the 300mpge only applies to all-electric journeys (<120miles). for long-distance trips it gets 130mpg, which is still excellent. link

I was just repeating what the video said repeating what the video said.

I'm looking forward to this design being viable. The man knows his stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crower_six_stroke

Aris Aris

The latter -- I don't think they'll have to try very hard to sell them.



Actually, they have done a lot of work on it's crash worthiness. BTW, The base Aptera Type 1E is ~$27,000 and the Type 1H is ~$30,000 -- but these are early production numbers, and early adopters will always pay more. And they will average 200+ miles per gallon! The 130mpg is a minimum based on all-hybrid operation, w/o any plug in charging. Plug it in at night, and for about $1-2 of electricity, you can drive ~80 miles before the hybrid generator kicks in.

Say it has a 4-5 gallon gas tank: at minimum, that would be 80+(4 x 130) = 600 miles range. For my typical commute (about 100-110 miles round trip), I could charge it each night, and the would be (6 x 80) + 520 = 1,000 miles between fill ups; or 250mpg plus $6-12 worth of electricity. (Here in New England we pay ~20cents/kwh, which is high, so I'll carry the $2 cost.)

Totaling up the cost of fuel for 100,000 miles would be (4gal x $4 x 100)+($12 x 100) = $2,800 total. Compare this to my Scion xA, which would be (100,000 / 37mpg) x $4 = $10,810.

I would save $8,010 per 100K miles -- so if I drove the Aptera for 200,000 miles, the extra cost would be worth it -- and that is at just $4/gallon! We will likely see $5-5.50 by the end of this year, and $6.50-7 next year -- so the Aptera would pay for itself pretty quickly...

I've been wondering if they want/need to start up an east coast production facility?

Ah Neil, always the optimist.

You know if demand continues to rise, these cars will only save us car fuel. How we heat and cool our homes will still be a problem.

Let me know if I didn't use enough 's.

Hi,

Here's a great, detailed video tour of the Aptera factory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ogy6_KHE4A&amp;feature=related

Hi,

I just found out about a car that Mercedes designed that comes very close to the Aptera's Cd: the Boxfish! It has a Cd of just 0.19, vs the Aptera's 0.11... (A clay model had a Cd of just 0.06!)

http://www.worldcarfans.com/2050607.004






And yes, the shape is based on the boxfish, which was found to have the most streamlined shape in nature!



Yes, it seats 4 (rather than 2) and it has 4 wheels, as well. According to this article:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/03/08/cars.fish.popsci/index.html

...it can get 85mpg at 56mph, with it's diesel engine. It beats the Honda Insight's 0.25 Cd, and the Toyota Prius' of 0.26.

Here's the Mercedes press kit page:

http://wwwsg.daimlerchrysler.com/SD7DEV/GMS/TEMPLATES/GMS_PRESS_KIT/0,2970,0-1-68938-1-1-text-0-68935,00.html

0-100kph/62mph in 8.2 seconds, and still get a combined MPG of 70mpg. I hope they can design -- and sell it, with a serial plugin hybrid drivetrain...

Apparently, Mercedes is sitting on this project -- I say BRING IT ON, PLEASE!

My arse............


I'm sorry, but that fish and that car loose any design distinction half way down their body/car shape....... one ends in a classic fin, and one ends in the arse end of a bus.


Andy - streamlined arse because I name it after a fukking fish............

exactly how useful/popular do you think a car would be with a 7ft tailfin sticking out the back? parking would be a bit tricky, no?

my point being, of course the shape has to be modified a bit to meet the everyday practical demands of a passenger vehicle, but the principle is sound.

still a bit baffled why MB won't make this tho. it's not any uglier than all the other MPVs on the roads, and slightly better looking than demonspawn like the Porker Cayenne and Ssangyong Rodius (although the name makes me laugh)l

I cringe to think of the day Neil finds out about the VW Lupo 3L. I don't think we'll get out with less than five 1024*768 pictures.

LOL -- you guys are too funny. It is certainly different looking, but I think that beauty is as beauty does. A Cg of 0.19 is beautiful.

I bet it would look better in a nice intense blue...

Check this video out (the bit at the beginning is a little lame):
http://www.aiada.org/images/news_photos/Mercedes_Bionic_Diesel.wmv

Hey have you seen the Fiat Multipla? Now, that's an ugly car...

Do you find it ugly because it has a relatively straight, easy and practical to produce windshield?

Just kidding -- but seriously, 3.4 L/100 km is not impressive enough, considering the extent they went to. Did they ever name a price? That windshield alone must cost more than a Dacia Logan.

And BTW, I have a soft spot for the first-generation Multipla design. No idea why, but it looks nice. The diesel model pulled 5.3 L/100 km (combined). What was this again about beauty is as beauty does and six-person seating?

Hello,

They used a ~1.9L diesel and it gets 85mpg @ 56mph, and accelerates to 62mph/100kph in 8.2 seconds. Sounds quite impressive to me!

For comparison, the Loremo 50HP (the "fast" one!) that is a lot lower and smaller and lighter gets...85mpg. The 20HP Loremo gets 157mpg -- but it is ~20 seconds to get to the same speed.


I'll bet that if they developed a serial plugin hybrid drive for either the Bionic/Boxfish or the Loremo, they would get even better fuel mileage.

Neil did you ever see the movie "Office Space?" Where the old man walking passes the car and pulls way ahead of the guy in the car?

This is kinda like being owned by a Yugo.

Personally i cant wait for this one:


Tango, seats 2. An all electric. Does 0-60 in 4 seconds.

Check out the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GINWQ0QakV0

108,000 right now. But at this point its a "kit car" and takes 6 months to be hand crafted. If it ever goes into production on a large scale we could have these for under 20,000

When it comes to electric cars, or even hybrids, nobody is talking about exposure to strong magnetic fields.

So why do doctors and technical people go running behind a wall every time they turn on the MRI machine?

Not to mention a possible risk to the blind?

Hybrid vehicles' silence may pose risk for blind pedestrians

Students’ prototype counters quiet creep of hybrid cars

um, because the field in an MRI machine is many millions of times stronger than the field you are exposed to in your car? (regular gas cars produce magnetic fields too btw)

average exposure in car: <0.000001 Tesla
average MRI field: 1.5 - 4 Tesla

at that strength, the MRI can cause metal objects to fly across the room, possibly hurting/impaling people. hence why the doctors are behind a wall.

we'll just ignore for the moment that there is as yet no evidence that standing magnetic fields have any detrimental effect on the human body.

They run behind the wall because its a magnet, and everything metal on their body would get sucked into it if they didnt walk behind the wall. The fields are not that powerful in an electric car. The entire planet has a huge magnetic field around it, im pretty sure magnetic fields are safe long as their not strong enough to pull your pacemaker out of your chest or your fillings out of your teeth.

zomg, cars too quiet? gimme a break. We are not going to cater an entire industry to less than 1% of the entire population. No one likes how noisy vehicles are. They can get a see'ing eye dog if their that worried about it.

Hello,

The solution for cars that are silent is to put a little speaker and have them make "an engine" noise...

And 20 seconds to 60mph is pretty normal -- most people might even take a lot longer than this in normal driving. Full throttle acceleration is quite detrimental to your fuel economy, anyway.

We thriving more ecological solutions for city traveling. Since most of us do not want to walk or can't due long distances, we're eventually forced to use horses and horse carriages again.

Eventually combustion engine comes to end, wether its dual law, weather conditions or lack of oil we're heading towards horse age again. Unless we suddenly can pull of some supersafe, none polluting wonder solution.

True. And True.
But nonetheless, I'd prefer to have more accelerating force, even if I'll use 20 seconds to reach 62mph after a traffic light, I'd like to know that if I ever do need it, I can do the same in 5 seconds. I take a similar view about speed as many Americans do about guns - better to have it and not need to use it than vice versa.

And as for full throttle acceleration being detrimental to your fuel economy - I won't deny that it's correct. But that's like saying people should stop doing sports, because it makes them have to drink and eat more.

People spend money to have fun, and should it be in the form of petrol - so be it.

Of course it would be better to use a fuel with a less toxic end product than gasoline, but that's a different matter.

There are times you need good acceleration. While i'll agree most of the time, 0-60 in 15-20seconds is fine, but at other times it can be dangerous. In the same way a dull knife is dangerous. If traffic is heavy, and you need to get out and up to speed quickly, not having enough acceleration can cause an accident.

0-60 in under 10 seconds i think is about as slow as you should allow. Anything slower than that and you really do increase your risk for accedents.

Then you also have to consider that people want to enjoy life, and acceleration is "fun". While you may not want to speed and risk getting a ticket, theirs no law against doing 0-60 in less than 5 seconds. Not to mention beating those mustang fanboys that like to rev their engines at the red lights off the line.

Top speed really isnt a neccesity unless your driving in europe on the autobauhn. I dont think i've been over 100mph in over 10 years. But faster acceleration is always welcomed. Even if the speed limit is only 30mph, getting their quick can get your blood pumpin and help give a bad day a ray of hope.

Hello,

Here's a Volkswagen that gets 282mpg (0.83 liters per 100 kilometers)!


(click on image for a link)

Here's another article:
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Green-Cars/Search-Results/Green-News/VW-to-relaunch-one-litre-eco-car/?&R=EPI-6298



It weighs just 300kg (661 lbs)!! It should be available in 2010.

Even with petrol powered cars you'd need a pretty beefy car to do that: a Porsche 911 Carrera will do 0-60 mph in 5 seconds.
So, I don't think most cars will even be able to accelerate that fast.

A lot of the new electric cars comming out are sporting very fast ecceleration speeds, mainly due to the nature of the technology. Electric motors have the full torque through the entire power curve, whereas gas engines are just the opposite and dont give full torque until near the end of their maximum rpm.

In the next 5 to 10 years, 5sec 0-60 may very well be a common sight in every day electric cars and not just expensive sport cars.

True, and that's part of their appeal

But in current traffic, 0-60 in 5 seconds is exceptional and not needed.

Hello,

The Aptera goes 0-60 in about 10 seconds which faster than a typical car, and it does 0-30 very quickly...and famously, the Tesla does 0-60 in ~4 seconds which is exceptionally fast.

I think the focus is and should be, however -- on the efficiency of the vehicle. If one drives everyday, efficiency will be a big benefit, while quick acceleration is a luxury, and mostly there to boost the machismo of the owner.

Hello,

Does anybody know anything about the Think City car, or the Think Ox?

Home - Think

I don't get why they also give these electrical cars these 1990s baby faces (look at the Thin City to know what I mean).
Otherwise very impressive stats 200km range is pretty good.

That VW 1l car was supposed to be shown at my university a couple of weeks ago, but it didn't show up because the VW guys apparently broke it the day before.