Every car manufacturer is doing what they can to save the world with their “green” cars.
From Kiplinger.com
Green is still a red hot buzzword in the auto industry, with all manufacturers competing to showcase their commitment to fuel savings. While not all of our picks are considered paragons of green technology, each represents the most efficient vehicle in its class, based on annual fuel cost.
Continue for 2009’s Most Fuel Efficient Cars
Read more from TreeHugger.com:
Exotic car maker Lamborghini has announced they will be entering the hybrid fray with their iconic Gallardo.
Company CEO Stephan Winkelmann told Germany’s Automobilewoche that the first one is slated for 2015. He says that the Gallardo’s electric motor will be used for low demand driving in slow, congested city traffic much like the Toyota Prius. When the Lambo hits higher speeds the 10- or 12-cylinder gas engine will kick in and immediately drop your MPGs back to a single digit.
Recently Lamborghini has cut tailpipe emissions by 18 percent with the latest Gallardo, achieved through conventional refinements in the existing V10 powerplant.
Winkelmann said the company will spend $50.3 million between now and 2015, to reduce emissions in both its vehicles and its production facilities. He also confirmed that they will not be producing an all-electric car like the Mercedes-Benz Gullwing.
And I say, why the heck not? This is clearly a vanity effort on Lamborghini’s part. They have a lot more wiggle room design-wise with a starting price of $180,000 for the Gallardo than say Honda.
While this helps the Audi-owned company meet its goal of cutting emissions by 35 percent, I cannot help think it’s all just a big pissing contest with Ferrari.
Ferrari’s hybrid is also set for a 2015 release.
The cash for clunkers program or the CAR Allowance Rebate System (CARS) is:
“a $1 billion government program that helps consumers buy or lease a more environmentally-friendly vehicle from a participating dealer when they trade in a less fuel-efficient car or truck. The program is designed to energize the economy; boost auto sales and put safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles on the nation’s roadways.”
Consumers can trade in their car for a credit of $3,500 or $4,500, depending on the car traded and how “green” your new one is.
Read more to find out if you qualify.
According to EcoFriend.com
Researchers at the Ohio University are trying to solve the riddle by generating hydrogen from a cheap and readily available waste – urine. These researchers believe that electrolyzing urine for hydrogen is easy as compared to generating hydrogen from water as in urine, hydrogen molecules aren’t as tightly held as in water. The system breaks down urea at a voltage of just 0.37 volts, which is significantly less than the 1.23 volts required to split water.
GM makes its case with the Volt. Check out WatchMojo’s look a the Volt, and then read more about the new electric car from gm-volt.com:
Close observation of recent developments in the automotive sector leads to a certain conclusion; financial collapse is necessary to bring about needed change.
We are bearing witness to a catastrophic rupture of the car industry as we know it. Not only in terms of the economic machinery upon which it is run, but more so upon the fuel its creations will use. The near death of the auto industry is bringing with it the slow death of the combustion engine.
When GM first introduced the Chevrolet Volt electric car concept, car sales were brisk, oil prices reasonable and the economy appeared healthy. Now that the car is nearing mass production and that most other automakers have subsequently unveiled electric car programs of their own, the economy, the industry, and the company is steeped in disaster.
I do not propose it is the case that the birth of the electric car caused this chaos, but rather it is this chaos that will allow the electric car industry to rise.
Whenever in the history of humankind and industrial progress a new transformational technology has arisen, its ascent has brought with it the demise of that which was before it.
Simple examples are how the typewriter was eradicated by the PC, the Polaroid by the digital camera, or how the horse and cart were replaced by the car. These destructive transformational events take place on many levels, such as the collapse of societies or ecosystems, the extinction of dinosaurs, or even as the big bang gave rise to the universe.
Fundamental market forces of their own right would not have led to a rapid production and adoption of electric cars. Rather, the status quo would have persisted, car companies would have continued to make profitable gas guzzling trucks and people would have kept buy them on credit. Indeed when GM introduced the Volt is was more public relations than an engineering. They didn’t decide to bring it to production until they saw the intense public response. Now it is their last hope.
The collapse of the economy combined with the current administration’s interest in energy independence, alternative energy and electric vehicles will make the rapid rise of the electric car possible.
People have not been buying new cars out of fear of their future economic status, lack of available credit, and a general dearth of financial confidence. They are driving their old cars and are doing so for as long as they can.
The government has chosen to support and recreate the auto industry as one that will grow the already inadvertently kindled electric car enterprise.
And then when the bottom has finally come and gone, and the lean restructured auto companies are mass producing electric cars including the Chevy Volt, the tide will change.
Confidence having begun to rise, and old cars having begun to fail, the people will come. And then our dream will arrive. A country and a world less dependent on oil. The rise of the electric car.
Will a Hummer be considered a classic in 50 years? Jay Leno has the answer in this article from PopularMechanics.com:
Stocks and bonds? I don’t know much about them. In fact, I don’t know anything about stocks and bonds. I’ve lost money in the stock market; come to think of it, I’ve lost money in real estate too. But I’ve never lost money on cars.
The reason is simple: I’ve always bought cars I really want to own. If you buy a car that you like, and it loses its value, at least you still like it. Besides, even if the car’s value does go down a little, it will come back up at some point down the road.
About 10 years ago, I had the chance to buy a McLaren F1. A new one was almost a million dollars. This was a secondhand car with less than 2500 miles, and it was $800,000. I thought, it’s crazy to spend that much money on a car. So I talked it over with my wife. And she said, “You’ve worked hard. If you want to get it, get it.” And I thought, ohhh … kaaay! So I bought it.
Last year, a McLaren F1 sold at auction for $4.1 million! I now realize this is the greatest investment I’ve ever made. In less than 10 years, I more than quintupled my money. Best of all, I have a car I really enjoy. But there are plenty of modern cars you can buy at real-world prices that are fun to own.
People ask me if they should buy a new car and tuck it away as an investment. I think it’s ridiculous to buy something and just squirrel it away. The fuel will eventually go bad, all the moving parts will still have to be lubricated, and you still have to insure it. Cars should be driven. If you let a car sit, you’ll eventually have to flush the fuel system, replace the electronics and more. Buying any car and putting it into storage for years gets you nothing. It’s a bad idea. You won’t be buying something you like—you’re just trying to make money.
There are plenty of guys who bought the original Dodge Viper as an investment. When that car first came out in 1992, it produced 400 hp, an incredible level of power for that time. People thought, “That’s it. They’ll never make a car more powerful. I’ll buy one and stick it in my garage.” Now, every day people call me: “Hey, I’ve got a ’92 Viper with 800 miles.” Sorry, I’m not interested. “Three hundred miles?” Nope. You didn’t buy it to own it.
But there are some interesting modern cars that are potential collectibles you can drive and enjoy—cars considered common transportation today. I think the first-generation Toyota Prius is a future collectible. Although it was technically innovative at the time, now it just seems cute. It’s kind of slow, and it doesn’t have tremendous range. But it was the first of its kind—the first mass-produced hybrid—and there’s an honest simplicity to that. So if you have an original Prius, in 10 or 15 years, you’ll meet people who say, “I bought one of those!” And they’ll want to relive the feeling of watching the little dashboard display jump from charging to consuming. That neat feature will bring back a flood of those memories.
It’s like when I talk to people who once owned early and mid-1960s push-button Chryslers. They say, “I learned to drive in one of those! You press the D button to go, and you press R for reverse.” They remember that feeling of freedom and American progress—simply pressing buttons to drive down the road. So cars with unusual features, technology that cars today no longer have, can be collectible.
Years ago, I was told Mustangs would never be collectibles because Ford built millions of them. We’re a disposable society. But eventually, we want what we used to have—the cars we ran into the ground. We’ve used most of those old Mustangs up, and now they’re gone. So the survivors are highly prized.
Once, when I was visiting England, one of my relatives said, “You like motorcycles—you should talk to our vicar. He has one.” So I met the vicar, who owned a ’66 Honda 160. I asked how long he’d had it. He looked at me kind of quizzically and said, “I bought it new.” He’d had that bike his whole life, and he’d maintained it. To him it wasn’t a collectible. Many of us would say, “Oh, I had one of those, and my father threw it away,” or “We gave it to a neighbor,” or “We rode it to death,” or “We finally broke it and got something else.” In other countries, because motor vehicles aren’t seen so much as appliances, they’re treated with great respect. This vicar had been riding that Honda 160 for 40 years! It was his only transportation. And it was a survivor.
That’s the difference. We want what we used to have. We get rid of it, and then we pay 10 to 15 times over what it was worth originally just to get it back—often to recapture whatever lost youth we thought we had.
That’s why I think the Mazda Miata will be the ultimate affordable collectible by, say, 2025. The first-generation Miata was extremely simple, and that’s part of its charm. Years ago, when we were restoring Mustangs, they seemed so complicated compared to a Ford Model A.
A brake-light switch? Why do we have to have thaaaat? In a Model A, you just strung together a couple of yards of wire and boom! You were done. So the early Miata, with no traction control, no stability control—no nothing—will certainly be a collectible.
I think the first-generation Taurus, the forward-looking aerodynamic sedan, will be collectible too. That was seen as a real styling triumph in the mid-1980s. Almost anything built before today’s government safety regulations could be collectible. In the future, cars lacking these systems will appear so odd to people.
Read the rest of the article HERE
CBS is way behind WatchMojo.com… but they do have some more info on this make or break car for Chevrolet:
To say General Motors has a lot riding on the Volt is both a bad pun and a big understatement.
GM says this electric car is designed to lead the company into the second century - if it is to have a second century.
But when GM invited reporters to experience the Volt, what they actually drove was the Volt technology stuck into a conventional car called the Chevy Cruze, reports CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds. The real Volt is not yet ready.
The rush to showcase the technology was clearly designed to generate publicity for the car and public support for the federal money GM needs to stay afloat.
“What makes the technology so significant is actually what is under the skin,” said Frank Weber, with GM.
What is under the skin is a 6-foot-long battery that you can recharge every night by plugging it into your garage socket.
Battery power takes the Volt 40 miles. Since most Americans drive less than 40 miles a day, GM says the Volt will use zero gasoline and produce zero emissions. When the charge wears off, an on-board gas tank can power the car and extend the trip 400 miles, addressing what’s know in the trade as “range anxiety.”
“The current Prius doesn’t deliver that,” said Brian Johnson, an industry analyst with Barclay’s Capital. “The current Honda doesn’t deliver that, so they are trying to leapfrog the competition in that respect.”
“This is a livable vehicle,” said Tony Posawatz, a vehicle line director with GM. “It’s not a golf cart or whatever. This is something that people could buy in quantity … particularly if we can get the cost down.”
Perhaps way down - because the sticker price will be about $40,000 - for what GM calls a spunky car that can go from zero to 60 in less than nine seconds.
The Volt is due in dealer showrooms by the end of next year, which is itself a show of optimism about GM’s future. But there’s a problem: sales of existing hybrids have been plummeting for months because the price of gasoline has dropped. If that consumer attitude holds, it could mean that GM will be bringing out the right car at the wrong time.
US carmaker General Motors is joining with scooter maker Segway to make a new type of two-seat electric vehicle.
The prototype, which will be debuted in New York, is aimed at urban driving. GM aims to start making them by 2012.
The vehicle, named Puma, has a top speed of 35mph and can go as far as 35 miles on a single charge. It will use lithium-ion batteries.
GM, having been bailed out by the US government, is looking to smaller vehicles to secure its future.
Puma stands for personal urban mobility and accessibility.
Rinspeed will be debuting the company’s all-electric car - the iChange - at the Geneva Auto Show next month. Rinspeed, while known for designing extravagant concept cars, says the iChange is not another of these, but shows the dramatic shift in the auto industry. Read more…
Hydrogen cars seem to good to be true. They don’t pollute, they don’t use gas. They’re also non-existent on North American roads. Why, you may ask? They’re difficult and extremely expensive to put together - costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to build. You may also have noticed that there are few hydrogen refueling stations (there are three in California). A few companies are hoping that within the next five years they’ll have hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in their showrooms. However, some experts estimate that with everything involved, the hydrogen car fad won’t likely take-off for decades. Read more…
WatchMojo got to test drive a BMW hydrogen car. Check it out:
And for more background on hydrogen cars, take a look at this:
PLAY
