Re: SMART CAR is the Solution

SMART CAR is the Solution

> > Gas is $2.00 a gallon for regular and much higher than that in California. > Its going higher, even if the political situation normalizes because for > every gallon of oil pumped out of the ground, there is one less gallon > available forever. Oil is a diminishing resource and has to get more and > more expensive. Fifteen years ago, Scientific American graphed the future > history of oil production and it is proving to be accurate. World oil > production will start its decline in 2025 and by 2050 it will be too > expensive to burn as a fuel. > > We will not really run out of oil. It will just get too expensive to burn. > There is oil in oil shale and tar sands, but it is expensive to extract. > Liquid fuel can be synthesized from coal and natural gas, but at even > higher cost. Oil will be used for the forseable future for other > derivitive products such as plastics, drugs and the like. > > For us, we might brace ourselves for fuel doubling again in price within > the next five to ten years. I think the best solution is in the direction > of the Smart Car, now sold in England and Europe. I believe the the Smart > Car can be improved enought to import to the States, perhaps with a little > boost from waivers in the laws.

That's a pretty stupid idea. The Smart is a joke, even in Europe. It can barely reach highway speeds, and has a ride quality worse than a schoolbus, making it unsuitable for long trips, which is something that we do in North America.

Fuel is far more expensive in Europe than it is here, and they can make do without all of them driving Smarts. If they improved the quality of diesel fuel, and starting putting efficient diesel engines in more cars, it might ease the problem (but we would still rely on dino bones). Many cars sold here are sold in Europe with diesel, or less powerful engines, for improved economy. It could pretty much be directly implemented here.

We also need not go as far as the Smart. Smaller cars, in sizes like the Neon, or even smaller like a Hyundai Accent / Toyota Echo/ Geo Metro, can be fuel efficient, more practical than a Smart, all without being a total death trap. All that has to be done is fit them with even more fuel efficient engines (like diesels).

In Mexico DC sells two cars that are smaller than the Neon. One is the Dodge Verna, which is a Hyundai Accent. I would say it's rebadged, but all the photos on the website still show H emblems. They also sell the Dodge Atos, which looks similar to an Aveo type car. Those two models are much more marketable than a Smart.

If they did waive safety laws, insurance premiums would kill any benefit.

I would rather take my chances in a shopping cart powered by a Tecumseh engine.

A really technologically simple solution that also works in Europe is manual shift transmissions.

Reply to
Bill 2
Loading thread data ...

Another point. The Atos is a Hyundai Santro.

Reply to
Bill 2

Every time I'm driving and the stench of diesel pollution is coming inside it's because I've been unlucky enough to be behind some shit-box jetta or golf and I'm pissed because the occupants of said shit-box don't even get to experience the puke that's coming out of their exhaust.

Keep diesel cars the hell out of north america. There is NO price advantage worth driving a manually-shifted stench mobile that pukes out clouds of stench with each gear change.

Reply to
MoPar Man

a) Better fuel will reduce smell and pollution.

b) Better engines prevent black puffs, and reduce pollution.

The problem is that diesel technology in most implementations isn't very advanced at all. With tighter standards enforces, it can become much more environmentally friendly.

Reply to
Bill 2

Not in Europe they don't.

Modern diesel engines, modern fuel.

WHY, pray tell me, are diesels so popular even in the UK, where there is no fuel price advantage?

DAS

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

Which manufacturer puts "all their eggs into the SUV basket"?

DAS

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

Both Ford and GM it would seem.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

Especially GM.

Reply to
Bill 2

I am a driver of a Chrysler PT Cruiser in the UK. My Cruiser is a 2.2 Litre diesel with manual box. The reason we drive diesels on the UK is that they get 25% more mpg than petrol models and the government keeps the cost of fuel high. My diesel is modern and does not smell, clatter or produce smoke. It has better pulling power than the petrol version making for a more relaxing drive. The engine will last at least 50% longer than the petrol version and it is cheaper to service. With biofuels starting to take off over here, in the future it will be able to run on biodiesel thus not contributing to global warming.

Reply to
John Rogers

My 300M has a 3.5 L gasoline-powered engine with automatic transmission.

The reason you drive diesels in the UK is BECAUSE the gov't keeps the cost of fuel high hence forcing consumers to seek out alternatives.

Don't diesel's product more NoX than gas engines?

My automatic transmission and 250 hp engine makes for an even more relaxing drive.

I've done nothing to my 3.5L V-6 engine in 4.5 years (49k miles / 78k km's) other than change the oil and clean the air filter every once in a while. Truth is, in the northern US and most of Canada, road salt will kill a car before the engine needs major work (unless you drive a VW).

If you want to be truely "green" or environmentally friendly, best thing you can do is not have kids. Recycle all you want. Drive a Smart car or a bicycle. Grow rice in your back yard, etc - You can do all that and still can't compare your environmental impact to living well, driving big cars, having a big house, having lots of toys - _and_ not having kids).

Reply to
MoPar Man

But they can be fitted with catalytic converters to lower Nox emissions. Since car companies won't voluntarily fit them, proper emissions legislation will get them in there. That's how gasoline engines evolved the way they have.

In a larger car, and while burning more fuel.

Your car is young. Come back at 350 000+ km.

True. Some areas use less salt than others, because they don't feel it is essential to keep an absolutely clear road 24/7. Cars age better there. Other areas don't use salt but use sand either because it is too cold, or ground water concerns. Unfortunately they pour on the salt here, and I live next to the ocean. Cars usually do rot out before mechanically dying.

In which case it will start falling apart when you drive it off the lot.

Population control is the solution.

Reply to
Bill 2

Is it really cheaper to service? That certainly isn't typical with diesels. Most require more frequent oil and filter changes, require a more expensive oil filter, more expensive fuel filter (with water trapping capability), etc.

Matt

Reply to
Matt Whiting

Some diesels are already VERY advanced (Cummins Ram, for example) and have very low emissions of POLLUTANT chemicals. That's the key- the diesel stench remains even if the pollutants are controlled. :-p

Reply to
Steve

A couple of points:

1) Diesels get better MPG *MOSTLY* because diesel contains more energy per gallon than gasoline does. The engines are not that much (if any, in some cases) more efficient at converting chemical energy to mechanical enrgy than gasoline engines are. Another example of the same effect- Alcohol fueled engines get half the MPG as the same engine run on gasoline because alcohol contains half the enrgy of gasoline per gallon. The engine efficiency is the same.

2) The price of gasoline is ARTIFICALLY inflated in the UK.

Not even close to the same "pulling power" as a PT turbo!

So you really believe that by burning cooking oil your car will produce NO carbon dioxide, NO carbon monoxide, and NO oxides of nitrogen? Please tell me you aren't that duped by the biofuel hype. Of course it will still produce the same amount of CO, CO2, and NOx that it does now, and those are all contributors to global warming just as much as they are when they come out the tailpipe of a car burning petroleum-based diesel.

Reply to
Steve

On Sun, 16 May 2004 21:26:07 -0500, Steve spake thusly:

While I don't believe any of the "global warming" junk science, bio diesel does not add any CO or CO2 to the atmosphere. Yes, carbon compounds exit the tailpipe but they just take the place of all the CO2 drawn by the plants that provide the oils that make up biodiesel. And no, diesels do not produce CO, never have.

Reply to
Opus-

It's actually quite the opposite if you've actually driven one. Small, fun, agile, and with the bigger engine, it has no problem getting to illegal speeds if you wish. The tiniest engine model is a joke, though - like the 3cyl Metro vs the 4cyl model.

The big deal, though, is that for the price of an Echo, you get a car with features and safety that you usually have to pay $20K for.

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander

Thank you. My point exactly.

I don't suppose a diesel PT Cruiser is available in the USA.

DAS

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

Any CO present in any combustion process arises from incomplete combustion, does it not?

DAS

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

With respect to Europe and RoW I beg to differ.

Ford & GM/Vauxhall/Opel sell vast quantities of 'ordinary' saloons/sedans/estates (wagons in American?)

DAS

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

It might work as a city only car.

------------- Alex

Reply to
Alex Rodriguez

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.