TTAC: green concept cars are no fun
by Jeremy Korzeniewski on Mar 25th 2008 at 9:55AM 
Click above for live shots of the Golf TDI Hybrid from Geneva
Remember when Jim Press used vegetables as an illustration for green cars? TTAC writer Alex Kambas manages to make the same comparison, but for completely different reasons. "Like the vegetables of my childhood era, shoving green cars down my throat just because they're good for me won't make me want to buy them," Kambas opines. It seems that he feels that the Geneva Motor Show focused solely on green news, with nothing exciting to show the performance-minded drivers among us. Looking back on Geneva, there certainly were plenty of green cars on display, but we really feel that many of them ought to be interesting to everyone. Take, for instance, the Koenigsegg CCXR Edition, Lotus' Tri-Fuel capable Exige 270E or the Audi R8 TDI Le Mans, all of which use an alternative fuel for performance reasons.
Even if you want nothing to do with green cars, many of the vehicles presented in Geneva catered to the go-fast crowd. The beautiful Alfa Romeo 8C Spider, Spyker C8 Aileron and Artega GT, should be enough to make any performance-minded enthusiast happy.
[Source: TTAC]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
daniel billinton 1:22PM (3/25/2008)
Well TTAC, the actual 'truth about cars' is that car drivers have been getting away with using cheap abundant energy for far too long - hence the mess we are in with peak oil, $110/barrel prices, global warming etc.
Also where are these 'performance cars' going to be driven ? The developed and devloping world are in gridlock. Average traffic speed in London is now 8mph. what is the point of a car that does 180mph ?
Having said that, it IS still possible to hav performnace and good fuel economy - the lotus elise jas porsche like performance for nearly twice the fuel economy.
Ligthweighting is the key. it gives performance and economy - and i'm not convinced by the argument that light cars are unsafe - given that 80% of the weight of a typical car is not the chassis/safety cell - it's all the peripherals and extras that add weight.
Reply
Whopper 1:59PM (3/25/2008)
Maybe the guy with 180 mph capability doesn't drive in London. Maybe we ought to disband cities and move everyone into the 'burbs. Some won't like it but we'll do it for their own good. What? You don't like someone else telling you where you should live? Hmmm...well I don't like you telling me what I should drive. With 80% of a vehicle's mass outside the chassis we must have VERY heavy outside mirrors.
Reply
John Metcalf 7:52PM (3/25/2008)
If I go back to my teenage years, I lusted after Ferraris, too.
But I was thrilled with the keys to my parent's Renault Alliance - it was freedom, regardless of how slow it was. And it probably got close to 40mpg. And now that I'm grown up, the Golf TDI Hybrid looks sexy enough for me.
Reply
TheSUBWAY.com 3:18PM (3/27/2008)
We found an interesting article about the problems with Ethanol on ConsumerReports.org:
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/03/ethanol-e85.html
"But there are some problems with increasing ethanol blends. Ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, so increasing the amount of ethanol in gasoline will likely result in lower fuel economy. Increasing standard fuel blends from zero to 10 percent ethanol, as is happening today, has little or no impact on fuel economy. In tests, the differences occur within the margin of error, about 0.5 percent. Further increasing ethanol levels to 20 percent reduces fuel economy between 1 and 3 percent, according to testing by the DOE and General Motors. Evaluations are underway to determine if E20 will burn effectively in today's engines without impacting reliability and longevity, and also assessing potential impact on fuel economy."
TheSUBWAY.com would like to invite readers to post their own views and ideas in TheSUBWAY.com's Investor Forum:
http://www.thesubway.com/small-cap-forum
Reply