And 100 more cc without having to hog out a cylinder.

Phelonius

Well, I don't think we'll see this car either...

http://www.gizmag.com/vw-shows-170-mpg-tandem-diesel-hybrid-two-seater/12833/

If a 1800 flat six Goldwing gets 45MPG, what would the  same engine get in this two seater? 80MPG? And all the power you could use!!!

mick wrote on 11/16/10 at 22:34:51:


Weight is important when you have a standing start; friction is also important - which makes me wonder why on earth the manufacturers insist on ultra-low fat tires, rather than "ordinary" tires like we had 20/30 years ago.

Aerodynamics are important when the car must "cleave" through the air at speed; I'm sure we've all noticed that it's much more comfortable to sit up straight and enjoy the scenery on our Savages at 40mph than it is at 70+mph...

Hyper-economy cars will highlight skinny tires and aerodynamic contours; too bad all this research is good when you're motoring on a motorway at constant speed, but is useless when you're dragging your feet through commuter traffic.
"Start & Stop" is a killer to any vehicle.

Ideally, a commuter car should have an electric motor (possibly one per wheel, so as to do away with differentials and half axles) and the battery pack should be powered by a "constant regime" small turbodiesel. A 1300cc TDi will easily deliver 70+bhp at 500rpm, so it could be redesigned to deliver some 30bhp at steady revs with low noise and exhaust emissions.
This would allow to plan for ideal performance at a set standard engine speed (i.e. 1800 or 2400rpm) and
Such is the philosophy of marine and aeronautical piston engines.
All the engine would need to do is turn the alternator. Big thick cables would do the rest. No gearbox, no drivetrain, just alternator, cables, batteries and electric motors.

The vehicle's range would only be a matter of battery life and fuel tank capacity; however, think about it:
if you had the opportunity to drive a 100hp car with a gasoline engine, or a hybrid with a 30bhp diesel and two 30-Kwatt motors, which would you choose?
The hybrid would be not only quieter and more economical to drive, it could prove to be cheaper to maintain, too.

Jerry Eichenberger wrote on 11/17/10 at 11:01:33:

Jerry you might want to look to Asia and Europe,they know how to run trains, like health care we are years behind. Sometimes a slower pace is nice.   That being said bullet trains might be worth looking into,because air travel is becoming a voyeur's paradise , my Daughters who are coming to see me in April ,have decided to come by car. the terrorist are winning. One day the USA will realize what a perfect country this is for high speed rail.

verslagen1 wrote on 11/17/10 at 18:03:54:

I think those high speed bullet trains have magnetic wheels that repel the rail itself causing it to float,and have way less friction,the faster it goes the less the friction. Seems to me I watched a show about these trains on PBS.

High speed trains work in Europe because of the relatively short distances between major cities.

Here is a different story.  Wanna go from New York to Dallas at 200 mph, making several stops along the way, when an airliner can do it in under 3 hours total?  I don't.

There are locations where they would work here - the northeast corridor is the first to mind, then Florida from Jacksonville down to Miami, and perhaps in Texas from Dallas to San Antonio, and last in California from Los Angelese to San Franciso.

But for cross continent travel, you won't replace the jet airliner.

I took one of those fast trains from Brussels to Paris.  I loved it!