300 MPG Or Conspiracy Theory?
December 28th, 2007 Posted in Auto Industry, Car Reviews, Eric Peters, Fuel
Maybe the conspiracy theorists were right after all.
That was the first thought to pop into my head as I read about an engineer named Steve Fambro - and his 300 mpg hybrid Aptera two-seater. Yes, you read that right. Three hundred miles per gallon. Really.
And even if he’s off by half, the mileage of the snarky little gullwing coupe would be at least double that of the best hybrid a major automaker ever delivered - the 70 mpg Honda Insight- and two to three times the best-case mileage of an ‘08 Toyota Prius.
Wow.
Fill-ups could be a once-a-month deal. Your gas bill by cut by two-thirds. For all practical purposes, we’d back to the days when fuel cost less than a buck per gallon since we’d need to buy it so infrequently. OPEC’s meaty fingers would no longer be crushing our windpipes; Iran (and Iraq) would matter a lot less than they do right now. And whether you believe in global warming theory or not, the amount of CO2 we pump into the air would be reduced dramatically if this car became a mass-produced reality.
So, what’s the catch?
Surely it’s pathetically weak - barely able to gimp along at Jimmy Carter-like speeds? Or it’s got no legs - maybe 70 miles before it croaks by the side of the road until you recharge its feeble batteries - like GM’s pitiful EV-1 electric car? And price? It must cost a fortune - like the hottie (but totally unaffordable) six-figure Tesla electric car?
There must be… something. Right?
Actually, no. The Aptera is neither ugly nor ungainly nor cheesy kit car (see for yourself at http://www.aptera.com/). It’s not slow - zero to sixty comes up in 10 seconds; top speed is nearly 100 mph - plenty sufficient for even the fastest American highways and certainly adequate for stop and go commuting in urban/suburban areas.
It doesn’t conk out by the side of the road, either.
Like other hybrids, the Aptera’s tandem gas-electric powertrain is a closed system that recharges (and boosts) itself, no need to feed it current. It can, however, be plugged in to a household 110-volt outlet - and is capable of running on pure electric power alone for as much as 60 miles - in which case the fuel economy soars beyond 400 mpg, since the gas engine part of the Aptera’s drivetrain only “cycles” occasionally - and burns virtually no fuel to propel the car.
The difference between it and other hybrids, however, is weight. By using nothing but high-strength but ultra-light-weight composites for the shell, the car weighs a mere 1,400 pounds - less than half the weight of the 2,932 pound Prius. This allows the Aptera to achieve comparable acceleration and top-speed capability - but with a far smaller, far more fuel-efficient single-cylinder internal combustion engine that requires only a fraction of the fuel required by the 1.5 liter four-cylinder that propels the Prius.
Orders of magnitude less, in fact.
The Prius - as many owners have discovered - only delivers slightly better real-world mileage than a gas-only compact such as a Honda Fit. 48 city/45 highway’s ok - but it’s not staggering, especially given all the elaborate and expensive technology that went into the Prius.
No slam, just a reality check.
The Aptera also relies on superior aerodynamics achieved via its low-slung teardrop shape - a sharp contrast to the boxy profile of the Prius. The difference in CD (coefficient of drag, the measure of a vehicle’s “slipperyness” at speed) is also study in sharp contrasts - 0.11 for the Aptera vs. 0.26 for the Toyota. Sleek doesn’t cost anything (except, perhaps, headroom) so one wonders why a vehicle like the Prius — ostensibly designed for uber-efficiency — is shaped like a brick.
But is it a deathtrap? Nope. An F-style safety cage and advances such as airbags-in-the-seatbelts provide occupant protection that exceeds current DOT/NHTSA standards.
Ok, so this has to be a pie-in-the-sky prototype. Right? Nope again. The Aptera is a fully developed, fully operational vehicle that’s about to go into serial production. Aptera has complied with all the necessary rigmarole to qualify as a vehicle manufacture with both the federal Department of Transportation and the California state DMV. It can issue VINs and sell cars just like Ford or GM - though at at first, the Aptera will only be sold in California.
And the price? $30,000 — or only about nine grand more than the base price of the 2008 Prius ($20,950) and well within the range of most ordinary people — unlike the Tesla electric car or any of the multi-million-dollar “hydrogen economy” demo models that BMW and Honda are showing off.
So, it’s affordable, it’s safe, it’s roadworthy .
This isn’t an incremental improvement - it’s a revelation. And it’s so superior to anything either offered or even contemplated by any major automaker (that includes the much-hyped and not yet here GM Volt) it’s hard not to be suspicious.
Why couldn’t GM or Toyota build something like this? The closest was the Honda Insight, which like the Aptera was also a two-seater, but which unlike the Aptera delivered only 70 mpg. Good, yes, but not sufficient to mitigate against the practical limitations of the two-seater layout. Honda cancelled the Insight because it didn’t sell. People — reasonably — weighed the 70 mpg capability against the limited usefulness of such a small car that was mainly serviceable only as a commuter. But when you up the MPG ante by four-fold to 300 per gallon, that changes the dynamic considerably. Especially as gas prices today are much higher than they were during the Insight era (it got canned before the price of unleaded regular shot to $3 and more per gallon) and apt to stay there — or go even higher.
Count me among the suspicious. If the Aptera’s not a complete fraud, then something’s fishy. If a lone engineer can build something like this - something even close to this - then it’s not possible to believe that a major automaker with literally billions in R&D facilities and teams of engineers could not do at least as well. And should have been able to do so many years ago.
Something stinks here. Trust no one.
Meanwhile, check this car out. It’s pretty exciting!
This is a guest post by automotive columnist Eric Peters, check him out on the web at www.ericpetersautos.com.
Other Related Articles
71 Responses to “300 MPG Or Conspiracy Theory?”
By Jeff on Nov 2, 2008
Tesla is closing their Michigan tech center. It looks like the Tesla vehicle was all hot air.
By Anotherstate on Aug 20, 2008
Wow, someone else has a King Titan and is on the “production list”, too! Cool …. “ditto”, on “missing the performance and HP. I did try to improve the MPG, by a Volaint Cold Air Intake (that should be stock) and a Flo-Max muffler! I’m up to 18 mpg on cruise. Boy o boy, I feel like a kid starting it up, my ol’ Dodge Roadrunner 383 LOL…. But, with the upgrade to the Titan, I have an extra 22hp!!! Fast and awesome. I’ll hang on to it … I use transit bus, now. Nice and covered-up with a CoverKing ….. while the gas prices slowly creep down, then I’ll fill’r up.
Aptera … looks pretty fun & smart… also … I’m “on the list” too.
By Randy on Aug 4, 2008
I see so many posts about the auto companies in cahoots with the oil companies. I would like to see your facts on that. By the way GM along with the other companies are losing big money on the the gas hogs because they are not selling. The fact is that they were making the big vehicles because there is a lot more money in producing them and selling them if they sell. A small gasoline car they make very little money. That is a fact and it is not about making the oil companies happy. Hate sells on web sites like this. Trash the big companies and you get points and makes other people mad also even though the original reason had no merit.
By Jim bob on Jun 30, 2008
KURT; JAN 11…. YOU DID IT. YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. MOST OF THE MEDIA, SCIENTIST’S AND GENERAL POPULATION SHOW THEY HAVE FORGOTTEN BASIC HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE. BUT WILL THEY EVER GET IT? AND GET OFF THE BAND WAGON AND ADMIT THERE IS A REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CARBONS.
(I DOUBT IT)
THE GOOD TIMES ARE OVER. THE IDEA OF GETTING A HORSE & BUGGEY EVADES THEM. ALONG WITH THE CONCEPT IF IT BREAKS DOWN AND NECCESITY BECKONS THE HORSE COULD BE USED AS A VIABLE FOOD SOURCE.
OF COURSE NO ONE REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN.
THANKS FOR SOUNDING A WHISTLE.
By Todd Johnson on Jun 25, 2008
>>By Vidar on Jan 1, 2008
>>xxxs: There’s no reason to believe the story of David and Goliath
>>is true, and the PC was invented by IBM - one of the largest
>>companies in the world.
Religious debate aside, and I’m not going to go into that on a blog…
Dude, the PC (Personal Computer) wasn’t invented by IBM. The IBM PC was first developed in 1980, before that, they were doing mainframes with dumb terminals.
Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak developed the Apple I Personal Computer, in a garage, in 1976. So yes, little guy developer made it first. Big guy corporate said “copy it.”
Sorry, DOS PCs and Windows were never first, even though most PC people seem to want to believe they were.
By Rod Matlock on Jun 22, 2008
I think everyone who questions whether or not a 100 mpg car is possible needs to google loremo. That stands for low resistance auto and its NOT a hybrid and gets over a 100 mpg. The price for this car is also estimated at around 13,000. It’ll go 100 mph,0-60 in 10 sec.
By Bob on Jun 21, 2008
Regarding all of these miracle “water” carburetors: Make one and sell it! Don’t tell me about some nameless uncle in a nameless dealership. Don’t tell me about some government conspiracy. Make one and sell it! I’ll buy 4. You would be a billionaire before anyone could stop you.
Regarding HHO: if it is so damn easy to strip off the hydrogen, then do it! Don’t tell me that the media is suppressing it. Separate water into Oxygen and Hydrogen sell it and make a fortune.
Regarding the BIG THREE being in the pocket of BIG OIL: But it isn’t just GM, Ford and Chrysler in on the conspiracy, it is Honda, Nissan, Kia, Hyundai, Fiat, VW, Porsche, BMW, and every other company with the ability to mass produce a vehicle. Please explain to me how every executive and every member of the board and every shareholder has somehow been paid off. Please! Give me some proof (web sites selling a book don’t count).
Regarding a single passenger vehicle for $30,000 (regardless of the mileage): If it is do damn good then BUY IT. Don’t bitch at me for not buying it.
Regarding bio-disel: If it is so good then make your own! There are legitimate books on how to do it. No one is stopping you. It just takes more time and effort than most people are willing to take.
For god sake people get over your conspiracy theories! If the President of the United States cannot keep an affair with an intern secret, do you really think the plans for a 100 mph carburetor wouldn’t have gotten out by now!
By Anotherstate on Jun 19, 2008
I happen to do some research on this … it’s better than the 12 mpg with my cool King Titan! I will miss the performance and horse poser, but, to “get around” …heck, say a statement. It’s big inside .. for 7′ foot man. Cameras … for all around the rear view and good stability … air bags. COMPOSITE CARBON FIBER! Lite, stronger thasn steel…. I’m on the production list…. in one year. By that time, I think even more impovements to battery technoogies … probably will improve. But, check out the Popular Mechanics … video. on Youtide. :-) Have a good day …….
By Hubcap on Jun 11, 2008
Jenna makes a good point. However although a car may run on water & corn shucks, the question is does it run well? Will it start in January in Skagway and in El Paso in July?
But yes the oil companies have been actively suppressing alternatives for decades.
For a real education watch “Who Killed the Electric Car”.
By Jenna on Jun 11, 2008
OH YEAH! if anyone has ever been to the car museum in California, you would know that people have built cars that run on water & corn shucks! The oil companies pay the makers big bucks for the cars and then destroy it so that they keep us in a monopoly! TRUE STORY! SWEAR!
By Jenna on Jun 11, 2008
I can’t wait to buy one! To bad I live in Japan right now! Oh well, gives me time to save up enough for a downpayment! I drive a small car now, but it still cost me about 50 dollars to fill up on regular gas (10 gallon tank). It lasts about 2 weeks (if i streeettchhh it).. 50 X twice a month = 100 bucks a month.. with the Aptera I could probably go one month and a fourth (probably more!) With the money you save from gas prices you would be able to afford the monthly payments on this car!!! And on their website you can reserve one for $500 bucks, when you sign the papers for the car that 500 dollars goes towards your payment! I can’t wait to get this awesome car! = ]
By Joost on Jun 9, 2008
This car is really amazing! This is the first time I’ve heard of it. I agree that it may not be the most desirable car in the world, except maybe if you really don’t want to spend money on gas, or if you’re really into environmentally friendly living. But it does go to show that the main car manufacturers don’t really do what they can to make their cars more fuell-efficient.
By Carl Boeshart on Jun 7, 2008
WOW GREG, slamming people for not graduating kindergarten because they claim burning gasoline does not produce CO2, thats pretty ironic.
Let me map this out for you. First of all gasoline is made up of hydrocarbons, and anyone whose taken some sort of chemistry should know that hydrocarbons are made of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Some hydrocarbons are methane (feces), ethane, propane (gas fuel), butane (gas fuel) and many, many others.
Gasoline is derived from chains of carbon atoms that are much longer than the ones mentioned above. If you don’t believe this just read the gas pump next time (the part that says high octane fuel) octane is a 8carbon chain structure. Its molecular formula is C8H18. Therefore it should be pretty clear that carbon and hydrogen make up gasoline.
Next up, where does that oxygen come from. OK, another common knowledge fact is that whenever you burn anything you need oxygen present.
Let me repeat that for emphasis. Whenever you burn anything you need oxygen present. Now that I made myself clear, you should know that when you burn something the high heat breaks down the molecules by incorporating oxygen in them. So if you were to burn gasoline or hydrocarbons of any kind you would produce a carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen compound usually in the form of an alcohol (but not usually the drinking kind). If you were to burn the hydrocarbons long enough you will end up with CO2 as well as water (H2O).
The last point I would like to make is that in any ICE (internal combustion engine) in which gasoline is burned, oxygen is present, and a catalitic convertor is attached. This is used to break down the hydrocarbons further to the lowest energy state of CO2.
So if you want a definative answer GREG, you should know this: cars do emit CO2 as a gas to the atmosphere by burning gasoline. However, they are not very efficient in this process and other hydrocarbons, alcohols, carbon monoxide, and other by-products are also emitted in various quantities.
Please people, before you slam someone, get the facts strait.
By gc on Jun 7, 2008
why nit pic about spelling!
half the country can’t spell or read or do math.. just go to any retail outlet and see the clerk try to figure out change.. go down south and half the americans can’t speak proper english they mumble and don’t enunciate so ya can’t understand them…
By Carl Boeshart on Jun 7, 2008
I think that the energy crisis the world is going through is sparking new technologies every day. With the contributions and input from the average man, new technologies or improved technologies are possible. A 300 mpg car is good, but it is still not solving anything. I think that we should find something that is a little more self sufficient than a gasoline powered vehicle of any kind. I believe we have the technology and the ability to create machines that have limited to no hazardous by-products and are easily attainable.
I would also like to state that Ni Tesla needs a dictionary and to do a little more research before he expresses his opinion. First of all, fix your grammar because if you cannot spell or if you use the wrong word (win in place of when) people won’t credit you. Also, your comment about burning hydrogen needs some research because burning hydrogen allows the individual hydrogen atoms to split and bind with atmospheric gases. This increases acidity and is a great contributor to acid rain. I think what you meant to include would be the hydrogen fuel cell. This uses hydrogen and combines it with oxygen thus creating water.
By gc on Jun 7, 2008
“A SIMPLE POINT: IF ANY ONE OF THE MAJOR CAR MANUFACTURERS HAD THE ABILITY TO BUILD A CAR CAPABLE OF EVEN 100 MPG, WHY WOULDN’T THEY DO IT ??”
MARKETING MY BOY! WHY SELL YA A 300MPG CAR TODAY WHEN THEY CAN SELL YA A 70MPG CAR TODAY AND NEXT YEAR A 100MPG CAR AND THE NEXT YEAR A 200MPG CAR AND THEN NEXT YEAR 300MPG AND BY THEN THEY WILL HAVE DEVELOPED SOMETHING MORE AND KEEP YA BEGGIN FOR MORE!!!
MARKETING, MARKETING, MARKETING!!!!!!!!!!!
THEY DON’T GIVE A SH#T ABOUT THE ECONOMY OR THE ENVIRONMENT ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS PROFIT
By Chris on Jun 4, 2008
Regarding what Rick Gold said about the acceleration of this car….0-60 in ten seconds isn’t as slow as you make it out to be, there are plenty of cars that accelerate outside that parameter around the 12 second mark
By Darrell on May 6, 2008
The 300 MPG Aptera sounds great, but the gasless engine being developed as we speak will put those gas powered autos in the junkyard.
By Jerry on Apr 12, 2008
ELECTRICITY + H2O = HYDROGEN (AS HHO)…
THERE IS THE ANSWER TO THE OIL DEBATE. IT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE AND IT IS NOT “NEW” TECHNOLOGY. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS AN ARM OF THE OIL INDUSTRY AND THE USA MILITARY PLUNDERS FORIEGN COUNTRIES TO MAINTAIN THE OIL POWER BASE. IT IS ALL ABOUT POWER AND GREED AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH “NATIONAL SECURITY”
END OF STORY !!
By Larry on Apr 12, 2008
In 1929, General Motors vice-president Charles Kettering predicted vehicles would achieve 80 miles to the gallon by 1939. This was confirmed in a study commissioned by the Shell Corporation called fuel econ of the gasoline engine by Blackmore and Thomas.
Henry Ford’s Model T was originally constructed from plant sources and also designed to run on plant based fuel. The hemp plastic panels were ten times stronger than steel. Ford was photographed among his hemp fields, the very plants that would be used to make and fuel his cars. Hemp grows anywhere in any climate faster than any crop and produces 4 times more cellulose than trees. They were “cars grown from the soil” in the advertising of the day. This would be a boon to farmers and agriculture. Not big oil though.
Rudolf Diesel designed his vehicles to run on peanut oil; while the exhaust was sooty, at least it wasnt full of heavy metals and other toxic contaminants. Hemp fuel and peanut oil are non toxic and at worst mildly irritating to the skin.
Russian scientists have been extracting oil from ultra deep wells for decades now, beyond the depths of ‘decayed organic matter’. White Tiger oil fields in Vietnam are an example. Why are politicians opening diplo- relations with commie vietnam these days? Because that country now makes money by selling oil on the market, not like when the west pulled out of there 30 years ago.
This confirms the abiotic origin of petroleum, a naturally occuring substance from deep within the earth, formed from heat and pressure when water meets the outer mantle material (petroleum = hydrocarbon = hydro + carbon = water + magma material), this is taught as legitimate science in Russia, not in the west though. Burned “organic markers” are merely lichens and microbial life incinerated as oil wells its way up from the depths.
The Fisch (Fish) carburetor, water based engines, energy from salt water, these are all viable alternatives yet leaders DO NOTHING, and we are NOT benefiting from the most basic technologies invented long ago by those smarter than any of us.
Bloody greed, corruption, and willingness to hate what is good are the problem, not us working people like so many are quick to blame. Becaue you have a foreign POS that contributed nothing to this country, and I have a large american vehicle, it’s MY fault there is an energy crisis? That’s like blaming the hardest working person for eating more than everyone else, yea so, he carries more, works more, and expends more energy, so what. Brainwashed eco-nazi non-thinkers in their smug little 4 bangers carrying a half-ton of toxic battery can drive right off the cliffs-of-uselessness.
By Greg on Mar 25, 2008
Gosh!
This article really brought out the imbeciles.
Burning gasoline doesn’t produce CO2? Did you even graduate kindergarten?
10 seconds 0-60 is dangerous? In 1980 Car and Driver only tested two vehicles that got to sixty in less than 10 seconds. Most people I’ve known that were injured or died in an automobile did so in a fast vehicle not a slow one.
A Toyota Prius does not use a Lithium-ion battery moron.
It’s too bad the human race is becoming such disgusting species.
By Jerry on Mar 11, 2008
Electricity + H2O = Hydrogen (as HHO)…..
…This free fuel/energy for the taking and is as simply done as it is stated. The “experts” that say it is complicated, technical, special metals are involved, difficult to harness, and so challenging that it is years away, blah, blah, blah,etc….they are simply lying and it is that simple. It is almost a no-brainer to do. Petroleum and coal interests do not want this to happen…so the lie continues. Free energy for the entire world is sitting in plain sight and the technology has been around for decades. People, get yor head out of the sand !!! hg
By Wolf Harper on Mar 7, 2008
By the way, Mark is lying about the environmental damage around Guelph, Ontario. He’s repeating a vicious lie done as an editorial opinion by some anti-eco types. Ironically, he’s also preaching the opposite belief (of the deep ecology anti-humanity types) that all manufacturing must cause environmental damage. That’s not true either — clean manufacturing is absolutely possible. In fact it makes economic sense, as the waste products formerly polluted and now recovered are worth money as somebody else’s raw material.
By Wolf Harper on Mar 7, 2008
They’re cheating.
But it’s a good cheat. They’re counting on people mostly running in electric mode, charged off their home power plugs. That power’s not free, but it’s probably 1/4 the cost of gas - and even cheaper if you get a special off-peak charging setup.
If you actually ran it “all gasoline, all the time” such as on a long road trip, you’d get 25-45 MPG, about the same as comparable hybrids now on the market - Yukon, Escape, Insight etc - which do not plug in, sadly. It’s pretty hard to beat 40 MPG at 75 mph - that’s just what it takes to push the air out of the way.