Loremo - the 1.5 litres/100 km biodiesel car

Forum posts

• 11 May 2006, 00:23

  Even without extreme concepts. The clean technology for less consumption of gasoline/diesel is widely available in Europe and other countries. Only in the U.S. consumers have still to buy outdated technologies and bad equipped cars. Most of the U.S. cars don’t have anti block break systems and still have drum brakes?!
  The engines in U.S. cars are not cleaner then anywhere else. EPA is just lying and real exhausts test of American cars in Europe show that this cars are much more polluting than cars of the modern world (not U.S.).
  GM and Ford make good many in other countries by selling clean and efficient technology. Ask yourself what could be wrong!

  • 11 May 2006, 02:30

    I believe there are a few misconceptions in this post.

    BTW, what do you mean by "anti block break system" — possibly , "anti-lock brake system"?

    Most recent model cars made in the U.S. have ant-lock brakes.

    This is independent of a car having drum brakes. Anti-lock brakes can (and were) designed for both homogenous and hetergenous disk and drum brake systems. That is, a car having all drum brakes or one having all disk brakes or one that disks in the front and drums in the rear.

    Many U.S. cars have disks brakes in the front and drums in the rear, for both cost and performance reasons. Since around 70 percent of braking is done by the front wheels, it is most efficient to put disks on the front. Likewise, if you want to extract the very last drop from stopping performance, then you have disks all around; as many do. Cars that have the default disks in the front and drums in the rear often can be ordered to have disk brakes all around. But that goes into more of a marketing/personal preference realm.

    It can be argued that the disk brakes themselves can be better designed, both the rotor as well as the pads vis-a-vis the residual "hang" (the constant contact of the pads with the rotors) of these brakes. But that is also could be another topic.

    Anyway, yes, it is true that U.S. cars are much less efficient, weigh more and are now closer to a moving house than a device of utility. But this has much to do with the American Ego. And the marketing, the tax structure, the ego, all contribute to making these cars what they are.

    One thing that is often overlooked in all of this is the manufracturing cost in pollution of these wehicals. A rough estimate is that the average car produced in the U.S. pollutes, on average 30,000 gallons of water (while it is estimated that German and the Japanese are less then half the amount per equvalent car materiel.) So, yes, you can argue about the low milage, the lack of a better brake system, etc., etc., but it appears that this pollution cost is often completely overlooked.

    As far as 1.5 liter giving 100km, well I won’t go into this at all; this is simply not possible, because there are not enought calories in 1.5 liter of anything that will move a mass against resistant that distance (and still be classifie as a car).

    The other thing alluded to about GM and Ford having better technology abroad versus in the U.S.; I think I will leave that one alone too...

  • 11 May 2006, 07:31

    ...tip...

    just go to GM website like opel.de or for Ford like ford.de - and even without understanding the language you can easily navigate and find the specs.

    Sorry but it is possible to run a car with 1.5 liter on 60 miles. Opel for example had a show car with a 1300 ccm diesel turobo engine and the milage was quite the same and this was an almost derrived from an existing model. Opel also has already a Van running on hydrogen and this will be produced this year!
    A company consortium consisting of GM, BMW and Daimler Chrysler developed a hybrid system especial for the American market - SUV’s and Truck - and this finally will become real next year. Also it will outperform any existing hybrid system.
    In the 1992 GM introduced a car concept and the just the engine just to generate electricity to run 4 electro-motors sitting in the wheels and this car needed 2.5 liter of gasoline/60 miles.

    There is lot’s to do and high energy prices will demand better technology.

    Did you know that they have developed also the 1 liter house - this means a family with 4 person living in a house with 3 bedrooms need only the equivalent of 1 liter of fuel to run the house including light, appliances and heating.

    America is a different story - the country has fallen back on technology except the military.

    I could right an endless list of examples, but anybody who is familiar with the internet can find out things by themselves. HTML f. e. was invented at CERN in Geneve!

  • 11 May 2006, 10:01

    I should have been more clear and focused in the reply...

    Show cars and concept cars do not count. Nor do some research/publicity cars like the USPS using propane driven cars (for a few weeks as a stunt).

    Yes. I’ve studied the 4-motor GM concept car of the 1990... If it was so great why is is not on the market?

    And no there are not enough Calories in any known fuel of 1.5 liters that will move 2 kg 60 or a 100 km. Concepts not withstanding.

  • 11 May 2006, 10:47

    ...another hint.

    In Germany in in some European country they have enforced a law about fine-dust emissions like coming from Diesel-Cars. Therefore all new diesel cars have not only catalyst-converters, but also soot filter which burn the soot up to almost 99%.

    Now some towns even stop through traffic with doesn’t comply with the law and astonishingly it doesn’t effect the economy.

    I miss those concepts in the U.S..

    I know now you may counter - they have a high unemployment rate like 12-15%.
    Did you know that 45 million people are in the U.S. without a job - that would be also 15%.
    Another example: Great Britain cleans its statistic in a way and the unemployment in GB is already amazing 25%.

    We need a change!

  • 11 May 2006, 14:02

    On a visit to Paris, last year, I rented a Citroen Picasso, which is a kind of a SUV, and I thought I have made a big mistake since the fuel is so expensive there. I drove Picasso all the way to Malaga, Spain and back with 3 people aboard, and was amazed by its fuel efficiency. I never calculated exactly but I think that it did about 40 to 45 km per gallon. Not bad at all!
    I also found Picasso surprisingly comfortable and easy to handle.

  • 11 May 2006, 15:19

    "Most recent model cars made in the U.S. have ant-lock brakes"
    BTW, what do you mean by "ant-lock brakes?"

  • 11 May 2006, 16:04

    Why wouldn’t a concept car count????? If the concept works, IT WORKS! There are many BIG PROFIT making companies (big oil. big auto, etc) who might not want these products brought to market.

  • 12 May 2006, 05:09

    ABS or anti-lock-brake-systems prevents the wheels in case of an emergency brake from locking. The wheels will still receive maximum brake power, but will also be still maneuverable.
    In Europe even small cars have now 4 disc-breaks and ABS not to tell you about the minimum of 4-airbags. Most American modells don’t have that and the Ford technical chair Mr. Lutz made a fatal remark: not neccessary. We are talking about safety issues, right?
    The higher price segment in the U.S. - at least 30.000 USD for car, truck or SUV are a little bit better equipped, but to get it all the price is more than 40.000 USD. There are a few exceptions on Korean cars.

    Ask your Rep and demand the same safety features and efficiency as they are already available abroad - American customers have any right to be treated fair, because they also pay much more for their cars.

  • 15 May 2006, 19:32

    How about BIG HEADS. Like you. Do you count? Ha !!