable
By Hare on 7/28/2008 3:12:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
This is similar to the smart cars (tiny cars with low function which get less gas mileage than a corolla)

Could you kindly provide a link for that. The Smart fourtwo at least a while ago was only bettered by the Prius, Civic hybrid and Honda insight. The Smart is not a hybrid like these other three cars.

Btw. Smarts have sold quite well specially in Europe and Canada during the last 5-10 years. I wouldn't compare it to an expensive mpg monster that isn't even produced yet.


RE: Quite Affordable
By strikeback03 on 7/28/2008 3:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
At an outlet mall about 50 miles from NYC last weekend I saw two people roll up in a Smart with Quebec plates. Hope they weren't planning on buying much anything, as that seems like a rather long trip given the cargo capacity.


RE: Quite Affordable
By tastyratz on 7/28/2008 9:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.smartusa.com/smart-car-technical-specif...

Fuel consumption*
City/highway (mpg)
33/41 (EPA 2008)

http://www.toyota.com/corolla/specs.html
28city/37hwy

I stand corrected sir. It looks like the new epa estimates have deflated numbers on both sides. The smart car gets a little over 10% better gas mileage (but for over 30% less car)

Yes, they have sold very well in Europe. The version here in the usa is a watered down mimicry of what they get overseas.
The car here forgoes logic (shedding the words "turbo" and "diesel" entirely along with the associated crazy gas mileage).


RE: Quite Affordable
By Sulphademus on 7/28/2008 2:33:24 PM , Rating: 2
DC area driving is alot of speed with many sudden and long stops. You cant try and ease it and drift some because more than 1.5 car lengths of space is an invitation for someone else to jump in. So you have to drive like as much of an ass as everyone else just to prevent 80 people from jumping in front of you. This does wonders for your fuel economy. :(

Cars, even with several people in it, dont need 260hp like Accords and Camrys are coming with these days. 50 horsepower though? Seems like too far in the other direction.

The thing looks like the EV1, which I have heard described as the inverted bottom of a sailboat.


RE: Quite Affordable
By strikeback03 on 7/28/2008 3:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
IIRC the EV1 also had a coefficient of drag of around 0.18, as opposed to the ~0.30 most cars today get. If absolute fuel economy is the primary concern, they have to be really aerodynamic.


RE: Quite Affordable
By Sulphademus on 7/28/2008 4:39:23 PM , Rating: 2
I had heard .19 but even still, FAR lower than the .30 to .35 of most cars today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coeff... Interesting list here.


RE: Quite Affordable
By Flunk on 7/28/2008 10:20:34 PM , Rating: 1
For comparison a Toyota Prius takes nearly 20 seconds to go from 0 to 60. So this may very well be viable, people bought the Prius didn't they?


RE: Quite Affordable
By strikeback03 on 7/29/2008 10:28:42 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe with a dead battery it is that long. C&D clocked it at 11.3.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_...


RE: Quite Affordable
RE: Quite Affordable
By AnnihilatorX on 7/28/2008 8:30:49 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks. I suppose then the 36bhp is probably a better buy
I can't imagine how the 20bhp one will handle going uphill.


RE: Quite Affordable
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/28/2008 8:31:56 AM , Rating: 2
Heh, but it would be funny to see one try to start on a hill from a full stop.


RE: Quite Affordable
By rollakid on 7/28/2008 9:41:06 AM , Rating: 5
Lol. But it won't be if you're in a rush and you're behind them.


RE: Quite Affordable
By juuvan on 7/29/2008 9:12:46 AM , Rating: 2
back in the old days tractors used to have power output in the range of 10-20hp. They used those to pull loads weigthing tons. Put enough gears or CVT with a wide enough ratio on this and you are safe.


RE: Quite Affordable
By Regs on 7/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Quite Affordable
By wushuktl on 7/28/2008 8:21:14 AM , Rating: 2
what, you mean you didn't think a compromise would have to be made to create a car that would get 120mpg?


RE: Quite Affordable
By AnnihilatorX on 7/28/2008 8:23:50 AM , Rating: 2
Well these aren't suppose to be race cars, but fuel efficient cars. By increasing bhp from 20-36, the fuel economy has already decreased from 120 to 80mpg (33% decrease). If you put in a 100bhp engine I am sure the fuel ecconomy will be no better than a normal car.

I suppose you can always mod the engine yourself.


RE: Quite Affordable
By Regs on 7/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Quite Affordable
By AnnihilatorX on 7/28/2008 8:58:00 AM , Rating: 2
Cars nowadays are all already pretty fuel efficient compared to say cars from the 90s. The electronic engine management systems in most modern cars do pretty good job in achieving good fuel economy. We just simply don't have a breakthrough technology today to achieve 100MPG on a car without sacrificing much as you would like.

I don't see regenerative braking on their feature list though. But that would add a lot of weight and is only implementable on their EV variant.

If I am to design a 100MPG car without budget limit I'd put carbon fibre from drive train to body frame; but I don't see a particular convenient high technology that is affordable exist to boost MPG to such a level without sacrificing acceleration. The 36bhp variant has 80MPG and I don't think lowering that (by putting in an even bigger engine) further would differentiate the car enough.


RE: Quite Affordable
By cubby1223 on 7/28/2008 11:55:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cars nowadays are all already pretty fuel efficient compared to say cars from the 90s.

What are you talking about?!!!

Today's Ford Focus gets LESS mpg than the 90's Ford Escort. Today's Chevy Cobalt gets LESS mpg than the 90's Chevy Metro. Today's Dodge Caliber gets LESS mpg than the 90's Dodge Neon. Today's Honda Civic gets LESS mpg than the 90's Honda Civic.

Yes the engines are more efficient today than in the 90's, but the problem is the auto makers are all adding so much damn weight into the cars gas mileage goes down.

And why am I not surprised at all the first comment on this topic is "what's the 0-60 time?".

Plus there's already been a 100mpg vehicle in production from Audi, but the car never made it across the pond.


RE: Quite Affordable
By Biodude on 7/28/2008 9:05:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
sacrifice so much
You don't have to! I don't understand why more of you that want both, gas mileage and good performance, aren't buying motorcycles. My wife's Suzuki SV650 has 70bhp, 0-60mph in <4 seconds, and gets 55mpg. I love the thing.

And yes, I would gladly take the relative safety of an exposed yet maneuverable and nimble motorcycle versus a fly-weight car that can't get out of it's own way any day. I do understand though that the perception of lack of safety is probably still the chief barrier to even more people picking up motorcycling these days.


RE: Quite Affordable
By HinderedHindsight on 7/28/2008 9:19:15 AM , Rating: 5
There's a lot more to it, I think. How many trips would you need in a motorcycle to haul your Costo purchase home? What if you needed to transport more than one or two other people (such as your kids). Consider the fact that most families have more than one.

A motorcycle is great if you have zero need for flexibility or want for comfort (I wouldn't want to ride one any place where there's a lot of rain/snow). A motorcycle can also be a pain to ride in states that don't allow lanesplitting and there's heavy traffic on highways, even the carpool lane.

Yes people want performance and efficiency. Unfortunately most are limited by needs of flexibility and the fact that based on the way some people drive a regular vehicle, they should never be allowed on a bike.


RE: Quite Affordable
By Schrag4 on 7/28/2008 9:46:41 AM , Rating: 3
You may not be much safer in an ultra-light car if you get in an accident (but probably are), but one really big problem with motorcycles is that other motorists simply do not see them and pull out in front of them.

In the medical profession they call them donorcycles.

Here's an anecdotal (and therefore statistically meaningless) story concerning motorcycle safety. When I was young, my father was extremely lucky to have survived a 70mph collission on his way to work while it was still dark with . . . a dog. We're talking severe concussion (he was wearing a helmet of course), horribly scraped up, but amazingly no broken bones. He eventually recovered, but he couldn't smell things after that and never had much of an appetite. Do you think he was better off running into the dog on a motorcycle or would it have been better to be in one of these ultra-light cars?


RE: Quite Affordable
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 2:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
Considering the damage to my sisters car from hitting a large dog in her 93 Nissan Sentra, I'd say one of these ultra-light cars wouldn't fare very well. But you would fare better since you're hitting an airbag instead of the pavement. In an impact with another car though, you're probably dead. Or seriously injured.


RE: Quite Affordable
By juuvan on 7/29/2008 9:24:12 AM , Rating: 2
you don't watch motorsports too much? If you crash a 800hp F1 at 200km/h you just get up, shake your head, get a decent massage and you're ok. Those cars weigth 500kg with the driver so weight is not factor when determing whether the chassis of the vehicle is strong enough and safe on impact.

Porsche GT has all carbon fibre monocoque and the car is one of the safest ever build. Want to guess how much the chassis weights? Mere 100kg's


RE: Quite Affordable
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 9:47:42 AM , Rating: 2
You're comparing a couple hundred pound motorcycle to a car for gas mileage?

And yes. People drive like shit so I don't trust being on a motorcycle. I don't need to be in an SUV but I want some kind of metal cage protecting me when numbnuts smashes into me.


RE: Quite Affordable
By Nightskyre on 7/28/2008 10:18:59 AM , Rating: 3
It still makes me wonder why we can't just make it a lot more difficult for people to get a license.

If it were actually hard, many people wouldn't have them.

More jobs (mass transport operators)
Dramatically lower fuel consumption across the nation
Lower insurance rates because the idiots aren't driving
Much less traffic.

Win-win.


RE: Quite Affordable
By MozeeToby on 7/28/2008 12:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe because if you did that only people who's parents make more than X dollars a year would be able to get thier kids a liscense? The other immediately obvious problem is that you are concentrating soley on urban areas where walking/biking/mass transit is an option.

When I was in high school I had to drive 30 miles each way for my part time job because it was the only place to work. Guess what, busses don't exist everywhere and there are still a lot of places in the US where a car is a real necessity to life.


RE: Quite Affordable
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 1:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
Should the test be harder? Yes. Our tests are a joke in many places. Should the goal be to stop people from getting a license? No.


RE: Quite Affordable
By juuvan on 7/29/2008 10:08:27 AM , Rating: 2
you don't even need to get a motorcycle...

http://www.ktm-x-bow.com/


RE: Quite Affordable
By Ray 69 on 7/28/2008 9:03:03 AM , Rating: 2
Add to the price the option of AC, or am I the only one to notice that the windows don't seem to have the ability to be opened? With non-opening windows it would be like sitting in a convection oven without AC.


RE: Quite Affordable
By Nightskyre on 7/28/2008 11:17:19 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure windows have to be openable for the car to be saleable in the US.


So ugly
By Bryf50 on 7/28/2008 3:41:03 PM , Rating: 1
I am all for fuel efficient and small cars but is there a reason they all have to look like shit.




RE: So ugly
By bldckstark on 7/28/2008 4:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
They all look bad because extremely low drag shapes make for ugly cars.

One of, if not the most, aerodynamic shape is that of a raindrop. It is forced by the air into the lowest drag shape. Would you want a car shaped like a raindrop? Round in the front to slowly cut the air away and angled in the back to eliminate any vacuum (and therefore drag)? We designed a vehicle exterior shape in one of my engineering classes. Mine won because it looked like a raindrop laid on it's side with wheels. Ugly as could be.

Nascar has it right, with the drafting and such. Maybe when cars are all driving themselves we will be able to let them tailgate each other to take advantage of the natural drag reduction.

I got an indicated 40 mpg out of my minivan the other day by tailgating behind my friends SUV on the highway. Not safe, but interesting.


RE: So ugly
By strikeback03 on 7/29/2008 10:35:51 AM , Rating: 2
I remember reading an article in one of the car magazines after the release of the Honda Insight. Honda gave a bunch of magazines Insights and said drive from point A to point B by this time, whoever uses the least fuel wins. This particular publication built a plywood plow and mounted it to the back of an Excursion, then drove the Insight as close to that Excursion as their nerves would allow. IIRC the instantaneous fuel economy at times went over 150MPG and their final for the trip was around 90-100.


RE: So ugly
By Cerberus81 on 7/29/2008 11:19:15 AM , Rating: 2
I remember that too; I believe it was Car and Driver magazine.


RE: So ugly
By juuvan on 7/29/2008 9:52:43 AM , Rating: 2
this aint small but it's a concept and a low emission car but certainly not dull
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/03/red-menace-audi...


Ugly
By Hare on 7/28/2008 10:01:41 AM , Rating: 2
The re-designed rear looks absolutely hideous.

The front is ok...




RE: Ugly
By Integral9 on 7/28/2008 10:48:08 AM , Rating: 3
I can't decide if it looks like a fat man's worn out loafer or just his abused shoe-horn.


RE: Ugly
By Screwballl on 7/28/2008 1:01:47 PM , Rating: 3
I like the new front with the prototype back...


LS vs GT?
By Oroka on 7/28/2008 10:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
What is the point? A little more pick-up, an extra 5MPh, and less fuel economy for more money?

while I think this is butt ugly (why must revolutionary cars look out os starwars?), I think people will get over its looks for the savings.




RE: LS vs GT?
By juuvan on 7/29/2008 9:41:05 AM , Rating: 2
atleast then when the gas costs the same as here in Europe; - around $9 per US gallon.


Commuter
By jabber on 7/28/2008 9:23:55 AM , Rating: 3
What it looks like to me is a standard commuter transport vehicle.

It can get say 2-4 adults reasonably comfortably to work 5 days a week for the least amount of energy possible.

For a lot of folks thats all thats needed.

It will get you to work and back. I think we need to really look and think about what it is we would like and what it is we really need. There is a big gulf between the two. That may well have to change.

For a lot of things in the future we may have to make do with 'good enough for the job' rather than 'more than enough with a cherry on top'.




Correction
By AnnihilatorX on 7/28/2008 9:50:58 AM , Rating: 3
Just to post this on its own in case my other comment is missed.

*Article is wrong about the GT's horse power. It's 50bph(36kW) for the GT.

http://evolution.loremo.com/content/view/98/141/la...




By Dribble on 7/28/2008 10:17:15 AM , Rating: 1
You can already buy cheap run-arounds with 70mpg or so from 1.4 diesel engines (e.g. Citroen C3) and more coming (e.g Ford Fiesta). They are cheap to buy, service, insure and make practical shopping machines.

Why spend a fortune on some impractical untested machine for a few more mpg? There is more to a car then mpg and 0-60 and you can bet this one fails in all sorts of ways (costs a lot of money to fully develop a modern car). Anyway if you've got that much cash to splash surely you can't be that worried about fuel costs?

Sounds like they duped a few venture capitalists for a load of cash to have their fun and make a prototype or two but when they come up against real car makers it'll be game over pretty fast.




By jacksonville on 7/28/2008 12:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with your sentiment, you should be careful of confusing units. Loremo are using US gallons in their mpg figures, and I presume you are referring to the Citroen's UK mpg - 64.2 mpg (UK) combined cycle which translates to 53.5 mpg (US).

http://www.citroen.co.uk/new-cars/citroen-c3/in-mo...

http://www.convertworld.com/en/fuel_consumption/

The Citroen (or any other French car) is also not available in the US but that's a separate issue, as is the sad lack of global use of metric units.


So fast, it's standing still.
By Integral9 on 7/28/2008 10:44:06 AM , Rating: 2
80mpg and 100mph top speed;ok. What about 0-60 with that 25HP engine? I bet most car's will go a 1/4 mi before it reaches 60mph. Ok, now I understand that this is about economy and not performance, but seriously. I'm gonna laugh my ass off when I see a Yaris blow past one of these in frustration. It'll be like a slo-mo instant replay.




By wordsworm on 7/28/2008 11:56:16 AM , Rating: 2
While this article is certainly interesting, and I love seeing these kinds of products coming out, they just get wasted by the 1 liter VW.

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/07/laugh-at-high-g...




less hp= more mpg
By royalcrown on 7/29/2008 3:32:58 AM , Rating: 2
We could all have more mpg if today's cars would quit coming with 190 hp...I think 100 is fine and plenty for 75+ mph.




To the USA - Whenever..
By whirabomber on 7/29/2008 9:53:23 AM , Rating: 2
From the official Loremo company website:

"Will the Loremo also be available on the US markets?

We are quite surprised to see that the Loremo is being well accepted in the US. Due to the complicated and instable regulations we will not offer the Loremo for US markets upon launch in 2009. Should the success and the future market demand from US markets enable us to offer the Loremo we will certainly do so in the next decade. "




Tesla crash
By Screwballl on 7/29/2008 11:53:55 AM , Rating: 2
"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki











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