300 MPG Or Conspiracy Theory?
December 28th, 2007 Posted in Car Reviews
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 Interesting Articles
53 Responses to “300 MPG Or Conspiracy Theory?”
By George on Dec 28, 2007
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/gw/vw1litre.htm
I don’t doubt it could get 300mpg@30mph, but 300mpg overall is a no.
By Vinay Gupta on Dec 28, 2007
This idea has been around, and been this obvious, in various forms for a long time. I’ve linked to one instance of the general idea (light, aerodynamic == great gas milage) - the Rocky Mountain Institute Hypercar.
We’ve been asking for years why nobody did it. It’s just that… nobody did it. Somebody had to be first, like they had all the materials for solar cookers in the ancient world, but did not make much use of them.
By RICK GOLD on Dec 28, 2007
NMA:
GREAT ARTICLE AND A GREAT TECHNOLOGICAL ACHIEVEMENT BY A SMALL COMPANY…IF ALL IS AS ADVERTISED; AND IT MAY BE !! IF SO, KUDOS TO THE DESIGN TEAM.
HOWEVER, START ADDING ACCESSORIES AND CREATURE COMFORTS AND REQUIRING BETTER ACCELERATION THAN 0 - 60 IN 10 SECONDS (VERY SLOW AND ARGUABLY A BIT DANGEROUS) AND THOSE MILEAGE FIGURES WILL FALL DRAMATICALLY.
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 ?? THERE WOULD BE A TREMENDOUS MARKET ADVANTAGE TO THAT COMPANY. THE REALITY: WHEN YOU FULLY EQUIP A PASSENGER CAR AND ESTABLISH BENCHMARK PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS WHICH MAKE THE CAR COMPETITIVE IN THE MARKET, MILEAGE USUALLY SUFFERS FROM THE IDEAL; AND WHAT THIS CUTE LITTLE CAR REPRESENTS (AGAIN, IF ALL IS AS ADVERTISED) IS AN UNFETTERED IDEAL THAT MAXIMIZES MILEAGE BUT PROBABLY SHORTFALLS IN SOME OTHER AREAS.
IT’LL BE INTERESTING TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS VEHICLE AND IT’S REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE.
RICK GOLD
By Officer Josh on Dec 29, 2007
Im sorry man those cars are ugly. lol
By E. Meyers on Dec 29, 2007
What? No big mystery here, big cars burn more fuel. More burned fuel means more profit for the oil companies.
Car companies make big cars that use more fuel to keep their oil company buddies rich. Insurance companies are so big that they pass economic bondage laws of compulsary
auto insurance and their proxy empolyees the traffic cop make more money for them.
How much money is made for an insurance company when cars sit at long traffic lights?
They define driving as a privelege (given ny who to whom) that they now want to give to the Mexican invaders for breaking the law.
By Adam on Dec 29, 2007
Impressive figures. But it’s still an expensive car for something that will only serve as a commuter. I now also think that hybrid vehicles are a transition technology (toward all-electric).
By Karl on Dec 29, 2007
I don’t doubt about the 300mpg, if it’s an electric motor and the ICE engine recharges the batteries then you must also consider the time passed in traffic jams where no gas is wasted since it has some 60 miles on pure electricity.
It also seems aerodynamics are a taboo subject for the automakers, I mean what the hell were they thinking with the Hummer, it’s as if you wanted to make a drag race and deployed the parachute before the start signal.
Also the $30′000 is the price you pay in the beginning, but you’ll probably have it back pretty quickly with the gas prices trough the roof.
So 300mpg in city in relative quietness since it’s only a small engine and the main one is electric, is completely worth the price. But on highway I doubt it will get that mileage, then what… maybe 200mpg?
By kevin on Dec 29, 2007
officer josh has hit the “superficial”, im afraid to be different than everyone else because im afraid of being made fun of, i dont have the balls to be different, thats why im a slave to the what’s cool, nail on the head… people want it to be cool and attractive to other people…. superficial loser people do. the rest of us will be happy with the money it saves. thanks officer josh for proving that form is more important than function for you and your ilk.
By kevin on Dec 29, 2007
oh.. and thats why it hasnt been done before… because most sheeple are afraid to be different than the herd…. for fear they might not get laid…. i guess. so… to drive an “unusual” vehicle simply to save money probably never occurred to the sheeple who design the cars OR the sheeple who buy them.
By Charles on Dec 29, 2007
Popular Mechanics took it for a test drive. Here’s a link to the video: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4237853.html
I think this is great, and it shows once again that it is small companies that are doing the real innovating. They are able to do this better than large corporations because they don’t have to sell nearly as many of these cars as GM or Ford would to turn a profit and be successful.
By Ni TESLA on Dec 30, 2007
AnyOne can get 300 MPG if they do their own
Research, Never Let Anyone tell you can’t, I’ve build many of them in High School & Blow Up the shop at home many times to get it right, thats untail the US GOV stole my tools & Stuff the carbs made from & Yes the Vipor Carbs them self’s, And Why did they do
that because the air board says so, & the BIG
3 don’t want you to know that’s all very very
real, they just want suck all the money from you untail your dead & then even then after.
After I had learn how much gas is really killing the air we all need, I knew at was time for Hydrogen Burn, that’s H2O to H2 or HHO
and yes you can burn it in ICE Engines, I’ve
been working on a demand H2 Burn for safety
reasons, that means you make on demand & not
storages of any, a same time ago we put the man
on the moon, any now you say you can’t make
cars get better MPG, If people did any REAL Research for them self’s, thin they well find that people have been doing it for over 50years Now, and just keeping to them self’s or faimly or friends. And Why? because you would never believe it because it’s not on your local media, In Fact a Man by the name of Stanley Meyer has done it all ready with
Hydrogen, but you don’t hear about it because
your not looking for it.
“DON’T WAIT ON YOUR MEDIA OR GOV TO TELL YOU OF ANYTHING GOOD FOR THE WORLD”!
Just Do It! And The World Well Change Around
YOU!!!! UUUUUU!
Ni.
30DEC07
ROSWELL - 88201 - USA
By Ni TESLA on Dec 30, 2007
I drive a GEO Metro XFi win I’m not pulling
something with my 1Ton dually, a large car
or pickup is for hauling people with or pulling a trailer with, Not for 1 Person with
nothing to pull or Haul, people are really
dum, they really don’t get it, and small car is good for win your not making much income,
cheaper on fuel & Maint, and yearly GOV Taxes
crap!
My GEO get 60MPG and why because I keep it at
55MPH and not trying to race the world, it’s
always better to have everyone In front of you, I can make 10 gals last a full month and
it’s much easyer then you think.
Ni.
By vulcan alex on Dec 30, 2007
Just a note that the MPG does not include the electric that you would use from at home. With this car my MPG would be very high since I would drive it to work and back and charge it at night. I don’t need air conditioning or perhaps heat since I drive in the early morning and are cheap enough to suffer on the ride home when it is hot.
Now what to do on vacation is another question.
By Mark Tomlinson on Dec 30, 2007
Some of you folk need to at least go to the web site before posting your comments.
The Aptera has all the creature comforts, including in dash nav and air conditioning/heating. In fact, the environmental system is always on, so that the car interior doesn’t get to hot or cold while waiting in the parking lot. And a Wired author took it for a test drive, where they got 308 miles per gallon. The $30,000 price is a start-up price to cover development, they expect it to go down.
The downside? The thing was developed for California driving. Fambro and company doubt it will do well in the snow.
By EuropeanCarBlog on Dec 31, 2007
I have come across the Aptera on the web a few weeks ago and blogged about it as well. The concept seems to work. It is a lightweight vehicle that is basically more like a three wheeled closed-cabin motorcycle with all the creature comforts of a car. I am sure the fatc that the vehicle will be titled as a motorcycle lets Aptera get around a few safety regulations that cars have to adhere to, but it seems to be sturdy and safe overall. The weight savings certainly translate into higher MPG, as does the low resistance design and the energy saving ideas that are implemented in the Aptera, like extracting the hot air out of the cabin and injecting it into the slipstream at the aft of the vehicle. It is a great idea in my opinion and seems like a good step into the right direction to create car like commuter vehicles that are energy efficient and allow for individualism. At 300MPG the price does not even seem that high. Does it compare to a high horsepower European luxury limusine, a street racer or a spacious 7 seater SUV with high towing capacity? Of course not, it is not designed to replace any of these cars. Aptera took a unique “see a need fill a need approach” that I am sure will be the base for more and even better things to come.
By xxxs on Dec 31, 2007
If the evidence for a fraud is that a large company couldn’t do it, but a small one could, then can you tell me how David beat Goliath, for instance? Or how the PC was invented?
I, for one, think it’s pretty good, but too good to be true? Nah.
By Robert sussman on Dec 31, 2007
The Honda Insight has been around for a while. Totally amazing.
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.
But your point is valid. It’s not evidence. It does raise questions about why the large automakers haven’t gotten there, but I like the old quote: Don’t ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
By B on Jan 2, 2008
“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.”
Ohh yes it does; the prius is shaped like a brick to maximize internal volume and still fit in parking spaces and on the road. This new car is locked into its shape and can’t be scaled up to fit more people- because of that they’re stuck with a motorcycle.
The reasons, in short, why this isn’t unbelievable:
1. It is a motorcycle- closed cab, but nonetheless. No towing, minimal carrying capacity, etc. Current motorcycles get pretty good mileage too.
2. The aerodynamic design, needed to get that mileage, nessitates a funky look (which may dissuade potential buyers).
3. From the look of it, it’s a very effective air foil, which can be very, very bad.
Some racing cars have air foils on them- but they’re made with the larger curve facing the ground to create a downward force that increases road traction (good).
This thing’s air foil body may result in too much lift, which would *reduce* traction (bad).
I wouldn’t want to drive it in anything less than ideal road conditions (even a slightly slippery road due to rain or ice could cause the car to hydroplane).
To make matters worse it also only has three wheels (less contact with the road)…
It really looks to be only slightly safer than a motorcycle in any less than perfect California weather.
As a golf cart-like town car it’s fine. Run errands, pick up the kid (oops, only one passenger seat) from school, etc.
It’s hardly unbelievably good though, and with a price tag of 30k, I think I’ll pass for now.
I’m not saying it’s a bad vehicle- it looks excellent for its niche, but that niche is limited. San Fransiscan environmentalist bachelors will love it, but it’s by no means a practical family car.
That said, I do think it’s a great idea to make different cars for different needs- in order to be efficient in our transportation there really should be a very different model of car for every kind of commuter (not just another size of box).
Great article overall- I appreciate somebody who can smell something that’s being hyped as too good to be true instead of getting overly excited. It’s good, but not too good.
By Bob Schaffer on Jan 3, 2008
It is a shame that we live in a world that is “All About The Money.” The car makers can build a car/pickup/SUV that gets over 50 miles per gallon but why don’t they. I think we all know the answer.
When I was a kid back in the early 60’s I had a cousin that had a hired hand on his farm. He bought a brand new 61 or 63 Chevy pickup (can’t remember for sure the year) from a small town car dealer. He drove it for a month or so and was getting just over 60 mpg on the average. Like an idiot he took it back to the car dealer and told them about it because he was curious. They told him to come into the office and have a cup of coffee while the mechanic looked it over. Well, the mechanic noticed that the carb on the 265 or 283 motor was one he had never seen before. The dealer got on the phone and called someone at GM. GM wanted the numbers off the carb so he gave them to GM. It turned out to be an experimental carb that somehow got out of the plant and this hired hand lucked out when he bought the pickup. So, the dealer told him all was okay and left it at that. His mileage dropped to right at 22 mpg after that. Yes you guessed it. GM had the dealer pull off the carb and replace it with a standard carb that should have been on it in the first place.
Like someone said before, if we can put a man on the moon, have the Shuttle blast off to our Space Station and things like that you can’t tell me they can’t make ANY vehicle big or small get at least 50 to 100 miles to the gallon or more. Like I said, it’s all about the money.
And, I’ve owned a few motorcycles in my day and have never had one that got over 56 mpg but I ride big bikes.
In the 70’s I drove a big Buick Electra 225 with a 455 c.i. engine in it and got 25 mpg consistantly. Now I drive a 99 Dodge Neon that gets 30. Certanly makes you wonder doesn’t it?
By http://www.golfnorwich.com/ on Jan 3, 2008
With gas prices increasing as they have been and are expected to, I hope the car makers get on the ball and start increasing their MPG’s.
By lorenzo on Jan 4, 2008
The reason these cars aren’t made known to the world at large is because the business elite makes more money with gas guzzlers than fuel efficient ones. I remember watching a video where high school kids tweaked engines to increase mpg’s. The first thing I thought was “oh my God…they’re gonna sic the men in black on children now…”
Do your history, you’ll see that hidden technology (think Nikola Tesla) is nothing new. As time went on, many vehicles became worse on fuel than better. Isn’t that backwards..? See the documentary “Who Killed The Electric Car” for more insight.
By Cb213 on Jan 4, 2008
30,000 USD = 15,000 quid (UKPounds). I’d buy one of these if they were available in the UK. I drive a 65MPG Honda Civic turbo diesel, and this would put an end to driving this smoky (but efficient) beast. Btw, petrol costs $8.00 in the UK at the moment, and will probably rise, due to our Communist Labour government :-) Nice to see small US companies taking the lead.
By Jhoffa_ on Jan 5, 2008
Nice try, but it’s really little more than another pie in the sky, emotional hippie eco-salve purchase.
It’s worthless, if not outright dangerous on snow. (So much for market share.)
I don’t know what type of batteries will end up in the final production model, but getting showered in sulfuric acid won’t be a pleasant way to end your next car accident..
(Although it may be preferable to paying to replace a giant, exotic, dry cell of some type.)
It’s built like a toy.. and the terms are intentionally misleading.
Like this “roll cage” talk, for example. Sure, there’s some chrome-moly tubing. You see the stuff in dirtbike chassis all the time.
Will it hold a 1400 lbs car off you while battery acid drips in your face? SURE! You bet it will, and it will do a wonderful job.
Do you want to get hit by a pickup truck prior to flipping over? I doubt it.
It’s also got a tube behind the dashboard and rocker support. The structure is tied together behind the passengers. All of which won’t mean a thing when that pickup trucks hits you.
Interestingly, they brag about this like it’s some new idea. Fact is, your conventional auto has all these things. A large cowl area for support, integrated structure in the rear and rocker area.
It’s nothing new and good luck to the person who thinks they’re buying something with nascar style safety characteristics… In a just world, we’d add a laugh track to their eulogy for this.
Ditto with this big hype about “And this area in the front rolls gently out from under you in a crash, and blah, blah.. ”
That’s been a standard to a long time too.. Under IDEAL (<-Note) conditions, all modern vehicles direct the drive train beneath the passenger compartment and help protect the occupants in the event of a crash. Uni-body type vehicles have “crush zones” engineered in just for this purpose. Full frame vehicles mass and hinge.
Of course, most car crashes aren’t “idea” In fact, the vast majority of head on collisions are off center collisions. They’re not the “perfect” accident you see in the test videos, so the structure seldom responds in an ideal manner.
It’s ugly too.. although I suppose the eco-martyrs among us wouldn’t be happy otherwise.. (It has to LOOK like they’re suffering, doncha know)
Other things: Those awful little wheel pants won’t last a minute in the real world. Good luck getting it serviced for anything resembling a fair price. (Imagine replacing that proprietary, touch screen computer? Eh?) It’s ugly. (Whoops, I already said that) I have a hard time believing the heater/Ac will be up to snuff and won’t place a significant limitation on the range of the vehicle. It’s ugly. I’d also really like to be there with a video camera when the back tire blows on the interstate or off ramp. Then again, considering the anemic performance of such a vehicle, they might not be permitted to operate out there with the real cars, mooting the problem.
The CG is too high. It’s ugly. The steering components don’t look durable enough for a mass production vehicle. Its ugly, with a limited range and payload.
And, worst of all.. Its ugly. Just looks like more unworkable, impractical, pie in the sky, guilty hippie eco-salve from here.
I’ll wave when I pass you!
By nathan on Jan 5, 2008
i don’t like cars.. i drive a truck.
that thing is ugly
By Tony on Jan 5, 2008
I think it is a wonderful start, and it isn’t THAT ugly. Just because it doesn’t look like your 10 MPG Hummer (and BTW, to all Hummer owners: sorry about your penis, because that has to be the only reason you would buy one of those gas-guzzling, ozone-destroying monsters) doesn’t make it horribly ugly.
I don’t understand how some people are able to make comments regarding the safety of this vehicle. I wonder if those people are in the safety industry. If not, I will trust Popular Mechanics as they have a lot more credibility than the commentors here.
That being said, I do think that it wouldn’t be ideal for use in areas with heavy snow. I doubt Aptera is trying to replace the vehicles used in those conditions (YET!). As they said, this is initially going to be sold in California. If they start selling it in other areas, I am sure they will modify it.
Would I buy it right now? No. I live in an area that the car probably wouldn’t live up to the road conditions. If they modified it slightly and said it would be alright to drive in adverse weather conditions, then I would buy it.
One last comment: If you absolutely hate the design and would never buy one, just think of this: It is a step towards better gas mileage. This car may cause other automotive companies to step back and take a look at themselves and say, “You know, we should really try and increase fuel efficiency.”
By Jason on Jan 6, 2008
Part of the reason the major auto maker’s cars don’t come close to this is that they are too closely tied to the oil companies. Oil companies have money, and they will use it to keep their business going.
By rocker on Jan 7, 2008
GM, Ford and Chrysler are in the pockets of big oil, and have vowed to keep mileage down. The 300 mph carb is real but the oil companies didn’t want it, so they came up with fuel injection instead. That way they can program the chip that runs the engine to waste fuel and keep mileage low.
The Saudi’s own large shares of the automakers. What does that tell you?
By Chris on Jan 9, 2008
Eric Peters, with all respect, you are one bad columnist, IMHO.
By Kaziarl on Jan 10, 2008
The PC wasn’t invented. Some drunk guy at a college frat party tried making a beer bong and put the wrong parts together. And I have to say, the PC hasn’t gotten much better.
By kurt on Jan 11, 2008
I bet you failed high school chemistry! It always makes me laugh when I see statements like these, you stupid Californians all believe cars are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and causing global warming. Problem is that cars don’t create CO2, the burning of fossil fuels produces CO1 Carbon monoxide not CO2 Carbon dioxide! Further the Earth’s Oceans create 97% of all the CO2 produced annually. Nearly all the rest of CO2 produced annually comes from the decay of dead plant life. Humans are responsible for less than 1% of the annual CO2 production. Now I won’t go into the fact that plants such as trees convert those CO2 gases into the Oxygen we breath lets just leave it with I’m damn glade they do because after we breath air in we exhale the spent gas as CO2. (yes I know we don’t consume all the O2 in every breath) so remember fossil fuel burned = Carbon monoxide, now you won’t look or sound stupid.
By Officer Josh on Jan 13, 2008
Kevin,
Sorry for having an opinion just because its practical doesnt mean i have to like it. I dont drive a gas guzler or anything fancy, i just dont like the style of the car. Man a little harsh on your part maybe communism is good for you :)
By Lukas on Jan 19, 2008
What a beautiful car… Man, if I had a choice between a Lamborghini, a Hummer, some other expensive, beautiful car and this “Motorcycle” I guess, I’d so choose this. It looks so sexy. And cheapish too.
By Ni TESLA on Jan 20, 2008
nathan
you mean a pickup right?
if it’s not 6 tons or above it’s a Pick-Me-Up!
a 6Ton is a Truck or SEMi-Tractor or even Sreight Truck.
By dgm on Jan 21, 2008
2 passenger? What about those of us with children? FAIL.
By allen on Jan 21, 2008
when i was a child, we went to disney. they had the world of motion… an attraction they sill have, but then they had a part that had all sorts of concept cars… one was eerily similar to they aptera, this car they said would achieve 200mpg, and this was in ‘86 or so. this is not a new idea… just one that has taken a long time to come to fruition.
By Lukas on Jan 22, 2008
dgm: They said that on their site they would com out with a larger model later on, after the production of the origional Aptera. Plus, they have to mve out of California first…
By Me on Jan 24, 2008
120 mile range!!! TOTALLY USELESS car! I can get a motorcycle for $2k and can save $28k and have the same safety and a MUCH better range.
By Chris on Jan 24, 2008
Ok, so there are some big errors here, but let me deal with the coefficient of drag .
First off, the article states that the car has a negative coefficient of drag…which is impossible. Zero is as low as you get, in which there is no drag. So negative isn’t possible. I’d imagine if it were possible, the car could propel itself by reverse drag alone.
Secondly, the Prius isn’t shaped like a brick. It is, in fact the most aerodynamic production car available, ever since the Insight went out of production.
So yeah, have your opinions and everything, but try and get some facts straight.
By Rich on Jan 30, 2008
http://www.himacresearch.com
Look it up!
By Roy Latham on Jan 31, 2008
The auto club put the cost of driving at about 52 cents per mile, with gas a little below $3 per gallon. If gas goes up by $1, the total cost goes up by about 4 cents. The dominant costs are insurance, maintenance, and depreciation. People are momentarily shocked by high pump prices, but the shock soon wears off because the actual total cost increase is tolerable. The reason that there are not more ultra-small cars is that they are ultra-small, too small to carry groceries, luggage, whatever. It might find a niche as a commuter car in a multi-car family.
By chris on Jan 31, 2008
Great site!!
I made a site with innovation driving.
http://www.transformenergy.com
Greetings from Holland,
Chris.
By mark on Feb 3, 2008
I am a college student that drives every day on the highway about 40 miles to get to and from school. I drive a 16 year old mazda protege that gets about 28 mpgs. The car itself is in great shape, my parents bought it new and I paid to have it repainted when I got my license. In my family we also have a toyota prius (just traded in our pontiac T/A :( ) and a chevy suburban. My next car will be a mazda3, because the one I have now is so reliable and I can fit my drumset, etc in it, have room for 4 passengers, and a reasonably nice ride on the interstate. While getting almost 30 mpg. Looking at the big picture, spending about $20 a week is not that big of a deal (which is about what I spend, ~$30 fills up my tank every 10 days). I love the suburban and would love to be able to drive one every day, but I can’t justify the expense (payments, insurance, gas, etc.) of owning a larger car. That would hopefully change in the future, but perhaps also in the future my need for personal transportation will decrease.
The trans am is a force in and of itself, if you have the means even renting one (or a mustang or similar) would be a wonderful weekend, these muscle cars are being discontinued and replaced with little wussy cars (the solstice is great but personally i’d go with a mazda or nissan if that is what you want, though I’ve never driven one and this is all wishful thinking from a 19 year old)
About the prius: I think it is a great car, the hatchback is very nice and useful, it has a comfortable ride (compared to a ‘91 compact, at least), is very quiet and gets great ‘real’ milage. I drove it around all day and I got about 46 mpg according to the trip computer, I’m sure a blue-haired granny could get much better. BUT if you are thinking about getting one to be doing what algore says and reducing your carbon footprint and all that lib crap, think again.
There is about 300 pounds of lithium in the form of a battery. This battery is (or at least was) maufactured near Guelph, Ontario (I was born in Ottawa in riverside hospital in 1988, so I’m allowed to hate). The plant is leaking chemical waste into the ground, for miles around there is no plants or wildlife. This battery is then processed and assembled in china (need I say more than the word ‘china’?), shipped to japan where the vehicle is assembled, and then the vehicles are shipped back to america for distribution and sale. Just the shipping of components around the world requires an enormous amount of energy (again my personal vehicle was manufactured in Hiroshima, Japan, so if that’s what you want, then go for it.)
I suppose one point I’m trying to make here is that there is an enormous amount of resources required in manufacturing even the most effecient car these days, and this aptera thing is going to be no different if it is ever even seen outside the outskirts of san fransisco. Do you know where that lightweight polycarbonate is coming from? The kind of plant the metal (if there is any) is being processed? I could go on… If you are truly concerned about conservation (which I’m not really, just so you now, I believe in living consciously but I’m not about to go replace all my lightbulbs with those curly-cue ones, I hardly ever use lightbulbs at all, usually the glow of the computer monitors are enough for me, for example.)
Anyways, if you were truly concerned about the environment you might consider the bus or a bicycle or even just walking, as well as living in a place where such activity would be convienient. The smart car is a nifty idea as well as a fashion statement, but compare it to a car like the Chevy Aveo, it only seats two, it has less power, gets worse real world mileage, and is about double the price. Doubtless this ‘car’ will be used as a fashion statement for the environmentally hip, but even for them, it will be filling a ‘want’ and not a ‘need’, if you can spend $30k on a car, living in CA, then you could most certainly afford a car that has worse mileage than 300 mpg, but they will happily plug in to their coal-powered electical mains to charge it anyway.
I’d propose a more sensible solution, like using oil pumped from within our own country and not the middle east, free of government regulation and taxes (hell, even oil from mexico would be nice), but somebody proposed we’d all be in flying cars by 1974 and I still don’t have one.
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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.