So, wait. The gasoline combustion engine isn't that good of an idea?

Note: <b> US </b> average fuel efficiency is low. That is because American cars SUCK (gas).

My old Suzuki Swift automatic does 14.7km/l ( about 35 miles/gallon) and I'm planning to buy a car that goes 24km/l (56 miles/ gallon)
Yes, they are small cars, but I will never buy American, considering that even a big European car like a Mercedes Benz SLK goes at least 20 MPG's.

Let's face it, American cars are crap and they are ruining the world (Love the styling though)

The Big 3 had a chance in the 80's to improve fuel efficiency quite easily, due to "Smoky's Engine". A garage tinkerer found a way to recapture lost energy and re-use it, raising efficiency to between 80 and 95%!

The Big 3, upon being presented with his invention, buried it and ruined him.

Then GM had the EV-1, that popular and beloved electric vehicle. We all know what happened to those... I read they are planning to stop production on most of their current hybrid vehicles. Because they're stoopid...

Why can't they just combine the muscular "I'm a badass" look of American vehicles with the efficiency of European or Asian ones? Ugh.

All that baddassedness comes with weight... American cars are usually much heavier than their Asian or European counterparts... the heavier they are... the less fuel efficient.

My 7.3 liter Powerstroke diesel F-350 gets about 21 miles to the gallon...And weighs 6,000 lbs. So there.

Also, China is ruining the world. China.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=78116&page=1

I did about 2 minutes of research and debunked Smokey's engine.

Also, the "popular" EV-1 didn't sell because no one bought it after their leases ended. They apparently cost GM about $80,000 apiece to make.

I bet the same thing will happen to the Chevy Volt.

You are comparing a Diesel with a Petrol car.

Diesels are allways considered more economical then petrol cars. It doesn't bode well if your diesel is doing the same mileage as a petrol car.

You failed to convince me.

And yes, China isn't helping either.

No one bought them because GM wouldn't LET them. There a documentary on the EV-1...The owners were told that because the cars were LEASED to them, they didn't have the right to keep the cars if GM wanted them back.

The owners were very happy with their EV-1s until they were TAKEN AWAY. There was an organized protest and everything.



GM took all but ONE of the cars back, and eventually had them all CRUSHED. Why do you suppose they would crush cars that cost so much to make?

Because they cost so much to make? And maintenance/parts/warranty for a handful of experimental and incredibly technologically advanced cars would have been completely outrageous?

Would you pay $80,000 for a car that you could only drive 40 miles out, and 40 miles back? What would you do when you want to go visit some distant family?

Maybe the Volt will be the s**t, but the EV-1 wasn't.



Don't forget, GM is out to make money by creating what most consumers want, not by creating something a few rich people would drive just to make a point.

And yet Toyota have done just that with the Prius.

Except the Prius doesn't cost $80,000 and have a range of 40 miles. Kind of a big difference.

No, but then that wasn't what I was responding to, hence the selectiveness of my quote.

What I was saying was that where GM failed Toyota have succeeded in producing a hideously expensive vehicle (the ticket price hides so much) that fails to fulfil the promises of the sales literature and is driven by a few rich people who mistakenly believe they are making a point.