>100 MPH on 96 MPG
Not to knock 96 mpg at any speed but the headline is rather more impressive than the claim in the article.
It can get 96mpg. It can go 100mph. It _cannot_ do both simultaneously.
And it's a good thing to keep in mind with talk about self driving cars and 100mph HOV lanes on HN recently.
Once that happens, you can be damn sure that every new car purchase by someone that commutes will have the system.
So while you may be right that 100mph lanes aren't a good idea, the idea has a lot of merit.
Or, to put it another way, my big heavy car gets nearly 30mpg when cruising at 100mph, so all you really gotta do is reduce drag.
Recent reviews of T.25 and (electric) T.27:
This is either a journalist misrepresenting the actual claims, or else the actual claims have no grounding in rigorous analysis.
In a nutshell-- he plas to revolutionize auto manufacturing by making the body in two steps rather than five, using composite materials instead of stamped and welded steel, but the basis of his energy estimates is the size of the building that houses the work? A little hard to take seriously.
If one visits an automobile plant, one will see that a lot of energy goes into moving chassis and components from place to place. Smaller lighter pieces over shorter distances combined with fewer moves would have a significant impact on energy consumption.
There are challenges of course, when you collide with something at 70 - 80 MPH and you're in a composite material vehicle without a steel frame the energy gets distributed in harder to control ways. Its not an unsolvable problem  but it is another wrench in general acceptance.
Another challenge is of course 'style' points but styles change so its less of an issue. I expect that the continued high cost of oil will keep these sorts of ideas popping up. I hope that some of them get to production so that we can iron out the other problems.
 In the forgettable movie "Demolition Man" a collision system which fills the car with foam is presented. That is actually an actually proposed solution but one where false starts are hard to recover from.
Do you have any reliable source for working systems that protect you at that speed? I'd consider collisions at that speed lethal - or it's your lucky day. Ignoring the body material. In DE you are told (not that I can confirm that by experience) in your driving lessons that collisions > 30 KPH (K!) are very, very dangerous and that the statistical 'you might be heavily injured' line is somewhere around there. So .. I'm having trouble imagining something that hits anything else with 70-80 MPH.
Here in California there is a wealth of data on injury and damages in collisions between 50 and 100MPH . In general, when all applicable safety systems are employed (seatbelts, nothing obstructing airbags, Etc) the injuries sustained are rarely fatal and for the most part don't required a hospital stay. We have a condition called "Tule Fog" which is a dense low hanging fog that can occur rather suddenly, which every other year or so results in the collective colliding of anywhere from 3 to 75 vehicles at speeds from 10MPH to 60MPH. Again, people don't die in these pile ups generally unless the passenger space of the vehicle is compromised (like being shoved under the trailer of a semi-truck for example). In their table of 'injuries and fatalities' for 2009  out of 201,660 collsions there were 2,594 with fatalities so a 1.3% rate.
Totally agree on the wording; completely non sequitur.
Honestly, "quickness" and "agility" are the last adjectives that come to mind when I look at that picture. Not to mention I don't even think I would fit in that thing. Though I am impressed by the car's supposed 100MPH top speed.
OT: if any businessweek.com web developers read this, giant position:fixed headers are even more annoying than 1990s frames. Especially with the trend toward widescreen displays (not that I actually maximize my browser), taking away vertical space is just... wrong.
"That allows him to jettison the robots and machinery that stamp and weld about 300 pieces of metal together in a typical car body."
That seems to imply hand-layup, which along with the "composite material similar to carbon fiber" makes me have some doubts about the "8,678 euros ($11,000)" retail price for the gas model.
Anyone know any more details about the materials and process?
The only things that will help is fewer journeys at peak times, and some sort of inter-car communication system that manages traffic flow far better than our slow awkward human brains.
Perhaps they need to re-brand diesel in the USA? They could call it "heavy-oil, a real MAN's fuel" !
To be fair, around the rural areas, a lot of farmer's have diesel tanks and buy that in bulk.
Great highway cruiser too - nice to only be turning ~2200 RPM at 70, and getting 45 mpg while doing it.
It's a little less of an economy car than the TDI, but .. it handles the Autobahn quite nicely. I came from an Audi A3 and couldn't complain about the overall quality. Going back to DE soon I might go for exactly the same thing again.
I'd love to have had the option of getting a GTD though...but it's kind of insane how poorly the Golf sells here... only sell about 15k of them a year, in the whole US. As of right now about 60% of those are TDIs.
NB: That's not counting GTI or Golf R sales...in the US VW treats those as separate models, not trim levels.
I was going to buy a diesel for my next vehicle, but I cannot find anything outside of Volkswagen and I am not buying one of those. I do believe the other side of the problem is that their are not many diesels to buy.
 poor build quality (door handles broke off) and obscene repair prices ($300 to change headlight - not user serviceable) on my friends VW bug. It had worse build quality than my 2008 Chevy Cavalier and that's saying something.
My 2008 Cavalier was a POS. The 1994 one we had was amazing, that's why I bought the 2008 model. The dealer service center was awful, but I took it to another dealer ship. They were amazing and fixed everything. Car made it to 268,000 miles before I gave it to my uncle. Only problem is that they got closed by GM and the bad dealership stayed.
 bring car in for 8:00AM appointment for 4th recall. Told it needed to be there by 7:00AM. Got it there at 6:35AM. Told it would be done at noon. Finally was allowed to pick it up at 11:45PM. GM called for a followup and I told them the whole story. Dealer called me the next day and was very upset that I told GM the truth.
My local Lexus dealership (on the other coast) actually complained to Toyota for me when I asked them about the repairs.
What happened with the dealer after you told GM the truth?
When GM shutdown a chunk of their dealerships they got to stay open, but the one with a much better service department closed. One had connections, one didn't.
They stopped making the Cavalier in 2005. How'd you get a 2008 model?
Running on gasoline is significant because diesel has a higher energy density per volume.
You shouldn't compare petrol MPG vs diesel MPG.
WUT? Translation for the civilized world, please.
96 miles per gallon = 2.45015191 l/100km