The box of tissues must have done the trick. With that, I'm out. Gotta go for a road-trip in my 140hp gas guzzler.

wtf are you droning on about? again, you took my post out of context so you can show that you think you know something about cars.

yeah, your mom used them to wipe my splooge off her chin.

what's the energy efficiency of the xl1?

where is the data showing the fit ev = energy efficiency of the fit?

the problem with 100% electric cars is how the energy is produced. Is it from wind or solar? that's fine.

But when you burn coal or oil to produce energy, the electric car is as dirty as any other car.

nothing on google claiming the fit electric, while rated at 118 combined, actually gets 35mpg

https://www.google.com/search?q=2013...=1920&bih=1099

someone should finally invent an engine that runs on regular water ;)

wtf is powering it then, a fucking unicorn?

oh the geneva auto show is in one week, think i have plan for the days then :)

This reminds me on General motors EV-1
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...ujJISurAhFKo0g

did you ever see this? i think it's been officially proven as bullshit since though, but it was officially reported.



oh, and before i get *schooled* on the laws of thermodynamics, i never believed this was real/

yeah, every 20 years some inventor pops up and claims he has invented the water powered engine but for some reason he has to hide how it exactly works...

118 MPG combined rating - http://automobiles.honda.com/fit-ev/

thanks for the link.

it looks like the online car community is in agreement that the fit electric gets 118 combined, i guess i have to assume the other poster is somehow calculating build cost into the mpg to derive the 35mpg, but i can't seem to find anything on that.

Yea, really man... in 95 the civic CX was amoung cars barely peeking through the 200HP range so youre already around a bunch of slow cars to begin with. Do you see many of them on the road now? And now civics come with, what 160-200hp? and how many cars really go 0-60 in 12 seconds in this day and age vs ones that go 2-3x as fast? Its dangerous...its like taking a slow driving old person and slapping them dead in the middle of a highway This might be good to putt putt around town in 35mph zones but for where I live this thing would be run off the road in a matter of seconds :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

it gets nuttier!

http://dawn.com/2012/07/27/govt-to-s...-cabinet-body/

I will ask once again? Is that 0.9L/100km is fake number? I mean is it achieved with the help of electric battery?
If so this is false advertising as there are already many 0.000000000000000000000L/100km cars, which is achieved with a help of electric battery.

Actually its the other way around, Americans made it backwards once again.

If we show efficiency in this way 8L/100km we can easily calculate how much petrol we would need. For instance if we go to 350km trip we instantly know we will need 28L of petrol.

With mpg its the other way around - you instantly know how many miles you would go with said amount of gallons. And you should instantly know the opposite - how many gallons you would need for your trip.
American way is backwards.

Price aside, the fact that we're finally making these leaps in performance is...well, it gives me hope.

yaaaawwwwwnnnnnnn.....

eh? i was simply acknowledging that i am out of the loop on 1 liter speak.

and no, americans didn't make it stupid. when i get in my car to go to point a, i need to know if i will get there or not, not how much fuel i will use getting there.

moreover, are you assuming we invented the mpg rating and made the world use it?

Hmm, with L/100km you know that as well. Lets say you have 8L/100km and you have 20L in your tank. You need to go 300km. So you instantly know that with your 20L you won't make 300km.
If you have 30L in your tank you instantly know that you will make it.

And then on top of that the main benefit - you also know how much extra fuel do you need.

So you have 20L in your tank and you need 300km.
You know that you won't make it and you know that you need extra 4L to make that. 2 in 1. And with simple calculations.
With mpg it takes longer to figure these 2 things.
So mpg is less effective and backwards way of displaying efficiency.

i read it's measured in the same cycle as any other car

and i also read it helps bringing down the average fuel consumption of the whole VW fleet - so it's not just for showing off...

i didn't disagree with this, it is an accurate way of displaying efficiency, but not for whether or not i'm going to make my trip. maybe i am just accustomed to sorting it out easily based on mpg, but that just shows that it is still very easy to figure out on the fly.

i.e., i need to go 200 miles, i get 20 mpg, i need 10 gallons. done.

I have a 45 mpg Pick up for sale 1980 VW Diesel Pickup, runs good, too small for me

I'll stick with my 110 mpg scooter in the mean time. Yeah, everything that gets really good mpg is Diesel based, if you understand the carnot cycle it makes sense with the much higher compression.

http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/@api/dek...8.56.41_PM.png

What if you need 350miles and you have 25mpg? :) Let alone numbers like for instance 27mpg and 330miles.

And same thing with L/100km.
If you need 200km and have 10L/100km you just get 20L. done :)
You have 7L/100km you get 14L and done.

wouldn't the same apply to your formula?

how would you bypass those specifics with your method?