backtop


Print 100 comment(s) - last by andrinoaa.. on Mar 25 at 6:50 PM


Saturn Aura Green Line
The Saturn Aura Green Line starts at $22,695 including destination charge

General Motors has officially announced pricing for its 2007 Saturn Aura Green Line hybrid sedan. The vehicle will retail for $22,695 including destination charge and will also be eligible for a $1,300 tax credit from the federal government for 2007 tax returns.

For comparison, the Honda Civic Hybrid, Nissan Altima Hybrid, Toyota Prius and Toyota Camry Hybrid are priced from $22,985, $25,015, $22,975 and $26,820 respectively, including destination charge.

The 2007 Aura Green Line is considered to be a "mild hybrid" since it cannot move forward under electric power alone. The Aura Green Line hybrid powertrain (164HP 2.4 liter 4-cylinder plus electric motor/generator) is capable of providing mild electric assistance under acceleration, stopping the engine when the vehicle comes to a stop and starting it back up again when the gas is pressed. The car also takes advantage of regenerative braking to help recharge the battery pack.

The Aura Green Line boasts EPA ratings of 28MPG/35MPG city/highway compared to 20/30 for an Aura with the 224HP 3.5 liter V6 and 20/28 for the Aura with the 252HP 3.6 liter V6.

A more viable comparison may be with the Pontiac G6 base sedan. This vehicle is the Saturn Aura's platform-mate and also uses the 2.4 liter 4-cylinder engine and transmission without the hybrid add-ons. EPA ratings for the G6 are 23/33 city/highway which means that the Aura Green Line’s hybrid system affords the driver an additional 5MPG in the city and 2MPG on the highway.



Comments     Threshold


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

Give it a chance
By room200 on 3/19/2007 9:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes it seems that Americans will take any opportunity to bash American cars. I drive a Toyota, and even I notice it.




RE: Give it a chance
By Xenoid on 3/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Give it a chance
By Xenoid on 3/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Give it a chance
By Topweasel on 3/20/2007 8:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
Wow One bad quarter in like 4 years and its time to pick on DC. As a Company they made about 200 Million just the Chrysler group lost about 1.1 Billion. GM on the other hand makes 1 Million in one quarter after 2 years of multi-billion dollar losses. Ford and GM are still on very shaky ground and its nice to hear one of them avoided terrible losses neither are in a very good situation and honestly if I worked in manufacturing I would rather be working at DC right now.


RE: Give it a chance
By milomnderbnder21 on 3/19/2007 10:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
I do not believe your statement on gas mileage for 90's Civics of VW's.

They could very possibly beat this 'mild' hybrid, but I will not believe without seeing some numbers that these cars you mention get better mileage than a Prius or a Civic Hybrid.


RE: Give it a chance
By Johnniewalker on 3/20/2007 3:34:06 AM , Rating: 2
My 2000 civic has 170,000 miles and still gets 32+ mpg. I drive 30 miles to work every day. Best purchase I have ever made. Plenty of power (5 speed) to go 70+ mph up the mountains on the freeway. Always starts - never broken down. Just put on my 4th set of tires rated for 70k miles. I'll be doing the timing chain again in 30k miles. Original clutch, shocks. 2 brake jobs. 2nd set of headlights. This is the perfect car. When/If this motor goes kaput, I will probably put a new engine in it and keep it for the rest of my life. This car was 12k new!


RE: Give it a chance
By Hoser McMoose on 3/20/2007 1:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
The numbers are out there, just look 'em up on www.fueleconomy.gov

1990 Honda Civic CRX HF: 49/52mpg
2007 Honda Civic Hybrid: 49/51mpg

(both sets of numbers using the "old" EPA rating).

It's amazing how good your fuel economy can be when you use a 50hp engine!


RE: Give it a chance
By 8steve8 on 3/20/2007 2:01:42 PM , Rating: 2
I think the real story there is the weight.

remember kenetic e=(1/2)mv^2 ... so the reason for the declines in fuel economy.. or at least the fact they aren't getting better in the last 20 years is weight.


RE: Give it a chance
By Hoser McMoose on 3/20/2007 3:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
That's definitely part of it. For the two vehicles mentioned above, the 1990 Civic CRX HF had a curb weight of just shy of 2000lbs, while the 2007 Civic Hybrid has a curb weight of 2875lbs. However it's also no coincidence that both cars have similar fuel economy given that they both use 1.3L I4 engines.

Definitely bigger and heavier cars are pretty much always going to use more fuel then a smaller and lighter car, if all else is equal. And since 1980 cars ARE getting bigger. The 2007 Honda Civic is roughly the same size and weight as the 1990 Honda Accord and it's bigger then the 1980 Accord. Mind you, the OCCUPANTS of these cars are bigger too, which probably explains a lot. People are buying bigger cars now then they were 20-30 years ago because they need bigger cars (on average) to accommodate their extra bulk!


RE: Give it a chance
By fxnick on 3/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: Give it a chance
By Tsuwamono on 3/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: Give it a chance
By dever on 3/20/2007 2:14:08 PM , Rating: 4
My father retired from GM. I learned from his experience and have always bought Toyota (except for my 1966 Mustang and various motorcycles). My preference is mostly due to the well documented reliability of Toyota. It also has a little to do with growing up in a union household witnessing firsthand the socialist agenda and strong-arm tactics of the UAW. It's hard to make a quality product at a good price when all your workers belong to a organization bent on destroying the viability of the company.

My Toyotas typically average 200K miles before giving away the still-running vehicle to someone who needs it. They've all had tremendous gas mileage as well. The old late-80's Corrolas averaged about 35/40. They've all been easy to work on, and safety ratings are typically high. It's humorous to see people still think that bigger is always better in terms of safety. The safest cars in the world are tiny formula one racers. Old bulky vehicles often transmitted the force of the shock directly to the passengers as opposed to absorbing or deflecting the shock through smartly engineered crumple zones and such.

Also, note that a large percentage of the money spent on "Japanese" cars, ends up going to US workers, and often small "American" cars are made elsewhere.


RE: Give it a chance
By timmiser on 3/20/2007 4:44:35 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
A question: Why would you people buy a car from a country that bombed us and is now taking all our jobs?


Why do you buy gas (and lots of it with your old SUV) from a country that invaded our embassy (Iran) or regularly kills our soldiers and civilians? (Iraq)??

I would say you are not a very smart person either.


RE: Give it a chance
By theapparition on 3/20/2007 7:45:48 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, a very small percentage of gas in America comes from the Middle East. The largest supplier of gas in America comes from Domestic suppliers such as Exxon. The second largest comes from Russia.

Oil prices are set on a free market, and investors speculate on future supply/demand and this regulates price. OPEC does manipulate this price by setting quotas on production, but it is not as great an effect as you'd think.

quote:
I would say you are not a very smart person either.

Now you don't feel to smart now either, do you?


RE: Give it a chance
By Snipester on 3/20/2007 8:39:58 AM , Rating: 1
Where do you think exxon buys its unrefined oil from?


RE: Give it a chance
By TSS on 3/20/2007 9:29:45 AM , Rating: 2
from the exxon site:

We explore for oil and natural gas on six of the seven continents. ExxonMobil’s Exploration Company is organized to identify, pursue, capture, and evaluate all high-quality exploration opportunities.

in short, they dont give a crap who bombs who as long as they can make more money.

your comment made sense in the way that you wouldn't buy anything american related either, since you certainly wouldn't buy from a country that started a war. nor would you dare consume anything except the stuff you dare to grow yourself (that stuff you can have though, i dont trust your capabilities so very much).


RE: Give it a chance
By dice1111 on 3/20/2007 9:45:47 AM , Rating: 3
Canda is by far the largest supplier of oil (crude and refined) to the US. This also includes Natuaral Gas (almost 97% way back in 1998). Next comes Saudi Arabia. I have no idea where you get your information on Russia. They didn't even make the list.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_...


RE: Give it a chance
By dice1111 on 3/20/2007 9:49:20 AM , Rating: 2
*Canada

Damn, no edit.


RE: Give it a chance
By True Strike on 3/20/2007 12:50:11 PM , Rating: 3
How dare you bring a silly thing like facts into a pissing contest?

I love it when people actually like sources. Without it, I assume who ever is posting got their info from their big brother, and he never lies... Well except maybe when they found that baggie in his room, he had to said it was someone else's.
Personally, I wouldn't trust him if I was you.

Great post, keep citing sources. Help educate us all.


RE: Give it a chance
By fxnick on 3/20/2007 9:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
Do I have a choice where my gas comes from? No
Do I have a choice on what cars I buy? Yes

BTW, during wars people die, thats the way it is.


RE: Give it a chance
By iNGEN on 3/21/2007 2:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do I have a choice where my gas comes from? No


That is factually inaccurate. You can always choose to purchase gas only from those vendors who purchase crude from sources acceptable to you.


RE: Give it a chance
By Amiga500 on 3/20/2007 2:52:54 PM , Rating: 1
"Having worked on Hondas, Toyotas, Fords and Chevys I can honestly say that the jap cars really are complete garbage"

Would that be why so many American made cars are success stories outside the US... and why Toyota is the worlds biggest car manufacturer?

"everything on them is undersized and puny compared to American cars."

Pretty much wverything on the other cars is correctly sized. Typical US cars that I have experienced are too heavy to match up for efficiency, not a slight against the people that build them, but the designers who design them. But, I suppose a different culture equals different considerations.

The references to Japan are beneath contempt and barely worthy of a response.


RE: Give it a chance
By fxnick on 3/20/2007 9:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Would that be why so many American made cars are success stories outside the US... and why Toyota is the worlds biggest car manufacturer?


So because Dell sells more computers than anybody else and is bigger, that makes them better than Alienware(i know there the same company now)

quote:
Pretty much wverything on the other cars is correctly sized. Typical US cars that I have experienced are too heavy to match up for efficiency, not a slight against the people that build them, but the designers who design them. But, I suppose a different culture equals different considerations.


I'd say they are for durability. And your saying that japs are smaller, so there cars are to. LOL Very true.
Thats why they should stay in Japan!!

quote:
The references to Japan are beneath contempt and barely worthy of a response.


My reference to japan as in factual history? Do you not accept what happened?


RE: Give it a chance
By Amiga500 on 3/21/2007 12:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So because Dell sells more computers than anybody else and is bigger, that makes them better than Alienware(i know there the same company now)


In terms of bang-for-buck, Dell is infinitely better than Alienware... same as a Corvette is a better value motor than a Ferrari 360 or 430 (although in comparisons neglecting price the Ferrari blows it away).

quote:
I'd say they are for durability. And your saying that japs are smaller, so there cars are to. LOL Very true.
Thats why they should stay in Japan!!


No... I'm saying the components in their cars are not 1.5x the weight they need to be... unlike alot of American machines.

You lot like big heavy brutes of machines... that don't go particularly fast around corners or drive/handle well on poor roads and such like - whereas most other places prefer a lighter, more agile machine. Thats what I mean by different cultures.

quote:
My reference to japan as in factual history? Do you not accept what happened?


So... remind me... who is in Iraq with the US right now? Also... who did you lot fight in the war of independance? [and as an aside, who helped you in that war? and got slated for their opinion on the Iraq war?]

If everyone had your attitude, such a thing would be impossible would it not?


BUT...
By HaZaRd2K6 on 3/19/2007 7:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
Are those MPG figures calculated under the old EPA standard tests or the new ones that are supposed to be used for all 2007+ model year cars? Because I'm pretty sure all those other figures are 2006.




RE: BUT...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/19/2007 7:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
They definitely aren't the 2008 ratings.

The 2008 MPG ratings for the Pontiac G6 (2.4 base) are 20/30... down from 23/33.

So I'd guesstimate 25/32 for the Aura Green Line under 2008 ratings.


RE: BUT...
By Goty on 3/19/2007 11:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
The new figures aren't any good either. My parents' G6 GT currently gets about 24 in the city and a pretty much constant 35 on the highway.


RE: BUT...
By Martin Blank on 3/20/2007 12:52:34 AM , Rating: 2
Hence the phrase, "Your mileage may vary."


Hybrids Can't Touch This!
By skroh on 3/19/2007 10:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
Seen this article?

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=...

The Prius, rated at 51 MPG highway, actually got 42. The Honda Hybrid hit its rated mileage at 33.9 vs. 34. But the VW Jetta TDI turbodiesel was rated 42 and scored 49.9. Not only that, the test drivers considered it to be the most pleasant and ergonomic car in the test. I went to a VW dealer shortly after reading the article--he had printed copies of it to hand out, and the Jetta TDI was marked up $3,000 over sticker. Nice!

So much for my secret weapon. But still incredible for a "normal" car, and it makes any and all of the hybrids look pathetic on both fuel economy and driveability. The list price is right around that of the Saturn and the Prius.

Last I heard there was some problem with the new U.S. diesel standards that was going to prevent the importation of the '07 TDI--don't know if they ever worked around the issue. But what a car! Until hybrids can do at least as well, why bother? Especially when you can up the green factor by running the TDI on BioDiesel...

All that to say, a "hybrid" that gets 35 MPG HWY? Why bother?




RE: Hybrids Can't Touch This!
By Hoser McMoose on 3/20/2007 2:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
Of course, the real question to ask here is why aren't more companies making hybrids with diesel engines?!

There's absolutely nothing about the basic concept of a hybrid that limits it to a gasoline engine. However PSA is the only company I know of that is actively working on a diesel-electric hybrid. They have a Peugeot 307cc Hybrid concept car that is rated for 4.1L/100km (slightly better then the Prius' 4.3L/100km) and a smaller engined Citroen C4 Hybrid concept that manages 3.4L/100km.

Of course, the downside with diesel is air pollution. While they use less fuel, the fuel they do burn is dirtier with more particulate emissions. In Europe regulations tend to focus much more on greenhouse gas emissions, where diesels are better. However in North America we focus more on air pollution and smog causing emissions, and here diesels tend to struggle. Newer diesels (and the new diesel fuel regulations) have improved though, and a well designed hybrid with a CVT transmission should be better still since a lot of the air pollution comes from running the engine outside of it's 'ideal' rev range.


RE: Hybrids Can't Touch This!
By jak3676 on 3/20/2007 10:09:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'll 2nd the call for more diesel in the US. I picked up a VW TDI when I left Germany in 2005 (US Spec). Best car I've ever driven. If you have a lot of highway driving, nothing can come close. I make the trip from D.C. to Florida on a single tank of gas with gallons to spare (about 650 miles per tank or 52 MPG). That's even averaging over 70 MPH the entire way. I'd challenge the hybrids to do the same drive at the same speeds with anywhere above 40 MPG.

The above poster hit it dead on in terms of pollution. Diesels do put off more Nox and Sulfur, but a lot less of everything else. A lot of that has to do with the poor quality diesel available in the US. We recently lowered the sulfur content (15 ppm instead of 500), but didn't take it far enough. If you run a good mix of biodiesel you can really reduce your emissions. And its good for your car too - better lubrication qualities in the fuel. If you look at total amount of waste gasses produced, diesels are better than gasoline. But the EPA can't seem to figure that out in the US. They continue to try to make diesels fit into the same specs as gasoline engines.

Manufacturing biodiesel is generally more efficient than ethanol too. It takes a lot of energy to produce corn based ethanol. In the end you only marginally come out ahead (in the neighborhood of 25%). Some of the biodiesel production takes only 1/3 of the energy to produce a similar amount of fuel. In other words with the energy equivalent of 1 gallon of fuel you can produce a little over 1.25 gallons of corn based ethanol or over 4 gallons of soy-based biodiesel.

Gasoline based US vehicles have a problem with more than about a 20% mix of ethanol (without modification). Almost all diesels can run up to 100% biodiesel without any modification. For the few US cars than do run 85% ethanol you only get 85% as much MPG as well. You don't loose much going to 85% biodiesel.

As far as diesel + hybrid. Yes, we need to work at that as well. You just have to realize that it will be different than gasoline hybrids. Diesel + Hybrid is definitely possible - I think every modern locomotive has been a diesel hybrid for decades now. Diesels don't work well to have the engine switching off and on. They do best at a constant (low) RPM. Instead of a gas engine based car that gets extra power from a battery for acceleration, you'll want to design a totally electric car that gets recharged from a small diesel engine. Diesels already have a lot of efficiency that hybrids do. For example, diesels will drastically cut the amount of fuel sent into a cylinder when it’s not needed (coasting). Gasoline engines have a very narrow band for amount of fuel for any given RPM. The standard diesel idea of cutting your fuel flow to the engine may not be as good as just turning off the engine, but its a start. I think the day will come, but some further improvements in battery tech will help.


RE: Hybrids Can't Touch This!
By Zoomer on 3/21/2007 4:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
Hope you enjoy the Vectra more than we do
By otispunkmeyer on 3/20/2007 4:58:09 AM , Rating: 2
so you guys are getting the Opel/vauxhall vectra eh? its not a bad car, bit boring and uninspiring but it is designed and built in germany and its a very well made, refined product (i've driven plenty of them, we have them as company pool cars)

while it is a bit boring and bland, vauxhalls/opels always tend to have rather potent engines for their size and the handlings not all bad either and it is rather roomy inside.

i wonder if to offset this Hybrid you guys will get the equivalent of the vectra VXR? 260bhp and a mean body kit...its stupidly quick, but torque and understeer is a problem

hybrids are a joke really, they're an intermediate step and tbh they're not even a good intermediat step.




RE: Hope you enjoy the Vectra more than we do
By Deaks2 on 3/20/2007 11:06:52 AM , Rating: 2
The Vectra VXR equivalent is the Aura XR: http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/aura/pricing...

3.6l DOHC V6 (~260bhp) with 6-spd auto


By Anh Huynh on 3/20/2007 12:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
The Aura and Vectra, while they both have similar front end treatments are not the same car. The Vectra rides on a shorter Epsilon platform while the Aura rides on the extended Epsilon platform thats shared with the Pontiac G6 and Chevy Malibu Maxx. The Vectra shares its platform with the normal Malibu and Saab 9-3.

The interior treatments are different too.


engine start when you step on the gas?
By jmunjr on 3/20/2007 3:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
Ok so how long is the delay between stepping on the gas and actually moving if the engine has to restart first?

As if city traffic wasn't bad enough, now we have to wait even longer for those morons who wait until the car in front of them has started moving and is a good 20 feet away before stepping on the gas.

I actually step in the gas when the guy two cars in front of me starts moving. In 20 years of driving I have never rear ended anyone. If people would pay attention this would speed up intersections a lot.




By timmiser on 3/20/2007 4:47:23 AM , Rating: 2
You ever drive a golf cart?

It's like that.


this isn't gonna sell...
By dcpizzle on 3/20/2007 8:28:19 AM , Rating: 2
saturn aura hybrid: 28/35, $22,695
toyota camry 4 cyl: 24/33, $19,925

and that's the camry LE, there's a CE starting at $18,470. factor in expected reliability and maintenance costs and the reasons to consider the hybrid disappear.

this is GM trying to put out as many hybrids as possible because they are selling like crazy. however, once again, they've missed the opportunity that toyota and honda have already taken over.

they should give it a regular 4 cyl engine, ditch the hybrid crap, and slap on a price tag around $18,000. then they'd sell plenty and the MPG wouldn't be that bad. right now the cheapest model has a V6 and starts at about $21,000. they aren't gonna win over any toyota owners with that...




RE: this isn't gonna sell...
By ElFenix on 3/20/2007 1:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
saturn isn't meant to go toe to toe with the less expensive toyota offerings. GM's new plan for it is an upscale brand.

if you want a cheaper 4 cylinder version, the new chevy malibu and the pontiac G6 are what you want.


The future?
By Amiga500 on 3/20/2007 2:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
The new VW FSI units produce around 170 bhp from a 1.4 litre engine (on petrol), they make between 40 and 50 mpg (depending on urban/combined).

They also do 2.0 Tdi engines giving around 170 bhp, and gives nearly 50 mpg on the combined cycle (european).

Heck, my near 10 year old A4 gives 40+ mpg.

Basically, I don't see what there is to shout about when the hybrids are still drinking far more.




RE: The future?
By jak3676 on 3/20/2007 10:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
Those new VW FSI engines are nice. Turbo + Supercharger = great! I just wish we could get them in the US. If we ever do I may have some competetion for my TDI (diesel), but until then, I'll be enjoying 50+ MPG on my current Jetta.


I'm sorry but...
By daftrok on 3/19/2007 11:56:37 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously a Civic is more fuel efficient than that. I would rather pay the extra grand or two and get the much more efficient Toyota or Honda hybrid.




RE: I'm sorry but...
By daftrok on 3/19/2007 11:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
not quite...
By yacoub on 3/20/2007 8:01:00 AM , Rating: 3
As noted on the Autoblog post from yesterday of the same matter, the Civic Hybrid is actually cheaper, both Invoice and after all rebates.




Ugly compared to...
By feelingshorter on 3/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: Ugly compared to...
By shabby on 3/19/2007 8:16:42 PM , Rating: 2
Its like comparing the civic to the accord, the aura is a bigger car then the civic.


yawn
By wushuktl on 3/19/2007 10:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
hybrids still bore me. when will we see something substantial? when will we see something that will really help in saving the world? because this isn't it.




and you will fall for it..
By drewsup on 3/20/2007 8:31:00 AM , Rating: 2
All these new mild hybrids suck ass for MPG. I owned a 95 Dodge Stratus 5 speed that got 37 MPG,(it said so on the sticker!) thats a good figure for a mid size car. The other post was right, we hit our pinnacle of fuel efficiency in the early-mid nineties. A Civic of that era got between 40 and 48 MPG, anyone remember the Chevy Sprint 3 cylinder of the late 80's ??? It got 50 to 60 MPG and they made a turbo version!!!!




By jimmy27 on 3/20/2007 11:12:17 AM , Rating: 2
Firstly, please don't love or hate something based on where in the world it is from. There are good people everywhere just working hard to get by. The politics are not up to those like you or me, but some unsavory characters all over the world (and the US) which creates that tension.

Second,I have owned 1 renault, 1 ford, 2 saturns, 1 honda, 1 audi and 3 toyotas. Rated on their quality (1-10, 10 best):
80's renault encore - 4
late 80's ford escort - 5
early 90's saturn - 7
late 90's saturn - 8
2001 honda civic - 7
mid 80's toyota celica - 9
mid 90's toyota MR2 - 9
2006 Toyota RAV4 - 9,10
2004 Audi A4 - 5

The Audi was in the shop 50 days the first year, half that time was because of the car, the other half was because the dealer messed up something ne fixing the car.

My wife's 2005 Corolla get 36mpg hwy consistently driving 75-80mph. At 70mph, my 4wd Rav get 31 mpg. I do think that the technology is there and has been there to do for mpg what some of these new hybrids are doing now. I am surprised that they cannot (or will not) give a dramatic increase in these numbers. If it suited my needs I would buy a prius, because I think it's the best, most efficient hybrid out there. Introductions like this seem to be mostly for bragging rights other than real progress though. These new hybrids need to be relatively affordable, perform well for the price, be more ecologically friendly and in various form factors. Otherwise, you could go out and get a decent car with the similar performance (mpg and acceleration) for 15-17K.




at least
By EBH on 3/20/2007 11:56:08 AM , Rating: 2
its not a sports car or giant SUV




Is Gas Mileage going down?
By Mitch101 on 3/20/2007 3:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
I dont get it?

The gas engine version of this car is worse than my 98 Sebring Convertible. I get 26mpg in traffic and 32mpg on highway and its a 98 6cyl engine car that has to weigh more than this. My car also has nearly 140,000 miles on it. I drive about 30 miles to work each way.

This would be a 22K downgrade if I bought one.

And GM wonders why thier cars arent selling?




By Anonymous Freak on 3/20/2007 7:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
While I would be much happier if it was a 'full' hybrid, even this level of hybridization is good. I would love it if ALL cars on the road had at least this level of hybrid conversion. Just shutting off the engine while stopped is a major boost to the environmental friendliness of it.

Although when ALL cars have this level of hybridness, the name 'hybrid' would become either completely non-differentiating, or should be reserved for 'full' hybrids like Toyota, Ford, and Nissan. (Honda's system is definitely better than GM's, but still falls just short of what I would consider a 'full' hybrid.)




alternatives
By Stig456 on 3/21/2007 3:11:49 PM , Rating: 2
I have read all your comments and it seems the best thing to do is to make as much of our cars electric as possible...except that to charge the cars batteries we will have to put more pressure on the power grid and they use coal and oil, so they have to switch to a different source of energy like wind, water and biofuel...except that there are not enough windfarms and dams to provide enough power for everyone in the world and the amount of land you need to cultivate for enough fuel for everyone would be astronomical. An alternative is hydrogen, but to get it from water you need power, which right now comes from oil etc: The only free way to get hydrogen is with nuclear power, which can supply the whole world with power... except that the environmentalists keep saying no and talk about a disaster in a RUSSIAN powerplant years ago that did not have to happen anyway, so we cannot use nuclear power. We cannot use anti-matter because that would be even more dangerous if it were feasible and we cannot yet get the He-3 from the moon, so what we need to do is...




Horse to water
By andrinoaa on 3/25/2007 6:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
Give up. Phusg, you know the saying "you can lead a horse to water...." He ain't listening.!!
Personally, as small a car that does the job is ok. I prefer to save my money. A $100 saved is another day I don't have to work !!Just keep stoking his ego and let him be perpetually poor.




Underwhelming fuel economy
By isaacmacdonald on 3/19/07, Rating: -1
RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Alexvrb on 3/19/2007 8:04:00 PM , Rating: 3
An Aura is not a Civic, so it isn't a good apple-apple comparison except for Hybrid vs Hybrid pricing, and even that doesn't really help when spanning across two classes. The Saturn Aura is a bigger, heavier, roomier car. If you want a good comparison, compare it to cars in its class and price range. Like the G6 the article mentions. Same chassis, same engine, better mileage.

Some people may like a car that is somewhat more family-friendly than a Civic, or otherwise prefer the additional room or body/chassis design. Many of them don't need the extra horsepower of a larger engine. So for them, having a more efficient, but still affordable Hybrid 4 cylinder would be a nice option.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Samus on 3/20/07, Rating: -1
By theapparition on 3/20/2007 7:31:49 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
because one of them is complete crap

Based on what?

Have you ever driven an Aura? Or are you basing your opinion on the fact that since it's american made, it's utter junk.

Here are some facts...the Aura was named car of the year. But I guess your smarter than everyone who actually drove the car and rate cars for a living.
GM also placed 2nd in 2006 for initial quality, behind Toyota, and way ahead of Honda.

The Civic is not in the same class of car. It's about as relevent as comparing the Aura to a Lexus Hybrid. Now, the Aura is not my type of car, nor would a Camry be my type, but to call it junk is just factless bashing. I am underwhelemed by the small efficiency gain, though. Any long term predictions on reliability.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Fenixgoon on 3/19/2007 8:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
because the aura is comparable in size to the accord and camry, not the civic.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/19/2007 8:49:12 PM , Rating: 2
The Aura is actually very comparable to a Prius.

Even more interesting is that the Aura is has roughly the same interior dimensions as a Toyota Prius.

http://i17.tinypic.com/46yt8ba.jpg


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By therealnickdanger on 3/19/2007 10:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
I've sat in both the Prius and the Aura and whatever small measured differences there are, the Aura definitely feels roomier. But then, I'm 6'2" and very broad. I wouldn't buy either of them. My personal opinion is that hybrids are a waste of time. You can get a cheaper gas-powered cars that get equal or better fuel economy.

I'll take the Audi A8 TDI: twin-turbo V-8 turbo-diesel, 320HP and 480lb-ft torque, all-wheel drive, 0-60 in 5.6 and ultimate luxury seating for 5. Did I mention 40MPG?


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By milomnderbnder21 on 3/19/2007 10:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
According to a recent study posted on DailyTech, the only two cars in the united states that get a mixed miles per gallon rating of 40mpg or higher are the Honda Civic Hybrid and the Prius.

The honda gets 49/51. You will not find a non-hybrid in this country that can touch that. The Prius is even better in this respect. If you are buying a car, that improved gas mileage will add up over the years.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By FITCamaro on 3/19/2007 10:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps. But considering the huge majority of cars "sold" these days are leased, you'll never see the savings because you'll constantly be paying a car payment.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Martin Blank on 3/20/2007 12:46:19 AM , Rating: 3
A huge majority? You mean the roughly one quarter of all new vehicle transactions that are leases? That "huge majority"? What about the other roughly three-quarters of new vehicle transactions that are sold outright, not to mention all of the used car sales, few of which are ever leased?


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By timmiser on 3/20/2007 4:19:59 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, diesels are not included in EPA stats for MPG.


By milomnderbnder21 on 3/20/2007 9:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
The study I mentioned from DailyTech was not a government study. They had, I believe, their own numbers from testing. I do not know if they included diesels, but you can't decide automatically that they did not consider them because it was an EPA study...it was not.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By fxnick on 3/19/2007 10:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
Your totally right, hybrids are a big waste of time and money, diesels really are the future when it comes to the power/MPG ratio. Hybrids are over-rated on their actual MPG too.

Watch in like 5 or 10 years there will be tons of hybrids out there from this generation with batteries that are no good.

Ill take a nice fire-breathing Mustang GT500 or Powerstroke over those woman cars.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Tsuwamono on 3/19/2007 11:35:21 PM , Rating: 1
except that diesels polute more dude. Ya great millage but tell that to your kids when they earn our crappy planet once we are done fucking it up real good. If i could i would go hydrogen. Much better.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Martin Blank on 3/20/2007 12:49:21 AM , Rating: 2
Check your facts. Aside from PM10, diesels are quite clean, especially with the new ultra-low-sulfur fuels.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By timmiser on 3/20/07, Rating: 0
By otispunkmeyer on 3/20/2007 5:34:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Carbon Dioxxide (CO2) - This is the stuff that is hurting our environment. It causes global warming but it does not cause health issues. CO2 emissions are directly proportional to fuel consumption and since diesel engines use 30-40% less fuel, they emit 30-40% less CO2 than gas engines.


now first off, there are many many green house gases, we produce many of them too, but all anyone wants to believe in is man made CO2.

on top of that, im not entirely convinced that man made CO2 is the cause of GW. alot of people, jobs and money and based on the premise that man made CO2 is the sole contributing factor to GW. im not denying GW at all, im just sceptical as to the cause... i think man madeCO2 is just a small portion of a very big pie that includes other man made products, the sun and the earths natural cycle.

most cars have catalytic converters...these actually make a car produce more CO2 than they normally would because they are converting all the nasty gases like CO into something less detrimental to our health.

i honestly think, despite all this push to be green, driving green cars and paying large green taxes the outcome will be exactly the same. the earth will continue to warm and we'll be heavily out of pocket because of it.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Calin on 3/20/2007 6:03:21 AM , Rating: 2
Diesel engines use less fuel, but those 30-40% are on volume. As diesel fuel is denser than gasoline, the output contains more CO2 than the MPG seems to imply.
The only pollution component that is checked for diesel engines here is particulate (the smoke out of the tail pipe must not be black). Black smoke out of diesel engines is bad.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Samus on 3/20/2007 6:44:33 AM , Rating: 3
Deisel's output the same amount of hydrocarbon/gallon than any unleaded gasoline engine. the reason they have a bad reputation is because of poor implementation of polution prevention devices, especially on trucks, so they smell awful and make a lot of noise.

I bet you'd drive my Passat and not even notice it's deisel because its responsive, quiet, and the pipes run clean.

Then you have to consider that deisel engines are built like tanks and statistically last hundreds of thousands miles longer than unleaded engines, making the cost savings in the end quiet substantial.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By giantpandaman2 on 3/20/2007 1:54:15 AM , Rating: 4
Diesel gives out more energy/volume, so a direct comparison between the two based on MPG to talk about efficiency is misleading at best. Now if you did miles/kJ or a simple %efficiency you'd get somewhere. Also diesel doesn't cost the same as gasoline.

Honestly, I don't get this "Turbo Diesel is better than Hybrid" stuff. It's not like either technology is exclusive. Can I imagine a Turbocharged Biodiesel Hybrid? Would actually be very easy to do, since Toyota's hybrid system (currently the most advanced out of all carmakers), as far as I know, has nothing that would limit to gas powered cars only. The only thing keeping that from happening at the moment is that most hybrid makers (Toyota/Honda/etc.) don't make diesel cars. Least I've never heard of them.

In the short term, both gasoline and diesel will come from petroleum. Both come from the same basic stock-crude oil. And it's not like you can turn crude oil into pure gasoline or diesel. What comes out is simply what was in the crude oil to begin with. In other words-if we all started running on diesel we'd not be able to make enough of it and we'd have a huge surplus of gasoline.

Unless of course you go to biofuels, but that's long term.


By giantpandaman2 on 3/20/2007 1:58:31 AM , Rating: 2
Just in case I didn't explain the Crude oil thing well enough...here's an easy place to learn.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/no...


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Calin on 3/20/2007 6:09:21 AM , Rating: 2
Toyota has the D4D naming for its new diesel engines.
The D4D has reached some 2.4l/100km in a closed circuit around Ireland, if I remember correctly (small engine on a small car).


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Calin on 3/20/2007 5:58:30 AM , Rating: 2
All for no more than $22,700.
Your Audi A8 will get the 40MPG only on highway, constant speed of 55mph (and with the engine close to idle RPM). The moment you start exercising all those horses, the mpg will fall like a stone.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By therealnickdanger on 3/20/2007 7:38:25 AM , Rating: 3
The same goes for those hybrids - or any car for that matter. If you push it, gas mileage plummets. My current car has MDS, it will shut down half the cylinders (8-->4) to conserve fuel when cruising at any speed between 30-85MPH. Sure, this 4200lbs 350HP beast can get 26MPG, but there's no fun in that. I'm perfectly content getting 15MPG.

Smiles per gallon!


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By phusg on 3/20/2007 8:09:32 AM , Rating: 2
> I'm perfectly content getting 15MPG. Smiles per gallon.

Hmmm, how responsible. There are ways of getting your macho kicks without ripping the environment you know. Try snowboarding, surfing, gliding etc etc. Just steer clear of gas-guzzling planes and cars. Our kids will thank us when we’re dust.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Etsp on 3/20/2007 9:39:02 AM , Rating: 2
Is he driving a Hummer or Escalade? No, and I think thats good enough...


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By phusg on 3/20/2007 12:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
Ok fair enough we have to start somewhere, I just wish we were beyond the point that driving anything but a hummer is considered environmentally responsible.

It's not even his choice of car that bothers me that much, it's that he's blatantly prepared to lower his fuel efficiency from 26MPG to 15MPG for fun. I was just pointing out that there are other ways to get one's kicks than to hammer your car, pollute the environment more than necessary and then brag about it in a thread about new hybrid car technology.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By hubajube on 3/20/2007 2:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was just pointing out that there are other ways to get one's kicks than to hammer your car, pollute the environment
I see your point. But I don't like to do any of those things you mentioned. I DO like cars so I CHOOSE to have my fun with cars. You can go do the other stuff.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By exdeath on 3/20/2007 10:17:40 AM , Rating: 2
Are you paying for his gas? No? KTHXBYE

As for the environment, unless you can explain why there is global warming on Mars and Jupiter, and explain what caused the global warming on Earth that ended the Ice Age. I don't want to hear it. Unless you can apply models that predicit man made global warming by 2020 with data from the 1970s/1980s and come up with todays data, I don't want to hear it.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By phusg on 3/20/2007 12:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
> Are you paying for his gas? No? KTHXBYE

No, but in the coming years I will be paying for cleaning up the mess caused by his combusting excessive amounts of it. How? For example; I live in Holland and rising sea levels (which are almost certainly a result of excessive pollution since the industrial revolution) are going to be a very expensive problem.

Stick your head in the sand and wait on a 100% accurate climate model if you want to, but seriously, how much evidence do you need that this is a man made problem? Enhanced global warming problem is here already and will increasingly put a major strain on the overcrowded world's economies, wildlife and habitats.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By therealnickdanger on 3/20/2007 12:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I live in Holland and rising sea levels (which are almost certainly a result of excessive pollution since the industrial revolution) are going to be a very expensive problem.

For lack of a better word: bullshit. It's too bad you chose to live so close to the water, I'm not sure what you expect to happen. Water levels have risen and fallen throughout all known history. I suppose next you will tell us that polar bears need swimming lessons.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By phusg on 3/21/2007 5:31:38 AM , Rating: 2
Hey it's not like we built our country on a fault line ;-)

Sure sea levels have always risen and fallen, but it's all about time frames. Usually there are VERY long periods between these transitions. Forcing the Earth's climate into an unpredictable transition at a point in time when the planet has an all time record 6 billion inhabitants and is politically fairly unstable (i.e. we're still fighting wars and building more weapons) just seems like a real bad idea to me.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By exdeath on 3/20/2007 2:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
Cleaning up what mess? A car that makes 400 HP is just as clean as a car that makes 100 HP. It just consumes more fuel to make more power. And someone willing and able to pay for more fuel is not stopping you from getting any and has nothing to do with gas prices. You are free to buy as much as you want or an afford. (see 'cartel' and 'oligopoly' for explanation to rising prices)

Lets compare a Hummer (everyones favorite gas guzzler) and a Civic (everones favorite 'eco-responsible' car). I personally find Hummers tacky and tasteless as I find all trendy flashy things, esp. things glorified by hollywood. It's not for me. But I don't care if someone else wants one.

Environmental impacts:

Now for every 1 Hummer made there are probably 10 Civics. Those 10 Civics consume more gas than 1 Hummer. There are more Civics in the world than Hummers, so you could conclude that Civics are a greater threat to global warming than Hummers (if you believed in such a thing as global warming). Combine every Hummer, SUV, Corvette, Cobra, Viper, etc. in the world and compare total production numbers on the road to all 'economy' and 'fuel efficient' cars on the road. In terms of environmental effects and emissions produced, it would appear that a few thousand Hummers don't hold a candle to the millions of eco friendly gas sippers all over the world. You could say then, that 'more people driving causes more polution' in general and be correct. To single out a single type of car is probably because you drive a Geo and are pissed off that you got passed by a Hummer. A real solution, if one was needed, is no cars at all, and we all walk around in sandals made of seaweed, which is really what the environmentalist hippy types want in the end anyway. Argument done.

Responsibility and efficiency: (ie: converve gas by driving a hybrid type arguments)

But you could argue that its a waste, that you could transport 10 times as many people more responsibly in Civics with the same amount of gas as a single Hummer.
But for every Hummer or Civic there are a million people that don't drive at all, so its not like driving a Hummer is depriving someone of affording a car because Civics use less gas. Saying that we need to use less gas so there is more to go around when only a small percentage of the world actually drives cars is trying to meet some non existant need. It could also be called socialism, in that you want to regulate what someone else buys and consumes. How is 1 person driving a Hummer being less resourceful than 10 people that don't even have a car to put gas in? Argument done.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By phusg on 3/21/2007 5:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
> Cleaning up what mess? A car that makes 400 HP is just as clean as a car that makes 100 HP. It just consumes more fuel to make more power.

?!? Burning the fuel (derived from oil) is what makes the mess in the atmosphere. Driving agressively i.e. using the power of the car more often consumes more fuel and so makes more 'mess' to clean up.

> And someone willing and able to pay for more fuel is not stopping you from getting any and has nothing to do with gas prices.

This isn't what I'm worried about. In fact I'd rather see higher gas prices so that we don't go through our limited and otherwise very useful oil reserves too quickly, putting a historically unprecidented strain on the Earth. No natural process has ever burned on the oil reserves on Earth in the short span of a couple of hundred years.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By exdeath on 3/20/2007 2:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
Also please explain the cause for global warming on Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto? Last I checked, we haven't moved our factories and SUVs to other planets.

I'd like to know how a few million clean burning cars can have more of an impact on the environment than the several million acres of forest fires and volcanic eruptions that occur naturally every year.

For such an enviromental freak you sure don't give nature any credit for its historically proven track record to dwarf us humans.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By phusg on 3/21/2007 5:43:25 AM , Rating: 2
Listen, I'm not saying global warming (as also witnessed on other planets) is a bad thing. It's what enables us to live on this planet. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

It's that we've enhanced this natural process to the point were the climate is starting to change rapidly.

> I'd like to know how a few million clean burning cars can have more of an impact on the environment than the several million acres of forest fires and volcanic eruptions that occur naturally every year.

In absolute terms they may not have. The point is that the Earth was pretty well balanced before we suddenly built >600 million cars and planes and started pouring the Earth's oil reserves into them. If you know the saying, "the straw that broke the camal's back" then you'll know what I'm trying to get at.

BTW a lot of forest fires are caused by discarded glass bottle fragments and cigarettes, and so not what I would call natural.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By therealnickdanger on 3/20/2007 11:58:38 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
There are ways of getting your macho kicks without ripping the environment you know.

Show me how my car irreparably destroys the environment. I do more damage to the atmosphere when I fart - which is also a fun "macho" activity.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By phusg on 3/20/2007 12:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
> Show me how my car irreparably destroys the environment.

It doesn't. Pretty much the only thing that can irreparably destroy the atmosphere on earth is our Sun going supernova and we've got a good 6 billion years before that happens.

Your car alone is not the problem. The problem is that your car is not alone and all the oil they collectively combust when made and used (even more so given driving styles such as yours), release gases which are prematurely forcing the planet's climate into a different (possibly highly unstable) state.

> I do more damage to the atmosphere when I fart - which is also a fun "macho" activity.

True farting isn't the most environmentally friendly thing to do, but there ain't an aweful lot you can do about that. It's not like if you fart softly less comes out, it all depends on what you eat. What you can do is eat less livestock as they have truly impressive flatulence, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatulence#Environmen...


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By hubajube on 3/20/2007 1:49:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your car alone is not the problem. The problem is that your car is not alone and all the oil they collectively combust when made and used (even more so given driving styles such as yours), release gases which are prematurely forcing the planet's climate into a different (possibly highly unstable) state.
Prove this please. Thanks.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By chsh1ca on 3/20/2007 2:47:28 PM , Rating: 2
The act of driving your car around produces more pollutants than the act of leaving your car off and sitting in your driveway, thus the makeup of the atmosphere of the Earth is being altered.

On what level you can feel free to argue, but you just asked for proof, and it can't get anymore basic than the difference between something being there, and something not being there.

Whether it's premature is debatable, since that would indicate it was going to happen eventually anyways and it may not have. Can't really argue that the state of the atmosphere is altered by altering its state, can you?


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By hubajube on 3/20/2007 2:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The act of driving your car around produces more pollutants than the act of leaving your car off and sitting in your driveway, thus the makeup of the atmosphere of the Earth is being altered.
Sorry but this isn't proof. Give me something lookup so I can verify for myself. That's how scientists keep each other honest. They release their work to others to to duplicate and verify. Otherwise, you just have rumors and speculation. Like I said, give me some proof other than the "because I say so" crap.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Steele on 3/20/2007 3:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
Alrighty... Le tme start from the top.

Do you know that liquid stuff you put in the tank under your car? No, not the thick black gooey stuff, the clear liquid that looks like water... Yeah, that stuff. That is called "Gasoline" (unless you drive a diesel or something else, but since you don't understand "pollution," you won't know the difference anyway).

When you put gasoline in the "gas tank" of your car, you have "fueled it up." You are now ready to drive. When you start the motor, small amounts of gasoline are pulled from the tank into the motor itself by the "fuel pump." The gasoline is then sent to the cylinders of the car. These are the things that make noise and make the car "go."

Once the fuel has reached the cylinders, it is mixed with air, and a small spark ignites the fuel. Unfortunatly, life is not like Star Trek, so when the fuel burns, there are byproducts of this combustion.

These byproducts are exhausted from the engine and out the tailpipe of the vehicle. Among them, are Carbon Dioxide, theoretically one of the leading causes of global warming; Carbon Monoxide, which bonds with your blood cells and displaces oxygen, causing you to asphyxiate; water, which is usually harmless; and many other things. Those are the big ones, though.

You asked for proof that cars pollute. This is the best I can do. Frankly, if this isn't good enough, you're better off not driving a car.

Steele


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By hubajube on 3/20/2007 4:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You asked for proof that cars pollute. This is the best I can do. Frankly, if this isn't good enough, you're better off not driving a car.
None of you have given any proof! LOL! Just rumor and speculation. Shit, I can do that! I'll show you.

There is no air pollution technically. Why? Because the earth's air is constantly being recycled. This recycling process removes any potential contaminants that are introduced. Therefore, there is no pollution, per se.

Now what makes what you said any different than what I just said. Without proof, there is no difference.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By Keeir on 3/20/2007 5:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
mmm... maybe you should re-read the defination of pollute.

"
pol·lute (p-lt)
v. pol·lut·ed, pol·lut·ing, pol·lutes

To make unfit for or harmful to living things, especially by the addition of waste matter; contaminate.
To make less suitable for an activity, especially by the introduction of unwanted factors.
"

From the American Heritage Dictionary.

I would say that the combustion reaction of a Hydrocarbon plus Oxygen is not an issue of "proof" anymore. Any Hydrocardon plus oxygen will result in a mixture of (at minimum) of Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, and Water Vapor. All of these components make the "correct" mixture of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, etc that make up standard air polluted because each makes the air less suitable for human respiration. Furtermore, Carbon Monoxide is indeed harmful to humans, and a car's combustion can quickly pollute a enclosed space with enough carbon monoxide to kill humans.

Cars pollute.

Does car pollution cause global warming? Does car pollution constitute a health risk? Does car pollution cause long term contaimination of the air? All good debatable questions.


RE: Underwhelming fuel economy
By phusg on 3/21/2007 5:51:09 AM , Rating: 2
It is logically impossible to *prove* that something may or may not happen in the future. I can't even prove the Sun will come up tomorrow. The closest we can get is to model scientifically and make predictions. Pretty much any scientist who does this comes to the conclusion that the climate is changing as a result of human activities such as burning oil as gas in cars, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Climat...

What the eventual effects will be are hard to predict, all I'm saying is that it would be wise to avert this change at this point in time, seeing as it is within our power to do so.


By Hoser McMoose on 3/20/2007 3:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
Just as a FWIW, the Audi A8 TDI with the 4.2L diesel engine you're speaking of is rated for 20mpg (24 miles to the Imperial gallon = 20 miles to US gallon).

Ohh, and it's not available in North America.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007











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