It's a diesel hybrid that gets 65 miles to the gallon, but Ford Motors won't sell it in the US. How could they do us like that? :'(
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/ the-65-mpg-car-ford-won't-sell-in-us.aspx
ID:182263
 Sep 21 2008, 2:26 am
|
|
Look up Peel P50, or the Peel Trident(It gets around or over 100-mpg). There my favorite cars in all existance!
Peel P50(LEFT) Peel - Trident(RIGHT) http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andy.carter/images/facts.jpg The only difference is the Peel Trident is a two car seater, while the P50 is just a one. They have no reverse(You just drag them[it has a little lever on the back to do so]) And they sport a moped engine, which roughly gets to 40 mph(Depending on what you ate that day). They are street legal as long as you have a licence plate, and use hand signals. And they can be used in bike lanes, though prefered in the streets since noone has probably driven around in one that much since the 50's. Facts: homepage.ntlworld.com/andy.carter/facts.html | |
What's the big deal. There are loads of non-hybrid diesel cars out there that do MORE than 65 mpg. I've heard America has real gas-guzzling cars, but surely a 65mpg car isn't THAT much of a shock?!
~Ease~ | |
Jeff8500 wrote:
There isn't a non-hybrid car in America that gets over 40 MPG. I blame the oil companies >_> I blame the consumers. | |
Ease wrote:
What's the big deal. There are loads of non-hybrid diesel cars out there that do MORE than 65 mpg. I've heard America has real gas-guzzling cars, but surely a 65mpg car isn't THAT much of a shock?! This is FORD MOTORS we are talking about. They are notorious for horrible gas mileage. | |
At current oil prices, especially with increasing awareness of global warming, consumers would go crazy for a high MPG car. Hence the contest I've seen a few times to create a 100+ MPG car.
| |
Fun fact: Back in the mid-'70s a company created a carburetor that allowed most vehicles of the day to run at nearly 100MPG, and it was easy to install on anything.
The patents were bought out by one of the oil companies, good times. | |
Crazy... I've owned three cars, all petrol and they had mpg's of 42, 45 and 55 (though the dealer claimed it could do 60+) - my girlfriend's car does 65+ easily (that one's a diesel though) ... in fact the only cars owned by people I know that don't do 40mpg are my mum's Volvo XC90 and the Bentley my family used to have sitting in our drive... that barely did 5mph =P
~Ease~ | |
There's a bunch of cars that run on water. Japan just released one not long ago. Compressed air is also looking promising for city travel. Then there's the algae fuel experiments working to make oil from renewable sources. There's solar cars, hydrogen hybrids and electric hybrids, though not many on the market. Big oil is trying to keep new tech like this suppressed, but it's clear they're losing the battle.
| |
algae fuel experiments working to make oil from renewable sources NO! We don't need anything that will lower gas prices until clean fuel reigns supreme. | |
Those cars would be incredibly inefficient, due to the fact that they seperated and recombine water (fire produces water, kids).
| |
HHO torches burn brown's gas which produces water.
Salt water can be hit with microwaves and made to burn. You can also use a mixture of hydrogen and water vapor to power a combustion engine, burning the hydrogen in the chamber and injecting water vapor which expands instantly to steam, giving you energy. Been done. Water hammers produce energy from cavitation, which some claim is producing overunity, though I'm not sure if any proper tests were conducted to verify it. There's a number of other ways you can get power from water, but you'd probably not like those at all. | |
Mhmm, yea. If you seperate the hydrogen from the oxygen (by using an electric current, for example), and then burn them, it will be inefficient, as you're just combining and reseperating. Using substances other alongside water changes things, significantly.
| |
Like I said, you wouldn't like the other methods I know of, so I won't go into them. Electrolysis can separate hydrogen from oxygen, but that isn't the only method out there. Water is also not the only source of oxygen and hydrogen, just the most abundant. What you want is over-unity, and I'm not about to get into that war with you.
You seem to think the only viable alternative must be 100%+ efficient for us to even consider it. Why? Oil isn't that efficient, yet we get by on it quite well. You seem to have no qualms against growing oil, which is the same concept as turning water into fuel and back into water (which, btw, is a straw man and you know it. Water isn't the goal, only the by-product of the reaction). You also seem to think this entire process will be a closed system, which is quite impossible. Like oil reserves, we won't be investing equal work for equal return, we'll find tricks, other sources and loopholes to get our investment as low as possible while maintaining high returns. That's just the nature of business. It's not your place to blacklist any technology which might benefit mankind, and you certainly have no basis to claim any of this research is unworthy of pursuit. | |
There's a certain level of efficiency that would be needed, and an using electricity certainly doesn't produce that. 100% efficiency, and anything above it, also can't exist, as demonstrated by thermodynamics.
I'm also talking about what goes on inside the engine, which is, for all intents and purposes, a closed system. Growing food that would be able to produce oil, and then using that, is a different concept all together. I really don't feel like going into this conversation, as thermodynamics explains it all. Read here to see why it won't work well. If you really want to make some claim to refute thermodynamics, be my guest. I certainly won't be around for it. | |
Lummox JR