backtop


Print 161 comment(s) - last by rett448.. on Jun 26 at 11:31 AM


The Mazda2 lost 200 pounds during its most recent redesign.
Mazda doesn't have to rely on hybrids to improve fuel economy.

You know that we're in a full gasoline crisis mode when BMW starts advertising about how fuel efficient its vehicles are. The notion of spreading the word to consumers on how efficient its vehicles lineups are -- and will be -- seems to be spreading quickly.

Mazda is the latest to step up to the plate with the bold announcement that it will reduce fuel consumption on its global portfolio of vehicles 30 percent by 2015. Mazda plans to achieve this ambitious goal by 1) making its vehicles 200+ pounds lighter with each redesign, 2) introducing revamped rotary and diesel engines, and 3) adding a new Smart Idle Stop System to its engines.

On the first point, Mazda is already making great strides. Mazda managed to make the current generation Mazda2 200-pounds lighter than its predecessor thanks to the use of high and ultra-high tensile steel, revised suspension components, reducing the length of the wiring harness, converting various plastic components from multiple pieces to a single piece, and shrinking front and rear overhang from the bumpers. According to Mazda, 60 percent of the weight reduction came from engineering solutions, 20 percent came from "feature adjustments" and 20 percent from curtailing the exterior dimensions of the vehicle.

Mazda's rotary engine -- not exactly known as a friend to gasoline or oil for that matter -- is also getting an upgrade early in the next decade. Mazda promised improved performance and fuel economy thanks to Direct Injection Spark Injection and "high-speed combustion technology". Also, Mazda's next generation of diesel engines will employ NOx reduction technology and direct injection to boost fuel economy by 20 percent while reducing tailpipe emissions significantly.

Finally, Mazda will use a Smart Idle Stop System (SISS) on its vehicles to cut off the engine when the vehicle comes to a stop. Hybrid vehicles already employ such technology, but it is a feature that is rarely seen in conventional cars. Mazda says that the SISS is good for a seven to eight percent increase in fuel economy.

When it comes to improving fuel economy, the little things add up. While it's nice to see manufacturers turn to hybrid powertrains to improve fuel economy, it's also great to see engineers look to weight savings and improvements to existing technology to make similar gains.



Comments     Threshold


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

BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Aloonatic on 6/23/2008 11:40:55 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone catch Top Gear last night?

A typically amusing a (and frankly useless) "test" of fuel efficiency which showed little more than the prius is not meant for racing.

Hopefully these lighter weight conventional cars will converge with the hybrid and fuel cell cars and we can start to free ourselves from the petrol pump sooner rather than later.

The biggest test will be to see how people (all over the world, not just America before people start "gas guzzler American" bashing, no one really likes to drive a little car) adapt and start to accept that we are going to have less and less room in our cabins and less power available under our right foot.

I drive a corolla (sport with the wacky VVTL-i engine) and will almost certainly buy a much more efficient car (avg 30-35 MPG depending on use) next time as it's just crippling over here with £1.18 a litre which is roughly $8.81 a US gallon???

With an luck those clever car designing/building chaps will make the compromises less and less as their knowledge of low weight/high strength/high performance alternative bodies and engines increases.

Here's hoping,




RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By killerroach on 6/23/2008 12:07:07 PM , Rating: 3
All depends on the sort of driving you're doing in terms of efficiency. I mean, heck... a 5500-pound Volkswagen Phaeton W12 gets better gas mileage on the highway than my grandmother's Pontiac Grand Prix... but kinda falls flat with its 13.5 mpg city rating.

Of course, I see "improve fleet-wide fuel economy 30%" and take that to mean "we're stopping selling SUVs and crossovers under the Mazda name".


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Aloonatic on 6/23/2008 12:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All depends on the sort of driving you're doing in terms of efficiency.


That's probably where people can get the most gains pretty instantly.

I guess I'm going to have to get used to sitting in lanes 1 & 2 at 70 MPH to get 40+ MPG rather than in lane 3 where the sped limit in the UK is pretty much 80-90 MPH.

The highway/motorway is the big problem with these little cars. Not so good on the long runs and I'd hate to be in the draft of an truck in a SMART car and as someone else mentioned, crashing or being crashed into in one of those things can;t be much fun as you and everyone else is pretty well right up against the exterior of the vehicle.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By PrinceGaz on 6/23/2008 10:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess I'm going to have to get used to sitting in lanes 1 & 2 at 70 MPH to get 40+ MPG rather than in lane 3 where the sped limit in the UK is pretty much 80-90 MPH.


You might want to check a copy of the Highway Code before driving on a motorway again ;) I suspect the police might disagree with the 80-90 mph outside-lane speed-limit if they pull you over.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Aloonatic on 6/24/2008 1:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
If I was to drive at 70 in lane 3 the police would probably be more pissed at me for holding up traffic.

80-90 is the de facto speed limit on the UK's motorways and duel carriageways these days, and if everyone was to slow to the speed limit of 70 the already pretty close to capacity roads would probably not be able to cope with the volume of traffic.

In saying that, the roads over here are a lot less busy since about a month or so ago, which isn't surprising with the price of fuel at the moment.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Alexstarfire on 6/24/2008 5:36:40 AM , Rating: 2
While it may be true that the speed of traffic is going that fast, it simply isn't the law. That's a piss poor argument in every respect. If they need to change the speed limit higher to cope with more traffic then that's fine, but I just really hate that argument.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Aloonatic on 6/24/2008 8:01:15 AM , Rating: 3
Where did I say that it was the law?

It's just reality.

I'm sorry if that upsets you?


By rett448 on 6/26/2008 10:45:57 AM , Rating: 2
miles per hour or kilometers per hour?


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Samus on 6/23/2008 1:41:50 PM , Rating: 3
I've never owned a vehicle that weighed over 3000lbs in my life. Ever. I've always been on the Mazda Protege or Ford Focus boat.

So it should be no surprise when I say I've never owned a vehicle that gets less than 30MPG mixed no matter how much I beat the hell out of it either.

It's all about weight. It always has been. My motorcycle gets 70MPG. Go figure. Honda Rebel, 330lbs.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By othercents on 6/23/2008 2:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's all about weight. It always has been.

Exactly... If people lost weight they would get better gas mileage. Plus then they wouldn't need to buy SUVs to be able to fit in a vehicle.

Other


By jconan on 6/23/2008 11:49:31 PM , Rating: 1
no kidding, a 200# less but with a 350# driver adding back the subtracted weight doesn't really do much... well at least for here in America.


By strikeback03 on 6/24/2008 8:35:20 AM , Rating: 2
In rough statistics, the average population in the US is 25-35lbs overweight. In a vehicle over 3000 lbs with occupants, that is only a 1-2% drop in overall mass. I don't know how mass relates to fuel economy, but considering that air resistance goes with the cube of velocity, I'd guess slowing down 5-10MPH on average will see more fuel savings than losing 30 lbs.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By joeld on 6/23/2008 3:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone know what gas mileage the modern supersport motorcycles (inline 4 600cc bikes... R6, GSXR, ZX-6R, CBR) can achieve in city/commuting scenarios? These bikes are incredibly lightweight and powerful, but the only gas mileage numbers I know of are from folks sport riding in the mountains, and they can't seem to get over 40 MPG!

You see these bikes more and more even in the city as gas prices rise.


By lagomorpha on 6/23/2008 3:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
My F4i averaged around 55mpg, granted it was on premium. That's better mileage than a Prius so don't pretend sportbikes are gas guzzlers. Sure the mpg may drop to 40mpg when you ride them hard, but a Prius's mileage can drop to 17mpg when driven hard, this is true of any vehicle.


By Spuke on 6/23/2008 4:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
I would love a bike but for different reasons than gas mileage. A Ducati Monster would be awesome!!!! My wife wants me to live though. :)

BTW, they get about 55 mpg.


By Indianapolis on 6/23/2008 11:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
1st bike: 1999 Kawasaki Ninja 250R, 70 mpg

2nd bike: 2001 Yamaha YZF 600R (carberatued), 55 mpg

3rd bike: 2004 Triumph Daytona 600 (Fuel Injected), 35 mpg

My experience riding sportbikes has been that different riding styles and conditions didn't make a huge difference in mileage...certainly not as big a difference as when I drive a car.

From what I've seen, 35 - 40 mpg seems to be the average for most sport bikes. I'm sure they could probably get much better gas mileage if the manufacturers weren't trying to squeeze every last horsepower from the engine.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By porkpie on 6/23/2008 12:17:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
and start to accept that we are going to have less and less room in our cabins and less power available under our right foot.
When people starting accepting that they "have" to settle for less and less each year, there's something seriously wrong with society. We got where we are today by cavemen not accepting that fleas, raw meat, and a cold dark cave was what they "had" to live with.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 12:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think it's only that people are settling for less but it's also people realizing they don't really need "that much". I sure don't see the point of ever owning a SUV or any other large vehicles... at least not for daily commuting.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By FITCamaro on 6/23/2008 12:56:14 PM , Rating: 1
You, nor anyone else, do not have the right to tell me what I need. If I want to buy a Corvette, I might not need 420hp. But if I want it and can afford it, who are you to tell me that I can't buy it?

You may not see the point of owning an SUV for daily commuting, but many people do. Sure there's plenty of people who drive a larger vehicle solely because they think it makes them look cool, want to feel powerful, or are guys that are compensating for something. Those are the ones who these gas prices will likely drive to small cars. But for the large family and others who need these vehicles, you are punishing them for having said family.

And those people can't always afford to have 3 or more vehicles. A co-worker of mine has a large Dodge truck because his son needs to sleep in an iron lung and he needs the ability to move it around for whatever reason comes up.

The market should and does dictate what is produced. High gas prices are killing the sales of mid-size SUVs. As such, manufacturers are going to produce fewer of them.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 1:03:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You, nor anyone else, do not have the right to tell me what I need


Please show me where I told you what you need...


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 1:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
Besides you're taking this totally out of context. My post was in response to the idea that people moving to smaller vehicles are "settling for less", which I argue isn't necessarily true as they may be moving towards better efficiency as well...


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Spuke on 6/23/2008 1:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
They ARE settling for less because they aren't buying fuel efficient cars because they want them! They are buying them because they HAVE to!. It's not the same thing.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 1:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm... so if someone decides they don't really need a big 50 room mansion and buys a 3 room house they are settling for less? How is the scenario any different here? Also you act as if all smaller vehicles are cheaper than SUVs which is very far from the truth.

Also define "they". You sure aren't speaking for all people. No one is forced to buy a car because they "have to". You don't have to have a SUV. In fact very few people truly even "needs" a personal vehicle of any sorts. Having one is a luxury. People really love to blur the lines between what we really need and what is nice to have.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 2:03:46 PM , Rating: 4
> "... so if someone decides they don't really need a big 50 room mansion and buys a 3 room house they are settling for less?"

Of course, especially if they've lived in a 50-room mansion their entire life, and are now being forced, regardless of their desires, to downsize due to lack of funds.

> "People really love to blur the lines between what we really need and what is nice to have. "

Who needs a car in the first place? Bicycles and scooters work. Who needs a TV? A private home? Hell, who even needs a private bedroom? Why not bunk us all up like soldiers in big tents? That'd save far more energy than a smaller car would.

Who needs to drive to visit friends or family? Or drive to restaurants or sporting events? Who needs to take vacations? Who needs a closet full of clothes?

When it all comes down to it, we don't need anything at all in our modern lifestyle. But it sure makes life a lot more worth living.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 2:07:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Of course, especially if they've lived in a 50-room mansion their entire life, and are now being forced, regardless of their desires, to downsize due to lack of funds.


Not really. If someone wishes to live in a smaller house because they don't want to maintain 50 empty rooms, how is that a step down?

quote:
Who needs a car in the first place? Bicycles and scooters work. Who needs a TV? A private home? Hell, who even needs a private bedroom? Why not bunk us all up like soldiers in big tents? That'd save far more energy than a smaller car would. Who needs to drive to visit friends or family? Or drive to restaurants or sporting events? Who needs to take vacations? Who needs a closet full of clothes? When it all comes down to it, we don't need anything at all in our modern lifestyle. But it sure makes life a lot more worth living.


Um... aren't you saying what I've already said? How owning a car at all is a luxury?


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 2:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
> "Not really. If someone wishes to live in a smaller house.."

You didn't read carefully. If they are being forced regardless of their desires to live in a smaller home, then they obviously don't "wish" to.

> "Um... aren't you saying what I've already said? How owning a car at all is a luxury?"

I am. I'm also pointing out that essentially *everything* in modern life is a luxury.

So when you give up your TV, computer, private home, closet full of clothes, and all your other luxuries, then you can ask others to give up their own particular luxuries.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By glenn8 on 6/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 2:25:14 PM , Rating: 3
> "... how people transitioning to smaller vehicles aren't necessarily doing it because they're settling for less."

In general, they most certainly are. Smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles have already been on sale for decades...Ford and GM both have had 30+ mpg cars on sale since the 1980s. No one bought them.

Now that gas has doubled in price in five years, those who would drive larger cars if they could afford them -- can't. What's so hard to understand about that?


By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 2:38:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
...Now that gas has doubled in price in five years, those who would drive larger cars if they could afford them -- can't. What's so hard to understand about that?


Yes gas price is a big factor, I don't think it's the only factor? For example of the people would have bought a smaller vehicle anyways just because they felt they don't really need such a large one? What about those who own SUVs because because it's trendy? Would the same amount of people move to smaller vehicles anyways because others have? How about people who are supposedly more aware of energy use and environmental impact?
Also if you move from a Hummer to a Lexus hybrid.. are you really settling for less?
All I'm saying is that you can't just generalize and act like people are moving away from SUVs are doing so because they are being deprived of one.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Spuke on 6/23/2008 2:34:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
little ridiculous when people buy vehicles because they "want to" regardless of the type.
Only your refusal to believe this is ridiculous. If I'm driving a Hummer H2 but, because of the cost of gas, I have to drive a Prius. That's not free choice, that's forced choice. Two different planets.

We have a truck and a car. We're empty nester's. Both are commuters AND both are used for fun. Because of the future price of gas, we're FORCED to buy another car that we don't need or want. Why the hell do two people, that are perfectly happy with TWO cars, need a third one? But that's where we're going. A couple with three cars. To me, that's ridiculous. And no, we're not selling the truck. It supports my wife's hobby as well as my DIY stuff.


By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 2:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but when are you ever "forced" to buy any sort of luxuries. You can still continue driving your H2 if you so desire, no one is stopping you. You just have to pay up. I want a yacht, but I can't afford it. Am I forced to buy a row boat? Give me a break.


By Alexstarfire on 6/24/2008 5:47:28 AM , Rating: 2
Well damn, by your logic you should be mad at the world for not getting anything and everything you want. I mean hell, I can't afford a mansion, fancy cars, house cleaning, private jets, etc. Should I be mad that I can't afford those? Of course not. I think you've been getting too many luxuries and don't know how to cope without them. Sh!t happens, get over it. Complaining isn't going to drive gas prices down and it certainly won't get you any more money.


By Spuke on 6/23/2008 2:24:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So when you give up your TV, computer, private home, closet full of clothes, and all your other luxuries
This is what cracks me up the most. ALL of these things ARE luxuries but only car luxuries are the bad one's. LOL! You can keep your big house, your SLI'd , OC'd $4000 computer, and your 5 pairs of Nike's but don't you DARE buy a SUV or truck. LOL! Hypocrisy at it's best!


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Doormat on 6/23/2008 3:10:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You didn't read carefully. If they are being forced regardless of their desires to live in a smaller home, then they obviously don't "wish" to.


Being forced by who? Its not the government or any authority. Its their own personal circumstance. If the government came in and said "no more 50 home mansions" then you'd be forced.

As it relates to this thread and FIT's point, if you cant afford it, too bad! If you need downsize from a Expedition to a Escape because of your finances, then you can either choose to sacrifice other things in your budget or just adapt to changing circumstances.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 3:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
> "Being forced by who? "

By circumstance. Admittedly, that's morally less objectionable than by outside agency, but it still doesn't mean their personal preference is a tiny car.

> "Its not the government or any authority"

No? One could easily argue that the government's restriction of drilling and refinery construction over the past several decades is the direct cause of high gas prices. Certainly the government's mandating of emission standards and reformulated fuels -- not that I disagree with most of those, mind you -- are responsible for at least a 20% decline in vehicle mileage, and thus a 20% increase in fuel consmuption.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Doormat on 6/23/2008 6:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By circumstance. Admittedly, that's morally less objectionable than by outside agency, but it still doesn't mean their personal preference is a tiny car.


"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference. "

Basically thats my response. Its one thing to be forced (with a threat of penalty) to choose a smaller car. Its another thing entirely to have to choose a smaller car because of circumstances beyond your control.

quote:
One could easily argue that the government's restriction of drilling and refinery construction over the past several decades is the direct cause of high gas prices.


The root problem is bringing 3B people into a westernized lifestyle. Even if the price of oil magically went down to $100/bbl tomorrow because of a huge oil field find, China, India and SE Asia would just restore the subsidies to previous levels and promote growth and within a year the price would be back to where it is now.

Drilling more is a temporary fix - and not even a fast one at that - getting off oil all together is the solution, which is about as equally as fast as drilling more.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 8:44:14 PM , Rating: 5
> "getting off oil all together is the solution, which is about as equally as fast as drilling more. "

Stuff and nonsense. Realistically, our petroleum needs are going to be with us for at least the next 25 years. One doesn't create a new technology, then replace every car, bus, truck, and plane in the world overnight...not to mention the vast uses for oil that have nothing to do with petroleum (such as fertilizer manufacture, heating oil, etc). Given that, it is nothing but sheer prudence to take steps to secure an oil supply for at least that period of time.

The notion that "oil's going to run out eventually, so why drill for more?" is painfully nearsighted. Drilling domestically means trillions (not billions) of dollars back into our own pockets, rather than those of oppressive regimes overseas.

That's a good thing, no matter how you slice it.


By rett448 on 6/26/2008 10:54:06 AM , Rating: 2
and switch to what?


By Spuke on 6/23/2008 3:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Being forced by who?
Read above. It's all been clearly stated.


By Funksultan on 6/23/2008 2:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
They call him Masher because of the way he gets his point across. ;)


By larson0699 on 6/23/2008 11:33:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When it all comes down to it, we don't need anything at all in our modern lifestyle. But it sure makes life a lot more worth living.
Easy...

If material possessions make your life that much more worth living, a lot of religious folk would think, "Man, that guy's lost."

I think it to be more true that things like cars and all your other goodies make those tasks in life like travel and communication easier, but certainly not more worth life itself.

I don't mean to interpret you to an extreme. But just how would a military lifestyle affect someone of your mindset?

To each his own, and for each exists his own market.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By lifeblood on 6/23/2008 2:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
Moving to a more fuel efficient car is not less, it's different. People can still drive an SUV if they want but because their priority is now saving money by buying less gas they switch to a smaller, more efficient vehicle. If I was still single I would probably drive a expensive sports car and to hell with the price of gas. Thanks to a wife, daughter, and mortgage, I drive a conservative sedan with good gas millage. I simply have different priorities.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Spuke on 6/23/2008 2:43:06 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I simply have different priorities.
And that's your choice and it seems you have made that one a while ago. Now, what if the price of gas made it so that you HAD to sell your sedan and get a smaller car like a Yaris despite your requirement for a sedan? This is what we're talking about. We're NOT talking about free will choice. We're talking about FORCED choice.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Amiga500 on 6/23/2008 5:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
Are you not then "forced" to do without a ferrari?

Do you have a yacht? Or are you "forced" to do without one of them to?

Were you also "forced" to sell your learjet?

Seriously people, virtually everyone has always had to live within their means - this is just an example of it.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 5:14:22 PM , Rating: 2
> "Seriously people, virtually everyone has always had to live within their means "

No one is disputing that. What we're correcting, however, is the inane suggestion that people are migrating to smaller cars because they now "prefer" them.


By Spuke on 6/23/2008 5:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What we're correcting, however, is the inane suggestion that people are migrating to smaller cars because they now "prefer" them.
That's it and I don't understand why some of you are not getting this.


By Amiga500 on 6/23/2008 6:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
They prefer to save money on their car fuel bills and spend it on something else. Everything is a compromise, and changing fuel prices are changing the compromises people make.

In an ideal world we'd all be able to cruise around in our Bugatti Veyrons, but I don't see that happening anytime soon... unfortunately :-(


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 6:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...is the inane suggestion that people are migrating to smaller cars because they now "prefer" them


I don't see how it's inane. No one is suggesting that is the only case (at least that's not my assertion). But like most things there can be more than one answer. For example environmentalist convinces millions that we are dooming ourselves by driving SUVs. These millions ditch their SUVs to get more efficient vehicles. What does this have to do with gas prices? Are they "settling for less"? Were they "forced" to buy smaller vehicles?


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 8:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For example environmentalist convinces millions that we are dooming ourselves by driving SUVs. These millions ditch their SUVs to get more efficient vehicles. What does this have to do with gas prices?
Environmentalists have been singing that same tune for over a decade, though, and SUV sales just kept booming. Now, gas prices double in a year, and SUV sales suddenly plunge.

The reasons are painfully clear. Keep believing it's not about gas prices if you wish, but don't expect to convince anyone else.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 9:08:04 PM , Rating: 3
Are you kidding me? Are you oblivious to the fact that "going green" is trendy these days? How many companies are "going green"? Just because people in the past ignored the environmentalist, doesn't mean it's not working these days. History changes. People's opinions change. Would a company like Wal-mart a decade ago care about pleasing the environmentalist?
Then only way you can prove without a doubt that SUV sales are going down ONLY because of gas prices is if gas prices fall again and SUVs sales are back to the same height of popularity. But judging by how many people these days believe in "going green" I highly doubt that will happen.


By djc208 on 6/24/2008 8:03:06 AM , Rating: 2
Problem is few of these "going green" intiatives are really about saving the planet, it's about saving money with a side benefit of saving the planet, maybe. When you have companies like Porshe looking to build a "hybrid" car I think that shows how "serious" we are about going green, and yes I'm being sarcastic.

All these CFLs are great for your electric bill and hence the environment, but only if you properly recycle them when they're spent and make sure they weren't built in Chinese factory powered by a non-regulated "dirty" coal powerplant, in which case I'm not sure you've helped anyone. But we ignore that part because you're saving electricity and therefore the "environment".

Recycling is green but I haven't seen the huge upswing in it yet. My local government isn't scrambling to put a better system in place because it would cost them more money. If I want to I can seperate and sort all my garbage then load it up in my car and take it to a "center" somewhere in town and drop it off. Most people don't bother because it's more work for no personal benefit. However if you made it as easy as throwing out the trash or paid people for doing it I'm sure people would be harping about how "green" they are because they recycle.

You want to be green? Move closer to work, live in the smallest place you can realistically, turn off the AC, ride your bicycle to work, recycle where possible, and only by natural products where available.

I'm not going to claim I do these things or even believe in all of them, I just get tired of people claiming they're green while commuting 60 miles a day to work at 80 mph with the AC on drinking coffee from Starbucks in a disposable cup, even if it is in a Prius.


By Amiga500 on 6/24/2008 5:18:40 AM , Rating: 2
To be fair Masher, alot of celebs are buying up Prius' to "look green"...

doesn't make a blind bit of difference, but people are dumb enough to think it does.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Drexial on 6/23/2008 2:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
"The market should and does dictate what is produced. High gas prices are killing the sales of mid-size SUVs. As such, manufacturers are going to produce fewer of them."

So let me get this straight.... People ahead of the gas price curve, that knew this was coming even while the govment was saying "i will guarantee that gas will never be above $4 a gallon" Saying that SUVs were not needed in most cases were wrong to say this... But good o'l corporate america has the right to say it. I think, the sales of SUVs declining PROVES they never needed to exist in the first place. I mean the concept of the SUV is as new as the late 80s... hell a truck didn’t come with a leather interior and power adjust seats until the late 80s.

But ultimately if you want it you should be able to buy it, but its ok for the company to tell you they don’t care what you want they are not making it. But someone that realized long ago they shouldn’t be made doesn’t have to right to say they aren’t viable?

the same argument could be made for just about anything... just because you have a personal desire doesn’t mean its right... cause you feel like killing someone should you have the right to? cause you want money does that give you the right to steal it?

you have to figure with the number of SUVs on the road fuel consumption could be reduced by 30% as the average SUV consumes twice as much fuel as a midsize sedan.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 2:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
This post is so confused and desultory it's difficult to make sense of it, but I have to correct a few errors. First, I don't believe the government ever guaranteed gas prices would not rise above any particular level.

Second of all, declining SUV sales proves nothing except that higher prices reduce demand...a basic economic fact everyone should already know.

Third, comparing SUV ownership to murder is so patently sophomoric that it taints your entire post.

Fourth, you have a right to express whatever viewpoint you wish about SUV ownership. But when you attempt to convert that viewpoint into restriction of civil liberties, you cross a line.

Fifth, my own personal SUV (A Hummer H2, when I owned one) consumed far less gasoline per year than my neighbor's Camry. So which one of us was doing more to raise gas prices?


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Drexial on 6/23/08, Rating: 0
By Spuke on 6/23/2008 2:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Per year is a completely different argument to per mile, it still consumed more then twice as much fuel then was necessary.
Necessary for who?


By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 3:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
> "it still consumed more then twice as much fuel then was necessary."

Your last trip out for the evening in your little compact car consumed 100 times as much fuel as was necessary. You could easily have stayed home, no?

> "George Bush said that fuel prices would never rise above $4 a gallon. "

Sorry, but I call shens on this.


By wallijonn on 6/24/2008 11:41:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fifth, my own personal SUV (A Hummer H2, when I owned one) consumed far less gasoline per year than my neighbor's Camry. So which one of us was doing more to raise gas prices?


Tell the whole truth. Is that because you drove your H2 5,000 miles a year but your neighbour drove his Camry 30,000 miles a year? Are you really saying that your 6.0 liter V8, which gets about 10 mpg, gets better gas mileage than a 2.0 liter L4 Camry? Or is it because he uses his Camry for racing and shoe horned a 350 V8 into it, along with turbo charging or super charging?

I doubt that a properly tunes stock Camry gets worse mileage than a properly tuned stock Hummer.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Spuke on 6/23/2008 1:43:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I sure don't see the point of ever owning a SUV or any other large vehicles... at least not for daily commuting.
And of course since YOU can't see the point, there's no justification for owning one. Is that you, God?


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 2:05:19 PM , Rating: 3
Notice the use of the word "I"... as in referring to myself...
Also where do I mention that people aren't allowed to own large vehicles?.. yeah.. please don't put words in other people's mouths.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Spuke on 6/23/2008 2:50:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
please don't put words in other people's mouths
And please don't impose your choices and beliefs on me. If I want to drive whatever, I have the right to choose to do so, period. There is no law stating otherwise.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 2:55:10 PM , Rating: 2
When does giving one's opinion impose their beliefs on others? If this was the case then there would be no such thing as discussion.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 3:25:28 PM , Rating: 3
> "When does giving one's opinion impose their beliefs on others?"

When you vote for a politician that converts those beliefs into law.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By glenn8 on 6/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 4:04:40 PM , Rating: 3
> "Chances are if a belief is converted into a law, the majority of people probably already had a similar idea going. "

Which is exactly why you'll see erroneous beliefs challenged if you post them to public forum, to prevent them from potentially misleading others.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 4:16:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Which is exactly why you'll see erroneous beliefs challenged if you post them to public forum...


Ok, but where do I show that I disagree with this? I gave my opinion, others a free to give theirs. My post was to counter the assertion that I was "imposing my beliefs" on others.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Spuke on 6/23/2008 5:06:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't think it's only that people are settling for less but it's also people realizing they don't really need "that much".
This is you, is it not? This isn't true. This is misleading. People are only realizing that they can NOT now afford the cars they actually WANT. People don't want these small, eco-cars. Sales data of the last 30 years supports my assertion. People want their trucks and SUV's. That's the point. Sorry if you don't get it but it's been made clear as day. Feel free to keep going. I have all day.


By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 6:03:16 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you sure are reaching pretty far. Let me put the words into context for you to understand.

quote:
I don't think it's only that people are settling for less...


What this means is that it's my opinion that people "settling for less" isn't the "only" case here. Also notice the words "I think"... meaning it's my own theory.

quote:
...but it's also people realizing they don't really need "that much"


This means that in additional to people that may be settling for less, there may be cases of people intentionally moving to smaller vehicles purely for gains in efficiency regardless of the current state of the market.

Now I challenge you to "prove" that any of this is wrong or "misleading".

I think you're the one trying to "impose" ideas that aren't there.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By MrBungle123 on 6/23/2008 6:15:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Chances are if a belief is converted into a law, the majority of people probably already had a similar idea going.


Except when you have a congress full of idiots that primarialy serves special interest groups and lobbyists... you know... like the one we have now.


By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 6:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
If they are serving special interests then they certainly aren't converting the beliefs of the people into law.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Screwballl on 6/23/2008 1:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
Find me a car that gets 30+ mpg, can handle my 6'5" (77 inch) and 220 pound frame, a heavy set wife (due to genetics, she eats less then our kids), plus a 6 year old daughter (the size of a 10 year old) that is busy with soccer, girl scouts, gymnastics, football, a stroller for the 6 month old, storage for the soccer activities for which I am the coach plus keep all 4 of us safe in a 60mph head-on or Tbone accident (which I was in 4 years ago) and I will be happy to spend the money on it.

Until then I will be happy and safe with my larger SUVs at 15mpg (city).


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2008 2:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a heavy set wife (due to genetics, she eats less then our kids),


Shes genetically unable to hit a treadmill ?

*drum roll*

OHHHHhh ! Thank you, thank you. You've been great ! I'll be here all week folks !!!


By porkpie on 6/23/2008 5:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Shes genetically unable to hit a treadmill ?
Oww...that's stone cold, brother.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By oab on 6/23/2008 2:09:45 PM , Rating: 4
While not 30MPG, a Subaru Forrester (2009) gets 20mpg city, 26mpg highway, is considered a "small suv" by the IIHS, and has their highest rating for offset frontal and side impact. So that's an immediate extra 6mpg over what you have.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?i...


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 3:23:29 PM , Rating: 2
There is also the minivan. Besides, you don't represent the majority. Being 6'5" 220 lb coach of a girls soccer team certainly isn't an average person/typical family.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 3:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "There is also the minivan"

A minivan tends to only receive around 20% better mileage than an SUV of the same size...not a huge difference. And while minivans are more convenient for moving large amounts of people, SUVs are better for large amounts of cargo.

In any case, how far you drive, and simply HOW you drive makes far more difference. My small two-seater convertible gets 15mpg driven hard. My Hummer H2 made 13 mpg if nursed along. And I burn far more gallons in the ragtop than I ever did in the SUV.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Spuke on 6/23/2008 3:51:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Being 6'5" 220 lb coach of a girls soccer team certainly isn't an average person/typical family.
Your view of the world is very narrow. My two kids were involved in extra curricular activities. Kids like to be active and they like to do it with their friends. But I refused to buy a SUV. I'm a car guy and they're just so boring to drive. We had two sedans and used both quite a bit.

Spent the same amount of money on gas as we would've had if we just owned a SUV. It was the wrong decision in hindsight. I would've had a paid off car to haul the horses and stuff around and my wife would've been driving a car right now instead of her present truck.

I take it you're not American? The average height for an American male is 5'10". 6'5" and 220 lbs is pretty typical. I'm 5'9", 170 lbs in a family of 6 footers and 200+ lb men. Runt of the litter I guess.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 4:07:46 PM , Rating: 1
The average person is a coach of a soccer team? You say the average height is 5'10", yet claim 6'5" 220 lbs is average?..... I'm not sure what argument you are making.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By stonemetal on 6/23/2008 4:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
No he said typical as in not unusual.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 4:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and I said "average person" in my post. I was merely pointing out that he is not really make a case. It also isn't unusual to be 7 feet tall if you're in the NBA. But that is hardly representative of the majority.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Spuke on 6/23/2008 5:12:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes and I said "average person" in my post.
And I said the average person is 5'10" in America. Soooo a person that's taller than that is indeed NOT unusual and indeed common. And considering that there's about 50 players in the NBA over 7' tall, I would say that 7' is quite common.


By glenn8 on 6/23/2008 6:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
7" is "common" but not average. Let me bring the argument from another perspective here. If you argue that people are taller than 6'3" cannot fit into "small" vehicles.... what does this mean? It means that if the average height is 5'10", then people are under 6'3 heavily out number those that aren't. There are vastly more people who can fit into small vehicles than those who can't. Therefore someone who is 6'5" is hardly a good representation of the majority view.


By JustTom on 6/24/2008 12:24:13 AM , Rating: 2
It is all how you define common. I would not say 50 7 footers in a nation of almost 300 million is common.I am 6'2" which puts me at the about the 95 percentile of American males. While I don't know the percentile rank of 6'5" it is pretty obviously more than 95. When you are talking less than 5% of the population I would hesitate to call it common.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Spuke on 6/23/2008 12:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When people starting accepting that they "have" to settle for less and less each year, there's something seriously wrong with society.
I would have to agree but there's an upside. If you're forced to settle for less than simply don't work as hard. I know I won't be. I work hard for the benefits of working hard. The benefits are: nicer jobs, more promotions, and job security. That translates to nicer homes, nice cars, more (nicer) vacations, spending more time with the family (immediate and other). Just a better standard of living all around.

I grew up poor and spent most of my adulthood poor also so having less is something I'm quite familiar with. It's only in the last 10 years that I have improved my standard of living exponentially. Now I'm being asked (or forced) to go back towards what I worked so hard to get away from. Some of you will say that no one's asking me to go back to poor but you ARE asking me to go back in that direction. And there's no way I'm going to put out the same amount effort for less benefit. That's just silly.

Granted some people out there would LOVE for us all to work less (because we'll produce and consume less) but, in reality, there are negatives to having that mentality. I mean, who's going to pay for public healthcare, welfare and the other social programs if we all have less money. The rich?


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Drexial on 6/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Spuke on 6/23/2008 2:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look i think the long running argument hasn't been "you should never have4 nice things" just enjoy them in smaller portions.
No. I'll enjoy them however I want to enjoy them. Remember "the pursuit of happiness" phrase. What do you think that means?

quote:
If someone is crossing the street in front of you and you need to swerve to miss them. do you stop and think to yourself... "that would inconvenience me right now" and just drive through them?
Killing people is illegal, driving an Escalade is not.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Drexial on 6/23/08, Rating: 0
By Spuke on 6/23/2008 3:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They didn't chose to pay more for gas, people that decided they wanted to use more decided it.
You don't have RIGHT to pay low prices for gas. You DO have the RIGHT to purchase a vehicle, whatever vehicle that may be. Nice try.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Ringold on 6/23/2008 3:18:19 PM , Rating: 3
Right.

So lets just go back to living like its the year 1499. For the common good!

Actually, why not go back further? Lets kick it like its Rome, circa 50 BC. Worked for Ceasar, why not us? Oh. Wait. The human population then was counted in millions, not billions. I guess we're going to have to eat human BBQ for a few decades to thin the crowd out. But anything for the common good.

/sarcasm

So are you a communist or do you just play one in internet forums?


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Spuke on 6/23/2008 3:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So are you a communist or do you just play one in internet forums?
He like everyone else that spews that crap, just plays one on internet forums. Even the hardcore environmentalists own homes and drive cars. It's nothing but typical human hypocrisy.


By Drexial on 6/24/2008 12:03:54 PM , Rating: 1
NO I just seem to have forgotten that the american dream is to be a self righteous asshole with complete disregard for anyone else living on the same planet that I do.

Excuse me for not being a prick like you that could give two shits about anyone else, or for the fact that one mine or yours or other peoples children have to live here after me.

"the pursuit of happiness" doesn't mean you are absolutely entitled to everything your heart desires. I'm sorry that your life is so shallow that you need a gas guzzling piece of crap SUV to make you happy. Doesn't really say much if that's all you have going for you. No family? friends? kids? you need to represent you life with a hunk of metal just to show how happy you are to everyone else?

They did not say you have the right to pursue excess. Im sure you were happy before that SUV. and like I said, if not, I feel sorry for you.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By wetlegs6 on 6/23/2008 12:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say that Prius vs M3 test was 'useless'.

It's not like they were actually racing - which is why all cars on the track have such awful fuel efficiency. They were doing 30-odd MPH for 10 laps of the track - a reasonable speed.


By Aloonatic on 6/24/2008 1:51:13 AM , Rating: 2
I must have miss heard them describe what they were doing on the show?

I thought that they were going as fast as the prius could go, with the M3 cruising behind it, doing its best not to overtake?

The out come being the prius getting ~13 MPG and the M3 getting ~18 MPG.

That was with the prius being driven at full speed so never really using it's electric motor which isn't really the point of the prius.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Spuke on 6/23/2008 12:36:48 PM , Rating: 2
Your Corolla doesn't get 30-35 mpg? Ours does.


By Ringold on 6/23/2008 3:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
Consumer Reports managed to squeeze 40 while on the highway out of their Corolla. That's almost like a hybrid, but without getting bent over a barrel on price.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Aloonatic on 6/24/2008 1:56:27 AM , Rating: 2
My average is at about 30 MPG, and my MPG gauge reports 35-45 MPG in the motorway depending on weather and speed.

My average is somewhat ruined by my nasty habit of being late for work in the morning and having to accelerate from the multiple traffic lights that have been installed seemingly to increase the amount of time that cars spend sitting doing nothing and looking at each other.

I'm not sure with model Corrola you have but mine is the 190bhp T-Sport (civic typeR like) model and the live fuel gauge can give some scary readings when you get over 6k rpm!?!


By Spuke on 6/24/2008 12:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not sure with model Corrola you have but mine is the 190bhp T-Sport
We don't have that model over here (US). We just have the slow one and the REALLY slow one.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By BZDTemp on 6/23/2008 4:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The biggest test will be to see how people (all over the world, not just America before people start "gas guzzler American" bashing, no one really likes to drive a little car) adapt and start to accept that we are going to have less and less room in our cabins and less power available under our right foot.


I'm surprised you can write something like that and drive a Corolla. Your car would be considered mid-size if it was in Europe. In fact more than half the cars sold in Europe are small cars like the Mazda 2 or similar. The funny thing is that many "small" cars are actually a lot bigger inside than you would think.

Small cars may not be like the sofas on wheels most US cars seem to be but they can be a lot of fun. Small means light which means nimble the only major problem is that it's not that interesting on the freeway where a sofa is really preferable.

To put things in perspective. I saw an Escalade the other day and that is a rare sight over here. In fact I see more super cars than I see US trucks since the later makes no sense on European roads. I think the F150 is cool but it is just to big in our cities.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 4:54:25 PM , Rating: 3
> "I'm surprised you can write something like that and drive a Corolla"

The word "wasteful" is, in terms of human hypocrisy, defined as "anyone who uses more than I do.

In absolute terms, yes, a Corolla is only slightly less wasteful than a Hummer. Compared to a bicycle or even a scooter, both consume incredible amounts of energy.


By Spuke on 6/23/2008 5:22:36 PM , Rating: 4
Smaller cars are tons more fun than vastly larger one's but that's my opinion. Some people think the opposite.

I would prefer a small, lightweight (less than 2000 lbs), two seat, RWD sports car with little frills (I like power windows/locks, A/C, and a nice stereo). Don't care about trunk room or storage area. Don't care if it's loud. The more unrefined it is the better. That's my ideal car. My ideal practical car would be the above with the addition of a hatchback. For me, anything else is a compromise on the above.

Would I confine everyone to my ideal? Nope. Other people have differing needs and desires and I won't impose on their happiness.

Now if I had a HUGE ego, sure I would try to impose my will on others every chance I got. Surely, I couldn't be wrong and the world will be a better place if everyone would just do what I want.


RE: BMW M3 more efficient than a prius!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2008 7:02:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'm surprised you can write something like that and drive a Corolla.


Only a European would look down on someone driving a freaking 4 cylinder car. Like the Corolla isn't small and economical enough ?

quote:
Your car would be considered mid-size if it was in Europe.


Sucks to be you.

quote:
In fact more than half the cars sold in Europe are small cars like the Mazda 2 or similar.


Because of oppressive sales taxes, tarrifs, and fuel prices. I'm sure if most Europeans were being honest, they would LOVE bigger more powerful cars if money was no object.

quote:
The funny thing is that many "small" cars are actually a lot bigger inside than you would think.


Getting tired of seeing this piece of misinformation spread again and again. Bigger cars aren't just bigger on the outside. They are bigger and more roomy on the inside as well.

quote:
Small cars may not be like the sofas on wheels most US cars seem to be but they can be a lot of fun. Small means light which means nimble the only major problem is that it's not that interesting on the freeway where a sofa is really preferable.


The fact that you think the Toyota Corolla is probably a " sofa on wheels " invalidates your objectivity in this regard. And notice the typical condescending European tone, nice touch. Clearly we didn't know smaller cars are more fun and nimble ! With the Miata leading in sales for its class for almost 20 years straight, no, we had no clue ! Thank you European for your insight !


By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 8:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
> "I'm sure if most Europeans were being honest, they would LOVE bigger more powerful cars if money was no object...."

There's no question of this. In London's wealthy neighborhood of Chelsea, for instance, SUVs are so common they're called "Chelsea tractors".

The world's worst gas guzzlers are made by European companies. They're just priced far too high for the common man.


By BZDTemp on 6/24/2008 7:32:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only a European would look down on someone driving a freaking 4 cylinder car. Like the Corolla isn't small and economical enough ?


I'm not looking down on the Corolla - just thinking driving it and making the comment I quoted make a strange fit.

If anyone is looking down on anything here it seems to be you! I have said nothing bad about the US or claimed that Europe is somehow better all I have done is to mention some of the differences.

quote:
Sucks to be you.

? Because?

quote:
Because of oppressive sales taxes, tarrifs, and fuel prices. I'm sure if most Europeans were being honest, they would LOVE bigger more powerful cars if money was no object.

I'm not so sure you are right. But even if it so that does not change the fact that more than half the cars sold in Europe are small. What is your point?

quote:
Getting tired of seeing this piece of misinformation spread again and again. Bigger cars aren't just bigger on the outside. They are bigger and more roomy on the inside as well.

I did not say bigger cars was not big on the inside! This debate would be more constructive if you read what I wrote :-)

The fact is that many small cars offer more inside space than you would think due to more effective space management than on bigger cars. That does not mean a bigger car is small on the inside but merely that the difference between small and big car is less than you might expect.

quote:
The fact that you think the Toyota Corolla is probably a " sofa on wheels " invalidates your objectivity in this regard. And notice the typical condescending European tone, nice touch.


I think you must have something of a complex you need dealing with (Yes - now I do sound condescending).

My "sofa on wheels" statement for starters did not refer to the Corolla but more the traditional US cars. However more importantly it was not meant to belittle those type of cars as they are spot on for the big US roads. Sure they handle like sofas on wheels but in their environment which includes both the big roads but also the more layed-back style of driving not seen in European cities.


By BZDTemp on 6/24/2008 7:49:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Clearly we didn't know smaller cars are more fun and nimble ! With the Miata leading in sales for its class for almost 20 years straight, no, we had no clue ! Thank you European for your insight !


I decided to do this one in a post of it's own to make sure you do not miss the points!

- Miata leading sales. Sure in a very specific part of the market with similar cars so your point is? BTW: I drive a Miata and it's also leading the same market over here.

I don't get what you are on about whit the whole Europe vs. US thing you are on about. In no way was that my point as I was merely describing the differences. But I guess it hurts to see the US car makers in trouble while the Asian and European ones doing rather well - especially when seeing it will get even worse since the rise in gas prices will make classic US cars even harder to sell. (Yes - now I am condescending again but you asked for it!)


By Aloonatic on 6/24/2008 7:54:45 AM , Rating: 2
I live in the UK and I do consider my car to be mid sized.

Most people are surprised about how much room there is in the back, even though it is a 3 door model.

I used to drive a KA and there was plenty of space in the back of there for short journeys (by 2 people tops) to be made in comfort. Motorway journeys weren't that bad comfort wise either, 2 hours was more than bearable.

The reason why I traded up in size was mostly down to safety.

My KA was tiny and offered little protection in an accident. If there were people in the back there was very little between them and anything hitting the back, the same in the front really. This is a problem in some bigger people carriers too, when the extra seats in the back are deployed.

It also only had a driver's air-bag and did not have ABS along with very little power.

My Corolla on the other hand has 8 air-bags, ABS, ESP, Traction Control plenty of room and a bit of weight on my side, plus 150-190bhp.

I am a big believer in powerful cars being safer than under powered cars too, if driven responsibly.

In the UK, he have had a brief spell of people buying bigger as they felt richer due to the prosperous economic conditions that we have enjoyed over the last 10 years, even with the crazy fuel duty escalator.

The £1,000s sales room tax (for the most polluting cars) that is being bought in should put a stop to that tho.

The problem is, it's much easier to trade up in size than it is to go down.


Better...stronger...lighter
By Indianapolis on 6/23/2008 11:32:03 AM , Rating: 2
I'd love to see car manufactures make lighter vehicles, as long as they can can do it without sacrifice safety.

I remember my first car, a Dodge Omni GLH Turbo, only weighed 2300 pounds...and that was a 4-door with decent interior space. With a 2.2 Turbo engine that was beefy enough to handle a lot of boost, I had no problem getting that car reliably running low 12's with just basic modifications. The Omni was followed by the Shadow, which was followed by the Neon, and now the Caliber. Each generation has gotten bigger and heavier.

Of course my old Omni was loud and crude and probably extremely unsafe, but it's still nice to see the trend toward porkier vehicles reversing as technology improves.




RE: Better...stronger...lighter
By lifeblood on 6/23/2008 12:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately they can only reduce weight and increase engine efficiency so much. Any lighter and it will be unsafe, and internal combustion engines can only be so efficient. Still, everything helps.

I really want to buy a small pickup truck but nobody builds them anymore. I had a small, relatively fuel efficient 1986 Toyota pickup that would be great but it's long since been discontinued (or supersized). Two of my friends have home landscaping businesses on the side and drive large pickups, but I only need to move the occasional piece of furniture or bag of fertilizer and so would like a small truck. Hopefully Toyota will bring it back.


RE: Better...stronger...lighter
By Spuke on 6/23/2008 1:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
Toyota still has small trucks, just don't get one with all the frills.


RE: Better...stronger...lighter
By djc208 on 6/23/2008 3:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
Ford still has the Ranger too, though it's ancient compared to the Toyota.


RE: Better...stronger...lighter
By BladeVenom on 6/23/2008 12:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
They should start by making trucks and SUVs lighter, so it's safer for small cars. Also making gas guzzlers more efficient saves more gas than improving already fuel efficient cars.


RE: Better...stronger...lighter
By djc208 on 6/23/2008 1:10:53 PM , Rating: 2
For the most part they have been. Problem is that the reductions in weight due to improvements like Mazda made are usually cancelled by increases in size, and feature creap.

I have a 61 Desoto that weighs about the same as my 05 Magnum RT (about 2 tons). These vehicles are actually comparable in market position for their respective ages (Desoto was originally slotted between Dodge, later Plymouth, and Chrysler).

The Desoto is bigger than the Magnum and has lots more steel (just look at the fins!), but without all the sound deadening, air conditioning, heated seats, power windows/locks/pedals/mirrors/seats (OK the Desoto does have a power bench seat), 27 speaker stereo system with amp, 30+ lbs worth of emissions controls equipment, ABS, air bags (and seatbelts for that matter) and about a mile of extra wiring for the 6 different computers.

This has always been part of the problem, cars provide a lot more bang for the buck today than they used to, but something has to give, it's been fuel economy until recently. Unless you're willing to give up features and comfort it's going to be the price next.


By Hoser McMoose on 6/23/2008 1:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For the most part they have been. Problem is that the reductions in weight due to improvements like Mazda made are usually cancelled by increases in size, and feature creap.

This is, in my opinion, the biggest and most under reported reason for lack of improvements in fuel economy. Cars models have been growing at a ridiculous rate over the past few years while power has skyrocketed!

A good comparison is to compare Honda's 1979 Accord to their 2009 models. The 2009 Honda Fit is nearly the exact same size as the '79 Accord and has a more powerful engine. The 2009 Accord has grown two full model sizes in 30 years!

Engine power has gone way up too. It's not uncommon (in North America at least) to see family sedans with 250hp+ engines and sub-7 second 0-100km/h times. Only 25 years ago that was Ferrari and Porsche territory, now it's a grocery-getter.


RE: Better...stronger...lighter
By FITCamaro on 6/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Better...stronger...lighter
By djc208 on 6/23/2008 3:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
There were also a lot fewer cars with worse performance, moving at slower speeds. Plus, you don't drive my antique like you do my modern car, while the power is similar (6.8L Wedge vs 5.7L HEMI) that's about it. They didn't call them boats for nothing. You leave more room and take turns slower because the car doesn't have anti-roll bars and 4-wheel disk brakes with ABS and traction control.

The accidents aren't because people think they're invincible with seatbelts and airbags, it's because the performance is just good enough most people don't pay attention to it. The lady in the 5000lb SUV tailgating a BMW 3-series doesn't realize that she's never going to stop as fast as that car in a panic stop. She's probably too busy on the cell phone and has never pushes the vehicle hard enough to really feel the weight involved.

Add in the fact that cars have become so much of an appliance that most are not properly cared for and you have a lady in a 5000lb SUV with brakes that are somewhere between new and "not grinding yet", tires that are somewhere above "passed inspection x months ago", and god knows when the brake fluid was changed, alignment checked, etc.

You want to be scared by the cars on the road now then go work in a repair shop for a few months, you see what people drive in and why and you'll be scared of what's out there on the road with you. Increased safety standards are a direct result of the fact that we do 75~80+ on the interstate vs. 40 years ago when there barely was an interstate system. The 60lb bumpers on my Desoto are far heavier than the seatbelts and airbags on any new car.


RE: Better...stronger...lighter
By FITCamaro on 6/23/2008 3:42:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
She's probably too busy on the cell phone and has never pushes the vehicle hard enough to really feel the weight involved.


Yes so you need to remove the safety equipment so when she plows into the median or another car, she is killed and no longer can cause a problem. You remove enough stupid people from the population and things get better.


RE: Better...stronger...lighter
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2008 7:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah but, without that same safety equipment wouldn't she kill the other person as well ? :P


RE: Better...stronger...lighter
By Keeir on 6/23/2008 4:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, this is totally off-base. There may be more accidents per year, but given the significantly higher number of vechile miles travelled every year, the per mile number of fatalities and injuries (IE "serious" crashes) declines year after year after year for the past 25 years.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.6a...

(Responsible) People are already terrified for the most part to get into accidents etc because of the effect on insurance prices. The people who currently don't care, probably won't care even if you removed all the safety devices.


RE: Better...stronger...lighter
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2008 1:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd love to see car manufactures make lighter vehicles, as long as they can can do it without sacrifice safety.


What about looks ?

I'm looking at these concept photos and thinking fuel consumption isn't the only thing being reduced by 30%. So is your chance of being laid or smiling while driving.

I really hate the trend auto makers are being forced into. Everyone is going to Euro style econo shitboxes with no appeal or utility.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 1:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
When a nation collectively decides to stop producing its own fuel, it eventually gets forced to accept unsavory alternatives.


By tastyratz on 6/23/2008 12:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
with all the technologies that car companies have available to them now, why is it few vehicles are ever seen with more than 1?

Why don't we see a single diesel hybrid powered vehicle??? you can mate an electric engine to nearly anything - why not?
Manufacturers could easily be producing a vehicle with plenty of get up and go and 80mpg for a reasonable price - no problem. We could have our cake and eat it too.

Take a well made small displacement diesel engine, mate it to a variable vane electrically assisted ball bearing turbo. Make it a 4 variable valve dual cam with direct injection.
Mate that to an electric engine, slap a pack of lithium ion batteries in the trunk and make the car a plug in. Utilize high strength spring steel or aluminum chassis to make the body lightweight and an aerodynamic design.
Technically they could use small electric motors mounted in the wheel itself (its been done) and mount them in the rear wheels. This could give us 4 wheel drive for low traction or sports driving mated to the efficiency of a front wheel drive diesel.




By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 12:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "Why don't we see a single diesel hybrid powered vehicle??? "

Because diesels are more expensive. Hybrids are more expensive. A diesel hybrid is even more expensive than either of the two separately. Not many people want to pay a $15K premium for a vehicle that's only going to save them $5K on gas.

Furthermore, a diesel tends to work better as a serial hybrid, rather than a parallel. But NiMH batteries are horrible as serial hybrids...and lithium batteries are just now starting to come down enough in price to be feasible.


By Indianapolis on 6/23/2008 1:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
[RICER MODE ON] Don't forget the VTEC!!1 [/RICER MODE OFF]


By tastyratz on 6/23/2008 1:14:09 PM , Rating: 2
Hybrid and diesel technology has made some nice leaps in recent years in terms of efficiency as well as cost. I believe the cost will be a downward trend

(source) http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/hybridvehicle...
looks like the diesel engines generally cost about $3,000 more on average per vehicle.

(source) http://www.edmunds.com/advice/hybridcars/articles/...
also looks like hybrid cars generally cost $2500-3000 more per vehicle.

At a theoretical cost of $6,000 for the end user to have both technologies, and a realistically reachable goal of 80mpg - how much do you want to bet people would very well be willing to invest? What if they stuck that in a corolla and sold it at a $20k base? The car would sell like hotcakes and costs would be further driven down as production ramps for such a thing.


By tastyratz on 6/23/2008 1:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
also to tack on my last post one thing I forgot. The government currently gives pretty substantial credits and incentives to purchase vehicles with technologies like that - it wouldn't be as hard of a pocket book hit as one might think.
In fact... with some cars if they did this in a way that was crafty they would just about break even for consumers.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 1:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
> " I believe the cost will be a downward trend"

So do I...but there's a big difference between a technology that's slowly becoming viable and your original statement that automakers could "easily" be already providing us cheap diesel hybrids.

> "looks like the diesel engines generally cost about $3,000 more "

Don't misquote your source. It says "$3,000 or more". For many models, the diesel equivalent can be $5+K more. And a diesel-electric hybrid is more expensive still.

> "What if they stuck that in a corolla and sold it at a $20k base? The car would sell like hotcakes "

Sure. They'd also lose $10K a car on each one sold. That's not a wise move for most companies.


By tastyratz on 6/23/2008 1:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
good observation
quote:
"diesel vehicle costs $3,000 or more than the same model car with a gasoline engine"

I missed the OR when reading. The way the sentence was worded it seems so misplaced.

Surely by your post you don't think auto makers couldn't produce a vehicle for internal costs less than $30k with diesel hybrid technologies?

I chose the corolla with its base dealer invoice price around $14k. Obviously Toyota wouldn't undercut its more expensive iconic $20k Prius with such a move but it was more a statement than a possible reality.

In reality however that would be a very feasible breadwinning Prius killer for Chevy if they put it in the $13.6k invoice cobalt or Ford in the Focus. God knows Domestic manufacturers are hurting for sales right now. Personal preference for foreign carmakers aside it would be a wise business decision for them.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 2:12:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "Surely by your post you don't think auto makers couldn't produce a vehicle for internal costs less than $30k with diesel hybrid technologies?"

Once Li-Ion batteries become cheaper, I'm sure they can and will. But you have to remember current hybrids are using NiMh batteries...and the coulumetric charging efficiency is so terrible on those it absolutely precludes their use in a serial hybrid.

You also have to realize that it can easily take 5+ years to design a new car from the ground up, counting new engine, drivetrain, etc. Five years ago, gas was only $2/gallon. Automakers are just now starting to design vehicles around $4/gallon gas. By 2013, the auto market will look considerably different.


By vapore0n on 6/23/2008 1:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
Im all for per wheel electric motor.
"On need AWD" (tm), have awd when needed and keep the center of gravity low.

See the Tesla engine, small and light weight.
It can be done. But not cheaply at this moment.


By Spuke on 6/23/2008 1:56:08 PM , Rating: 2
No is arguing that it can't be done. But doing that on a family sedan takes a bit more engineering effort and money. The Tesla is a no practically, sports car. The batteries take up most of the storage space.

I'd like to see this in a regular family sedan for a similar cost AND driving range as todays cars.


No thanks.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2008 1:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Finally, Mazda will use a Smart Idle Stop System (SISS) on its vehicles to cut off the engine when the vehicle comes to a stop. Hybrid vehicles already employ such technology, but it is a feature that is rarely seen in conventional cars. Mazda says that the SISS is good for a seven to eight percent increase in fuel economy.


I would never, and will never, purchase a gasoline powered car with this feature. Unless they promise to unconditionally pay for all the starters, solonoids, crank, and other engine components broken down by the torture such a feature would place on them. City driving ? Forget about it.

For a 7% gain, this is just too much control taken out of my hands as the driver. 10%-20% gain, then maybe you could sell it to the public.

Too many safety and reliability issues for too little gain. No thanks Mazda.




RE: No thanks.
By Clauzii on 6/23/2008 1:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
VW done it with great succes in the LUPO 3L. 3L means 33 km/liter. I haven't heard of that it should need more service than cars without the engine-off system.


RE: No thanks.
By Spuke on 6/23/2008 2:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree on the added complexity of such a system gets so little gain but I'm sure all the components are beefed up to accommodate this feature at a cost, of course.


RE: No thanks.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2008 3:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
Its just not practical.

Where I live its so hot and humid there is NO WAY you could tollerate this system when your stuck in a traffic jam for 10 minutes or even a simple 2 or 3 minute red light backup. Unless they invented some magical air conditioning system that didn't need the engine to run. I doubt it.

Could you override it and force your car to keep running ? I don't know. If you can't, then thats even more assinine.

Like I said, for 7% ? Gas prices aren't THAT bad. No thanks.


RE: No thanks.
By strikeback03 on 6/23/2008 3:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the Prius does use A/C run off an electric motor, so it is active with the engine off. IIRC the older version didn't shut the engine off if the A/C was on.

I love the 7% increase guess though. On my 20 mile drive to work each day I stop about three times for a total of at most a minute and a half. As most of my commute is at 60MPH and up, a hybrid wouldn't help much either.


RE: No thanks.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2008 3:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't a hybrid, but all gas system. With the motor off, there will be nothing to power the A/C.


RE: No thanks.
By strikeback03 on 6/24/2008 8:46:04 AM , Rating: 2
What does your home A/C system use to turn the A/C compressor? It isn't an internal combustion engine.


RE: No thanks.
By rett448 on 6/26/2008 11:31:50 AM , Rating: 2
An electric motor. If its an ICE then im way over due for an oil change


RE: No thanks.
By Spuke on 6/23/2008 5:33:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Like I said, for 7% ? Gas prices aren't THAT bad. No thanks.
7% is 2 mpg in my car which I can get with different driving habits (basically stay off the freeway on my commute). Not having the A/C on where I live at a stop would be terrible (try no A/C at 110 F). Yeah, a car with that "feature" would definitely not be on my shopping list unless they had a way to keep the A/C running.


If only we could believe them.
By Lonyo on 6/23/2008 11:43:17 AM , Rating: 2
Mazda MX-5:

NA 940kg
NB 1000kg
NC (2006) 1095kg.

200lbs HEAVIER on the MX5 redesign.

But it does make sense to make cars lighter to improve fuel economy. Most manufacturers seem to like making things heavier with each redesign (even though it's for things like safety etc), rather than trying to stick within a weight limit (which would seem to make sense).

Fiat managed to add 155kg (>300lbs) to the weight of one of their models, in addition to making it longer and wider.




By root mean sq on 6/23/2008 1:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
erm... which of those three weights is for next year's design?


By Chris Peredun on 6/23/2008 1:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mazda MX-5:

NA 940kg
NB 1000kg
NC (2006) 1095kg.

200lbs HEAVIER on the MX5 redesign.

Pardon me for seeming like a defender of the Little Roadster That Could, but:

1. That 200lbs was gained over sixteen years. Just a wild guess, but I'd imagine that comparing the weight of most cars from 1990 to today don't fare nearly as well.
2. Over those 16 years, the Miata went from a 1.6L to a 2.0L, and gained 46hp to offset those additional pounds.
3. The Miata not only got more room inside, but picked up more airbags and bracing to comply with new side-impact standards, as well as extra materials to reduce NVH.

All told, gaining only 200lbs while adding that much functionality and safety is a remarkable feat.


aerodynamics
By Stacey Melissa on 6/23/2008 11:56:43 AM , Rating: 1
Hopefully they'll work on aerodynamics. My '04 Mazda3 sedan with the 2.3L and stickshift is rated for, I believe, 32 or 33 mpg, but normally makes 30. A couple trips ago, it made 25 while pushing some serious wind. And the last trip, it made 43 while being pushed by some serious wind. Something is wrong with this picture, and I'm thinking it has to do with a crappy drag coefficient.




RE: aerodynamics
By IcedJava on 6/23/2008 2:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, under the new EPA testing methods, your vehicle is only rated for 29mpg on the highway
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
Which would be about right with your figures.


RE: aerodynamics
By Clauzii on 6/23/2008 2:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
The most effecient would be a car formed as a raindrop :)


Mazda2 in North America
By Chris Peredun on 6/23/2008 11:39:24 AM , Rating: 2
I've heard conflicting stories on this. Is that pint-sized Mazda actually going to make it onto this side of the pond in its original clothing, rather than as a Ford Fiesta?




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/23/2008 11:58:22 AM , Rating: 2
The Mazda2 isn't coming here AFAIK. Ford, however, has confirmed that the Fiesta is coming here in 2010 -- it will look nearly identical to the Ford Verve concept.


DISI Means....
By ziggo on 6/23/2008 1:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mazda promised improved performance and fuel economy thanks to Direct Injection Spark Injection and "high-speed combustion technology".


Should read "Direct Injection Spark Ignited"

My Mazdaspeed3 has this technology, and while it is very cool, it is part of what makes it a major pain in the ass to tune past simple bolt ons.




RE: DISI Means....
By strikeback03 on 6/24/2008 8:49:27 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, tuning past simple bolt-ons might be largely outlawed as well. High-flow fuel pumps and injectors are a decent tip-off that you won't be joining the Sierra Club.


Fuel be damned...
By aguilpa1 on 6/23/2008 1:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'll never give up my old Porsche 928S, gas mileage suks but I love it.




I wonder....
By Locutus465 on 6/23/2008 2:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
If this is the result of ford and mazda (yes I know ford owns mazda) design teams working together... Ford announced a similar tradegy not too long ago... I'm glad to see fuel economy finally on the rise.




stop production on the CX7
By bond007taz on 6/23/2008 3:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
if they stop making the CX7 then they would make a lot of ground toward their 30% reduction goal! Crap, that POS got 9 miles per gallon when I drove it for a month before I sold it




Rotary Engines?
By Goty on 6/23/2008 4:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
BRING BACK THE RX-7!!!

Don't get me wrong, the RX-8 is a cool car, but the performance is anemic. I want another twin turbo RX-7, damnit!




nice commitment
By DeepBlue1975 on 6/23/2008 6:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
I love the idea of cars being weight optimized.
But if loosing weight means becoming smaller, that's no optimization at all and anybody can do that...

For some years I've been having the feeling that most cars of all manufacturers are adding a lot of weight without adding significant benefits attached to that weight except for the fact that if you hit someone in a car that weighs much less, you're gonna be safer... Which is something I don't really care too much about as in 15 years of driving I've never been starring to a big collision, just very light shocks at low speed... Most of them in a parking lot when I wasn't even inside the car :D




Miller cycle and hydrogen
By rhangman on 6/23/2008 9:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
What ever happened to the miller cycle and their hydrogen fuelled rotary?

They had a 2.3L (from recollection) miller cycle V6 that was supposed to have the output of a 3L V6, but the fuel economy of a 2L four. Then there was the 1.3L hydrogen fuelled rotary which had more power than BMW's 7 series hydrogen power plant which I think was a 5L+ V12.

Give me a hydrogen burning twin turbo series 8 RX-7 and I'd be happy. Although I have no idea where I would fill it up.




good luck
By Dom on 6/24/2008 12:39:58 AM , Rating: 2
Good luck to them. Their entire fleet of cars powered by their turbo I4 is getting worse gas mileage then my 350hp V8 Camaro. They need to dump that gas guzzling turbo 4 banger and replace them with DI V6s.




Too little ...
By HVAC on 6/23/2008 4:26:34 PM , Rating: 1
Too little ... too late ...

Is Mazda kidding? 30% reduction by 2015? They will be left in the proverbial dust by hybrids and pure EVs before then. They need to pull their head out and stop just listening to NHTSA mpg targets. Energy economics is driving things now.




Good
By mendocinosummit on 6/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 6/23/2008 12:33:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I have heard since I was a little kid that there have been engine components that gave cars better gas mileage (40+ mph) since the 60's and that the oil companies would either buy them up or the big three (GMC, Ford, and Diamler-Chrysler) would not release them due to cooperation with the oil companies.
Unfortunately, such stories are as common (and as probable) as recent sightings of Elvis and Hitler.

There is no conspiracy to reduce auto mileage. Any automaker which could make a 40+ mpg vehicle with current weight and power levels would corner the market and make a fortune. As for oil companies buying up the technology, patents are a matter of public record...and any patents from the 1960s or 70s would have long since expired.


RE: Good
By theapparition on 6/23/2008 12:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, I hate these conspiracy stories.

It's not too difficult to get to 100mpg with current technology. The hard part is getting there and still maintaining the cost, safety, emissions, and performance that we've been accustomed to.


RE: Good
By JustTom on 6/23/2008 1:37:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
or the big three (GMC, Ford, and Diamler-Chrysler) would not release them due to cooperation with the oil companies.


So the auto companies are bleeding billions of dollars to benefit oil companies who are making billions of dollars?


RE: Good
By DeepBlue1975 on 6/23/2008 9:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
Of course they are.
In fact some of those billions went to my pocket when I came up with the NOPE (Nifty Oniric Propulsion Engine), which consisted of... dreaming that your car was moving (only drawback: you could only use this while sleeping, otherwise the car wouldn't move).
Then the big 3 came up with villain masks carrying billions of dollars in big bags with an "$" sign and told me "your propulsion method is a dream, but it hurts as and is gonna make us become poor. Sleepwalking people zombying around in their dream cars all over the world, not spending a single dollar on ICE engines or gas is something the world is not prepared to yet".

The only problem is that I woke up before I could get hold of those money bags :(


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il

Related Articles













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