Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.

On May 20, 9:42 pm, Useful Info > wrote:
> Read all about it, hehttp://Muvy.org

This is what I was afraid of. This is not much of a "car". This
is a motorcyle with a closed fairing. The article mentions
an executive driving it a long distance to its unveiling. My first
question would be how is luggage got there.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article >,
> Broderick Crawford > wrote:
>
>> Give me a choice, my motorcycle don't have air bags, seat belts or crash
>> test and works just fine. I want a car WITHOUT seat belts and air bags.
>> I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to.
>
> hehe Yeah, but when you're sitting there with a broken neck, breathing
> and eating through a tube, you'll want the Nanny State to take care of
> you at no cost--which means taxpayers like me funding the rest of your
> miserable life.
>
> **** you.
>
People still do that you idiot. Safety devices don't prevent that.

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

> When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact comes out;
> Weight gain is due mostly to safety considerations.

This is especially a problem in the USA where it seem the public thinks heavy
vehicles are safer.

Graham

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > jim beam wrote:
> >
> >>need another example? firestone vs. frod on the exploder rollover
> >>fiasco. frod won that one, miraculously.
> >
> >
> > I thought it was Ford's idea to run the tyres with an absurdly low presure? How
> > can Firestone be liable for a design defect by the car maker ?
>
>
> It was and it just made the problem worse by hastening the failure of
> tires while not fixing the real culprit, vehicle design.
>
> Better ideas from Ford??? Not likely...

I think the next model Explorer had a wider track which is what the design engineers
said it needed all along but the bean counters wouldn't have it. Shadows of Pinto
style thinking again.

Grtaham

On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:58:58 GMT, Eeyore
> wrote:

>
>
>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>> When one looks at the weight of today's cars, one common fact comes out;
>> Weight gain is due mostly to safety considerations.
>
>This is especially a problem in the USA where it seem the public thinks heavy
>vehicles are safer.
>
>Graham

Not everyone in the USA believes heavier is safer.

No one is safe when you are hit by a big scary truck.

The best answer is to learn to drive and drive defensively.

--
Scott in Florida

Eric Gisin wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
> >
> >> I know of many older vehicles where the manual transmissions have not been
> >> serviced during the lifetime of the vehicle. Has this been changed for
> >> modern day manual transmissions?
> >
> > I've *never* seen a maintenance requirement for a manual transmission.
>
> Check the seals for leaks, change oil every 10 years.

I don't even recall an oil change requirement on manual boxes from the last few
decades.

Graham

EdV wrote:

> which european car goes 150 mpg? i can't find it in google and
> intrested to know more.

There isn't one.


> is diesel banned in the US or just discouraged due to emissions and
> taxes? and you can't buy any in the market

It seems to be discouragement through regulation.

Graham

Tegger wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote
> >
> > I've *never* seen a maintenance requirement for a manual transmission.
> >
>
> Fluid must be replaced at regular intervals. This will be specified in the
> maintenance table for your car.

The last one I recall making any oil change requirement was a high-end 1970
model.

I should have said that oil level checks are a maintenance requirement of
course.

Graham

"Broderick Crawford" > wrote in message
...
> **** safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a
> protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out the
> competition. They WILL NOT make fuel efficient vehicles. Hybrids should
> get over 100mpg by rights. Americans don't make a single car that gets
> 50mpg. Europe makes several, every car company makes 2 or 3 that get 50
> to 80mpg. Diesel hybrids get 120 to 150mpg. The US will avoid these.
> Give me a choice, my motorcycle don't have air bags, seat belts or crash
> test and works just fine. I want a car WITHOUT seat belts and air bags.
> I want to choose my safety devices, I don't want you to. We don't need
> forced communist compliance at all.
>

I'm not the one you need to convince. Emissions and safety regulations in
the US are nearly as old as I am. The US tort system almost requires safety
regs; if you are driving a vehicle with inadequate side impact protection
and Elmer Fudd t-bones your vehicle because he wasn't watching where he was
chasing that wascally wabbit, should he be responsible for the increased
injury to you that stems from the substandard design?

But 120-150 mpg diesel hybrids? I'm not familiar with anything like that. VW
made the Lupo 3L using all the tricks to get the fuel consumption down to 3
liters per 100km, barely half the 150 mpg claim, and hybridization isn't
likely to improve on that. Stupid laws of physics.

The public everywhere is going to have to adjust to a cruel fact of
transportation: not all the energy is used to get from point A to point B.
Cooling and heating, and even lighting, take an increasing toll as the
energy expenditures for travel decrease. Hybrid owners are already
complaining.

Mike

"Scott in Florida" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not everyone in the USA believes heavier is safer.

Trucks are heavier and by your statement below indicates, safer.

> No one is safe when you are hit by a big scary truck.

Trucks aren't scary, people who think trucks are scary are scary.

> The best answer is to learn to drive and drive defensively.

The only part of your post that is correct.