PDA

View Full Version : VERY cool new cars



KvHagedorn
24th April 2006, 13:49
Loremo (http://www.loremo.com/index_en.php)

157 mpg for the economy model!

KvHagedorn
24th April 2006, 15:31
87mpg for the "sporty" version..

I suppose the unit measurement l/100km makes things easier to visualize for those accustomed to metric, but conversion to mpg is a pain. The formula is 235.2146/x.

Tjalfe
24th April 2006, 15:45
looks cute, but there is no way I can fit in one of those comfortably :(

Brian Ellis
25th April 2006, 04:30
87mpg for the "sporty" version..

I suppose the unit measurement l/100km makes things easier to visualize for those accustomed to metric, but conversion to mpg is a pain. The formula is 235.2146/x.

The USA being out of step with the rest of the world again? A much more sensible unit of consumption would be apothecary's drachms/furlong, wouldn't it? At least l/100 km is a linear unit. If you have two cars with consumption of 1.5 l/100 km and 15 l/100 km respectively, you know one consumes 10 times as much juice as the other going drom A to B. If you express it in mpg (157 and 15.7 respectively) the figure goes down as the consumption rises, which is counter-intuitive.

I love the Imperial linear measurements, they are so simple:
1 statute mile =


0.33333333 leagues
0.86897624 UK nautical mile
0.86842105 international nautical mile
7.3333 cables
8 furlongs
44 bolts
52.8 Gunter's chains
80 Ramden's chains
264 ropes
320 Rods, poles or perches
880 fathoms
1760 yards
2112 paces
3520 cubits
5279.9894 US survey feet
5280 imperial feet
8000 Gunter's links
7040 spans
15840 hands
21120 palms
63360 inches
760323 lines

So why use anything as complicated as metres and km, cm, mm?

Brian Ellis
25th April 2006, 04:41
Loremo (http://www.loremo.com/index_en.php)

157 mpg for the economy model!

I'd simply love a 2 cyl diesel throbbing just behind my lug-holes and behind the passengers', as well, as they sit arsey-warsey. Notice no aircon available for that greenhouse. I may be an environmentalist, but not to that point, when it can get to over 45 deg C here in summer :(

Jon P. Inghram
25th April 2006, 14:34
My car doesn't have AC either, and neither the driver or passenger side windows roll down anymore. Summer is always fun. :D

MultimediaMan
25th April 2006, 16:34
It's odd the diesel thing came up:

I know one of our local lawn service people; he uses a tank of seed/fertilizer/weed-killer which is dispensed through a pump which is powered by a small engine... this year I couldn't hear the engine so I walked over and asked him what he had changed. He showed me his new direct injection diesel powered pump. It is a two cylinder jobbie which you could barely hear at 10 feet. The pump was noisier than the engine. Diesels have come a long way since the 80's and 90's.

VJ
26th April 2006, 00:23
They look cute, but I find it odd that the rear passengers sit facing the wrong way.

I wonder what fuel consumption you'll get with an air conditioning on. I mean, the engines are low in power, and an airconditioning takes a bit out of it.


Jörg

JTD
26th April 2006, 04:42
I know this was just a protoype, but how about Opel Eco-Speedster from 2002:

http://www.autointell.com/News-2002/October-2002/October-2002-1/October-02-02-p5.htm

It has a 1,3L turbo diesel engine putting out 82kw (112 hp), has a top speed of 250 km/h and still only uses 2,5 L / 100 km under normal driving.

Diesel engines have come along way and is very advanced and powerfull today (i'm driving a diesel my self, so i know :) ).

JTD
26th April 2006, 04:47
1 statute mile =


0.33333333 leagues
0.86897624 UK nautical mile
0.86842105 international nautical mile
7.3333 cables
8 furlongs
44 bolts
52.8 Gunter's chains
80 Ramden's chains
264 ropes
320 Rods, poles or perches
880 fathoms
1760 yards
2112 paces
3520 cubits
5279.9894 US survey feet
5280 imperial feet
8000 Gunter's links
7040 spans
15840 hands
21120 palms
63360 inches
760323 lines


That's just scary!!! :D

KvHagedorn
26th April 2006, 07:29
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/110732.jpg

wonder what mileage this contraption gets..

az
26th April 2006, 09:06
Is that a Kabinenroller?

MultimediaMan
26th April 2006, 11:17
Nope, that is a Messerschmitt Tiger. This is the 4 wheel version of the KR200 reversed trike...

az
26th April 2006, 12:33
So I was almost right ;)

Mehen
26th April 2006, 15:14
looks cute, but there is no way I can fit in one of those comfortably :(

exactly what I thought when I first saw it, instantly felt pain in my neck - would it really be that hard for them to bump up the roof just a little? I'm sure the aerodynamics/mpg wouldn't suffer that much

Wombat
1st May 2006, 10:46
I'd simply love a 2 cyl diesel throbbing just behind my lug-holes and behind the passengers', as well, as they sit arsey-warsey. Notice no aircon available for that greenhouse. I may be an environmentalist, but not to that point, when it can get to over 45 deg C here in summer :( Actually, I see A/C listed as an Extra on their website.

Wombat
1st May 2006, 10:50
....<stupid anti-English rant> ....
So why use anything as complicated as metres and km, cm, mm?
It's not the units per se, it's the fuel/distance, as opposed to distance/fuel that's stupid. If I get 30mpg, it's easy to figure out how many gallons of gas I need to go 120miles. Or if I get 300 miles to the tank, I know how many work-drives of 60 miles I can make on a tank. Since distance is fixed, and fuel volume differs per engine, it makes sense to keep distance as the numerator. If somehow the world were such that Distance A->B were always 1.5L, your notation might make sense.

az
1st May 2006, 11:01
Yep, km/l would make sense.

VJ
2nd May 2006, 01:28
In a way, yes... It is just that we are so accustomed to our units (be it l/100 km or mpg), that it is hard to change.

FWIW, planes fuel consumption is rated in l/min or gallons/min (the distance cannot be used: if you have headwind, you can't go as far; and vice versa for tail wind).


Jörg

Brian Ellis
2nd May 2006, 07:50
Surely the consumption is the no. of litres or gallons that are consumed per given distance. You don't consume km or miles, therefore mpg is not the consumption. It is a reciprocal function of the consumption. Oxford gives

The action or fact of consuming by use, waste, eating, etc.

As for aircon in a car like that, you would need a second engine, with all that glass! In fact, the title of this thread is wrong, not "VERY cool new cars" but "VERY hot new cars" :D

KvHagedorn
2nd May 2006, 09:40
Probably not hot in Finland in January. :p

But then you would need 4wd and some horsepower..

Why not make the roof photovoltaics and run the ac off that?

az
2nd May 2006, 11:52
Erm... Loremo is a german firm.

KvHagedorn
2nd May 2006, 12:50
Yes.. and?

They could not be used in Finland?

az
2nd May 2006, 13:57
Of course they could, I just couldn't find any context for finland and thought you meant that these cars were from and also for finland :)

Wombat
2nd May 2006, 16:09
Surely the consumption is the no. of litres or gallons that are consumed per given distance. You don't consume km or miles, therefore mpg is not the consumption. It is a reciprocal function of the consumption. And though you never consume miles, you're always burning time, so why isn't your spedometer in hours/km?

Wombat
2nd May 2006, 16:11
Why not make the roof photovoltaics and run the ac off that? Because A/C takes up a good bit of electricity if you try to power it that way. It's much easier/efficient to run a compressor off the mechanical power of the engine. Peltier devices are nowhere near as efficient.

VJ
4th May 2006, 00:30
Surely the consumption is the no. of litres or gallons that are consumed per given distance. You don't consume km or miles, therefore mpg is not the consumption. It is a reciprocal function of the consumption.
True...
But the term 'mileage' is much more used than 'fuel consumption' among those that use mpg...


Jörg

Kooldino
4th May 2006, 09:34
They look cute, but I find it odd that the rear passengers sit facing the wrong way.

Space/weight savings.

Here's why they get such good mileage:
Output 15 kW / 20 HP
Max. speed 160 km/h
Acceleration 20 sec. (0-100km/h)


20 horsepower. TWENTY? That's about a tenth of what your average new car has in the US. 0-100km/k (0-61mph or so) takes an absurd 20 seconds.

A car that low on power is downright dangerous. Good luck trying to merge or pass anyone in that thing. Hopefully they have holes in the floorboards so you can push with your feet to help it along.

The GT model, however, is perfectly acceptible with a 0-60 time of 9 seconds. With a little face lift and proven safety features, the GT would sell like hotcakes over here in the states.

What would be even better is if they combined this car with our current hybrid technology. Hmm, I wonder why there are no hybrids available that are diesels?

az
4th May 2006, 10:05
Hmm, I wonder why there are no hybrids available that are diesels?

I was wondering that myself. And mazda should make a Wankel Hybrid :D

Umfriend
4th May 2006, 10:23
And though you never consume miles, you're always burning time, so why isn't your spedometer in hours/km?LOL yeah

But now I am unsure, should it be Pizza/euro or euro/Pizza?

Wombat
4th May 2006, 10:38
Hmm, I wonder why there are no hybrids available that are diesels? Diesel's high operating temperature? I'm just guessing. You've got to keep diesel under heat/pressure, and that doesn't seem like it would work well with the instant on/off requirements of effecient hybrid vehicles.

az
4th May 2006, 11:41
Would the frequent restarts actually be necessary with a large battery and big caps? I thought what made hybrids superior was that their gas engine could always run at its favourite speed, not that it only runs part of the time.

az
4th May 2006, 11:42
But why are there no gas (and I mean gas, not gasoline) turbine hybrid concepts? There are even gas turbine production cars. Or biodiesel hybrids? Or Ethanol hybrids?

Kooldino
4th May 2006, 11:50
I was wondering that myself. And mazda should make a Wankel Hybrid :D

Haha, wankels are not known for their fuel economy. But I guess it couldn't hurt to play around with it.

Kooldino
4th May 2006, 11:53
Diesel's high operating temperature? I'm just guessing. You've got to keep diesel under heat/pressure, and that doesn't seem like it would work well with the instant on/off requirements of effecient hybrid vehicles.

Hmm, but they do seem to fire up as quickly as a gas engine does.

Perhaps if your guess is correct, they could make the engine run 100% of the time, but when on electronic assistance only inject enough fuel to keep the engine from stalling.

Kooldino
4th May 2006, 11:54
Would the frequent restarts actually be necessary with a large battery and big caps? I thought what made hybrids superior was that their gas engine could always run at its favourite speed, not that it only runs part of the time.

Not that I know of. Besides, an engine's favorite speed is only good for producing max torque. You don't always need that. It would be wasteful.

Kooldino
4th May 2006, 11:55
But why are there no gas (and I mean gas, not gasoline) turbine hybrid concepts? There are even gas turbine production cars. Or biodiesel hybrids? Or Ethanol hybrids?

Convenience.

Where are you going to fill a bio or ethanol car in the US? Diesel would be a more logical step to take.

MultimediaMan
4th May 2006, 12:03
Gas Turbines can be very efficient, but they do not scale down well. Also maintenance on them is a nightmare....there are very good reasons why a "little" (100-600 SHP) one costs $50,000+ USD.

The most efficient Gas Turbines in the world are stationary and used mostly to produce electricity from Natural Gas - I think they are almost 35% efficient for the biggest GE models.

The most attractive thing about them is that their duty cycles are extremely good...on the order of a year or so before they need to be taken out of service for an overhaul. Nothing else comes close to that long of a duty cycle in power generation other than Hydroelectric power.

Gas turbines can theoretically burn nearly anything, so running ethanol, biodiesel, diesel or JP-A is not really much of an issue. Thermal efficiency of small gas turbines is horrendous, however.

Wombat
4th May 2006, 12:12
Perhaps if your guess is correct, they could make the engine run 100% of the time, but when on electronic assistance only inject enough fuel to keep the engine from stalling. You mean idling? That's what burns up your gas as it is. Even without electronic assistance, if your current engine could instantly, efficiently turn off at stoplights, and when coasting, you'd see a significant increase in fuel efficiency.

Kooldino
4th May 2006, 19:45
Sure, but idling the engine vs running it under load is night and day when it comes to fuel consumption.

Wombat
4th May 2006, 20:28
You missed my point. Your engine is ALREADY idling when not needed. But that's still a significant/majority of the time you're in the car. A hybrid with an idling engine would be just like a conventional car, and have the same lousy efficiency.

Kooldino
8th May 2006, 07:16
You missed my point. Your engine is ALREADY idling when not needed.

You missed my point - My engine is doing work and burning a lot of fuel when I'm cruising. If it was run off of electricity during certain situations such as that, it could be better off.


But that's still a significant/majority of the time you're in the car. A hybrid with an idling engine would be just like a conventional car, and have the same lousy efficiency.

I highly doubt that. On my average 20 minute commute to work, I probably sit at idle for about a minute. I probably spend another minute or so accelerating. That leaves 18 minutes of cruising that I could have improved economy with an electronic assistance, for instance.

JTD
8th May 2006, 22:59
Hmm, I wonder why there are no hybrids available that are diesels?

They are coming.

PSA Peugeot Citroen has prodcued a protype diesel/hybrid: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/psa_peugeot_cit.html

Brian Ellis
8th May 2006, 23:42
Hmm, I wonder why there are no hybrids available that are diesels?

This is discussed at http://www.cypenv.org/smf/index.php?topic=71.0

I believe the French prototype is problematic because of pollution issues. I've heard that production is unlikely to start before 2008-2010 and this is probably an indication that there are still many bugs to fix, otherwise they would be starting on a winner by next year. I know Toyota has had what they consider insurmountable (for the moment) problems with diesel hybrids, but I think their difficulty was to find the compromise between engine weight and longevity on a start/stop regime.