It makes the Prius seem as efficient as a Hummer
February 25, 2006 1:38 PM Subscribe
Meet the Loremo. Up until now high efficiency vehicles have looked a little bizarre, to say the least. Recently the Toyota Prius (in its 2.0 form) brought HE cars more into the mainstream, but the Loremo looks to beat it hands down. Having lightened the car as much as possible -- it weighs a paltry 450kg, less than half a ton -- engineers were able to bring its fuel consumption down to 1.5l/100km, or over 150 mpg. And make it look pretty good. And bring the cost down to less than 11,000 euro. The company says it'll be available in 2009, but are they for real? (via digg)
2009 is a long ways off. That'll give them time to finish their website.
posted by mds35 at 2:04 PM on February 25, 2006
posted by mds35 at 2:04 PM on February 25, 2006
Mmm, marketing promises. If they manage to get this into production, I'm betting weight and fuel consumption estimates will both rise 30 - 50 percent.
posted by dantsea at 2:08 PM on February 25, 2006
posted by dantsea at 2:08 PM on February 25, 2006
I'll believes it when I sees it.
posted by malaprohibita at 2:18 PM on February 25, 2006
posted by malaprohibita at 2:18 PM on February 25, 2006
that jetcar (2nd link) looks way cooler than this loremo thing.
posted by juv3nal at 2:41 PM on February 25, 2006
posted by juv3nal at 2:41 PM on February 25, 2006
It doesn't seem to have any way to get in it. Where are the doors? More to the point though, if most of it's efficiency is in the fact that it only weighs 450Kg, then the weight of the driver and passengers is going to seriously effect the MPG. I weigh more than 100Kg and since this is supposed to be a 2+2, if three similar sized friends manage to fit into it, we've almost doubled the weight of the vehicle without even carrying any luggage.
posted by octothorpe at 2:58 PM on February 25, 2006
posted by octothorpe at 2:58 PM on February 25, 2006
It's a turbo diesel though and in the US getting diesel cars to pass emissions is problematic and thye are outright banned in certain states, California for example.
posted by zeoslap at 3:04 PM on February 25, 2006
posted by zeoslap at 3:04 PM on February 25, 2006
And if it collides with a Suburban, it will be reduced to a few particles on the road, and the Suburban driver won't even notice.
posted by jam_pony at 3:06 PM on February 25, 2006
posted by jam_pony at 3:06 PM on February 25, 2006
How many cup holders does it have?
posted by chudmonkey at 3:19 PM on February 25, 2006
posted by chudmonkey at 3:19 PM on February 25, 2006
It's a concept. And a stupid one at that, since it's 50 kilos over the EC Heavy Quadricycle mass-limit and the styling, while aerodynamic, is not particularly practical. You can get an Aixam, a Ligier, a Bellier or any other mini car now, for less than 10k€. Even less for light quadricycle models.
posted by insomnus at 3:28 PM on February 25, 2006
posted by insomnus at 3:28 PM on February 25, 2006
More interesting information on the Loremo can be found here (pdf) and here... in English, even!
They are premiering it at the 76th International Motor show in Geneva in about a week, so it's not vaporware.
Even though the car is stripped down in many ways, it's also apparently quite safe, the ultralight material having been tested successfully in crash tests. Driver and passenger airbags are apparently standard.
It apparently uses a proven diesel drive that has been around for years. (This makes sense, as diesels are already amongst the most fuel efficient vehicles around.) So, what we're really seeing here is something akin to a hightech, stripped down, ultra-aerodynamic VW Jetta. Instead of getting about 40 mph, it gets about 150 mph... primarily because it weighs about a third of what that car weighs.
The article claims that the biggest innovation (besides the obvious use of lightweight materials) is apparently some kind of patented differential steering rear wheel axle, which features independent turning performance designed to support the unique weight aspects of the vehicle. (Pardon my poor German translation abilities here...)
So, nope... I believe it. A perfectly doable vehicle, especially considering the performance you typically see with diesel vehicles.
posted by insomnia_lj at 3:31 PM on February 25, 2006
They are premiering it at the 76th International Motor show in Geneva in about a week, so it's not vaporware.
Even though the car is stripped down in many ways, it's also apparently quite safe, the ultralight material having been tested successfully in crash tests. Driver and passenger airbags are apparently standard.
It apparently uses a proven diesel drive that has been around for years. (This makes sense, as diesels are already amongst the most fuel efficient vehicles around.) So, what we're really seeing here is something akin to a hightech, stripped down, ultra-aerodynamic VW Jetta. Instead of getting about 40 mph, it gets about 150 mph... primarily because it weighs about a third of what that car weighs.
The article claims that the biggest innovation (besides the obvious use of lightweight materials) is apparently some kind of patented differential steering rear wheel axle, which features independent turning performance designed to support the unique weight aspects of the vehicle. (Pardon my poor German translation abilities here...)
So, nope... I believe it. A perfectly doable vehicle, especially considering the performance you typically see with diesel vehicles.
posted by insomnia_lj at 3:31 PM on February 25, 2006
And if it collides with a Suburban, it will be reduced to a few particles on the road, and the Suburban driver won't even notice.
But at least they will be bio-degradable particles, I'm sure!
Octothorpe: the weight will indeed affect the milage, but mainly during acceleration. At cruising speed, the very low Cw value (0.2, as compared to a typical value of 0.3) explains the low milage. That, and the very low engine displacement (2 cyl, 20Bhp)... 0-100 km/h in nearly 20 seconds is a bit slow for my taste.
posted by swordfishtrombones at 3:33 PM on February 25, 2006
But at least they will be bio-degradable particles, I'm sure!
Octothorpe: the weight will indeed affect the milage, but mainly during acceleration. At cruising speed, the very low Cw value (0.2, as compared to a typical value of 0.3) explains the low milage. That, and the very low engine displacement (2 cyl, 20Bhp)... 0-100 km/h in nearly 20 seconds is a bit slow for my taste.
posted by swordfishtrombones at 3:33 PM on February 25, 2006
They are premiering it at the 76th International Motor show in Geneva in about a week, so it's not vaporware.
They're presenting a concept vehicle, not an actual product.
posted by insomnus at 3:33 PM on February 25, 2006
They're presenting a concept vehicle, not an actual product.
posted by insomnus at 3:33 PM on February 25, 2006
diesel cars aren't banned in california, zeoslap. I live here, and see several of them at my office each day; many of the gas stations I go to have diesel pumps.
posted by jonson at 3:48 PM on February 25, 2006
posted by jonson at 3:48 PM on February 25, 2006
Apparently it relies on a rigid cage around the passenger compartment for safety. And those airbags are at all four seats, not just driver and front passenger. Thanks for the link. Still, I wouldn't feel safe on a road full of far more massive, body-on-frame vehicles (pdf).
I've always despised diesels, but the more recent ones from Europe, at least VWs, have been almost inoffensive, nothing like the traditional smoke-spewing stinkers.
posted by jam_pony at 3:49 PM on February 25, 2006
I've always despised diesels, but the more recent ones from Europe, at least VWs, have been almost inoffensive, nothing like the traditional smoke-spewing stinkers.
posted by jam_pony at 3:49 PM on February 25, 2006
"They're presenting a concept vehicle, not an actual product."
Yes, but they are presenting an actual, driveable car, which is pretty impressive.
One thing I found interesting from reading the German articles is that apparently the rear passenger seats face the rear of the vehicle, to keep the weight of the vehicle concentrated in the center, and the doors open vertically, kind of like a DeLorean.
There is also talk of the vehicle being transformable, with the potential for creating additional modules, which can be installed with a few handles and removed again later. It would be interesting to be able to transform one of these into a small pickup truck, as they mentioned in one article.
posted by insomnia_lj at 3:57 PM on February 25, 2006
Yes, but they are presenting an actual, driveable car, which is pretty impressive.
One thing I found interesting from reading the German articles is that apparently the rear passenger seats face the rear of the vehicle, to keep the weight of the vehicle concentrated in the center, and the doors open vertically, kind of like a DeLorean.
There is also talk of the vehicle being transformable, with the potential for creating additional modules, which can be installed with a few handles and removed again later. It would be interesting to be able to transform one of these into a small pickup truck, as they mentioned in one article.
posted by insomnia_lj at 3:57 PM on February 25, 2006
"Although this car (if built) may be fuel efficient, it is likely to be dangerously slow if a person ever sits in it, and unable to climb tiny hills with two or more people."
That seems unlikely. They're talking about up to 4 people in the vehicle at speeds over 100mph.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:00 PM on February 25, 2006
That seems unlikely. They're talking about up to 4 people in the vehicle at speeds over 100mph.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:00 PM on February 25, 2006
Let's assume, though, that the car with a driver weighs about 1100 lbs. and can reach 100 mph, as they claim.
If you add a 150 lb. adult passenger and two 75 lb. kids, you're talking 1400 lbs, or an increase of about 25% in weight, nicely distributed over the center of the vehicle.
So, maybe it would struggle to reach 75 mph on the highway under such circumstances (though I would argue it would likely perform somewhat better), and it would have to take mountain roads at about 45 mph, stuck in the slow lane with the trucks. That's not too shabby though, and is good enough for most people.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:12 PM on February 25, 2006
A typical 600cc sportsbike (motorcycle) produces around 100 hp and weighs 158 kg
I'd call 100hp the high end of typical.
And you can't exactly compare motorcycle and car power to weight ratios. There's a reason even my 40hp thumper beats every car off the line without trying.
The p:w on those sportbikes is enough that sane people tell newbies to stay the hell away from them. Asking for something comparable in a car is kinda goofy.
posted by flaterik at 4:12 PM on February 25, 2006
I'd call 100hp the high end of typical.
And you can't exactly compare motorcycle and car power to weight ratios. There's a reason even my 40hp thumper beats every car off the line without trying.
The p:w on those sportbikes is enough that sane people tell newbies to stay the hell away from them. Asking for something comparable in a car is kinda goofy.
posted by flaterik at 4:12 PM on February 25, 2006
One thing not noted above is that there is going to be the GS model with more HP (50 instead of 20) and less milage - 2.7l/100km instead of 1.5l/100km. So instead of 157mpg you get close to 90mpg. Still beats the crap out of anything available now or in 2009.
posted by SirOmega at 4:16 PM on February 25, 2006
posted by SirOmega at 4:16 PM on February 25, 2006
With regards the California ban I believe older cars (pre '73) don't need to adhere to current emissions standards but new models do which is why you won't see a new Jetta TDI here but you will see the big old Mercedes diesels spluttering around. The diesel sold at the pumps are for trucks which are subject to different standards and those older diesels.
posted by zeoslap at 4:19 PM on February 25, 2006
posted by zeoslap at 4:19 PM on February 25, 2006
This all sounds really nice. They are planning to produce a car that has more power, gadgets, space, safety features and luxuries, has better economy and performance and costs the same as existing quadricycles that aren't taxed as heavily and are easier(cheaper) to get approved. All they have now is a hand-built concept car. I wish them good luck.
posted by insomnus at 4:24 PM on February 25, 2006
posted by insomnus at 4:24 PM on February 25, 2006
Vehicle weight is a big issue in global warming and peak oil circles. It represents the most dramatic gains in energy efficiency for the least amount of technical innovation and disruption of current systems.
posted by stbalbach at 4:29 PM on February 25, 2006
posted by stbalbach at 4:29 PM on February 25, 2006
How many cup holders does it have?
posted by chudmonkey at 3:19 PM PST on February 25 [!]
-------------------------------------
That's a good question, chudmonkey as many american buyers base their decisions on how many cupholders their vehicle of interest has. Did you know the newer Volvo models have as many as twelve cupholders? Twelve!
A couple of years ago I went around to various dealerships doing research on cupholders in vehicles, just for curiosity's sake. Mercedes has the most interesting one, a cupholder that rises out of the console and unfolds like oragami,Porsche said it actually had customer's who had bought the previous years model trade it in on the current model simply because it now had cupholders (Audi cupholders adapted to fit Porsches).
So yes, the issue of cupholders is very definitely something to take into account when evaluating a new car in the U.S.
My car, at the time, a Ford Contour, had terrible cupholders, even though in every other way it was a fantastic car. They were far to wide. I couldn't figure it out how the designers could be so stupid. Then one morning I was sitting down and the solution as to why they had such poorly designed cupholders hit me. I grabbed a standard ceramic coffee cup out of the kitchen cupboard, took it out to the car and... it fit perfectly. Ford never considered those traveling with their coffees would be using portable, disposable containers to carry them in, they assumed people would be putting standard coffee cups in the holders. Fools! Absolute fools! And now look where it's got them. Ford is going under, so is GM and Chevrolet and I personally think it is because of their poor cupholder design. Serves them right.
posted by mk1gti at 4:35 PM on February 25, 2006
posted by chudmonkey at 3:19 PM PST on February 25 [!]
-------------------------------------
That's a good question, chudmonkey as many american buyers base their decisions on how many cupholders their vehicle of interest has. Did you know the newer Volvo models have as many as twelve cupholders? Twelve!
A couple of years ago I went around to various dealerships doing research on cupholders in vehicles, just for curiosity's sake. Mercedes has the most interesting one, a cupholder that rises out of the console and unfolds like oragami,Porsche said it actually had customer's who had bought the previous years model trade it in on the current model simply because it now had cupholders (Audi cupholders adapted to fit Porsches).
So yes, the issue of cupholders is very definitely something to take into account when evaluating a new car in the U.S.
My car, at the time, a Ford Contour, had terrible cupholders, even though in every other way it was a fantastic car. They were far to wide. I couldn't figure it out how the designers could be so stupid. Then one morning I was sitting down and the solution as to why they had such poorly designed cupholders hit me. I grabbed a standard ceramic coffee cup out of the kitchen cupboard, took it out to the car and... it fit perfectly. Ford never considered those traveling with their coffees would be using portable, disposable containers to carry them in, they assumed people would be putting standard coffee cups in the holders. Fools! Absolute fools! And now look where it's got them. Ford is going under, so is GM and Chevrolet and I personally think it is because of their poor cupholder design. Serves them right.
posted by mk1gti at 4:35 PM on February 25, 2006
The thing is, vehicle weight has been steadily going up because of crash safety requirements. Rigid bodyshells and high-strength steel structures are heavy. Combining crash safety and light weight definitely requires technical innovation. New composite materials do combine these two, but are very expensive. I did read a bit of news on a new method of constructing carbon-fibre "tubs" that would enable the technology to move from $200,000 sports-cars to $70,000 dollar sports-cars.
Of course, there is an easy way to reduce vehicle weight: reduce vehicle size. The drawbacks are obvious, but if an European family can fit in a Golf, why does an American family need a Camry? Or for that matter, if an European family could fit in a 1980 Golf, why do they need an 2005 Golf?
posted by insomnus at 4:45 PM on February 25, 2006
Of course, there is an easy way to reduce vehicle weight: reduce vehicle size. The drawbacks are obvious, but if an European family can fit in a Golf, why does an American family need a Camry? Or for that matter, if an European family could fit in a 1980 Golf, why do they need an 2005 Golf?
posted by insomnus at 4:45 PM on February 25, 2006
give me a $5000 hybrid that will actually save me money, then I'll look.
Right now, any money I'd save in gas with a hybrid gets eaten up monthy car payments.
posted by Dillenger69 at 4:52 PM on February 25, 2006
Right now, any money I'd save in gas with a hybrid gets eaten up monthy car payments.
posted by Dillenger69 at 4:52 PM on February 25, 2006
Looks cool to me. But again, I don't drive a car.
posted by NewBornHippy at 5:01 PM on February 25, 2006
posted by NewBornHippy at 5:01 PM on February 25, 2006
Eye massage for VC startup funds.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:33 PM on February 25, 2006
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:33 PM on February 25, 2006
0-60 time of 19 seconds. That's how they do it.
Good luck avoiding that semi. The advantage of any light car should be its handling and acceleration.
posted by Eideteker at 10:33 PM on February 25, 2006
Good luck avoiding that semi. The advantage of any light car should be its handling and acceleration.
posted by Eideteker at 10:33 PM on February 25, 2006
I'd love to have a car like this for commuting back and forth to work. I'd have to have a second car for highway trips, though.
posted by kindall at 12:47 AM on February 26, 2006
posted by kindall at 12:47 AM on February 26, 2006
Kind of cool if it works, but we'll see. However, somehow I doubt a 20 hp car will make it in the US market.
As linked in the FPP, DaimlerChrysler already has their Smart brand of ultrasmall cars, which already get performance fairly near what Loremo is claiming for their 50 hp model, so maybe with some technical tweaks they can pull it off.
However, as an American who is pro-fuel efficiency (a Geo Metro was the first car I ever bought when I was an 20-year old kid), even I think the Smart cars are tiny and kind of scary to ride in. My Geo Metro was destroyed in a t-bone accident at an intersection, and the only reason no one was killed was because I wasn't carrying any passengers.
I see folks in these on the Autobahn here in Germany and I think "What if one of the gerbils they use to power that thing dies of a heart attack? Some Mercedes doing 225 kph is going to end up punting the little thing like a football into the next county."
posted by moonbiter at 4:06 AM on February 26, 2006
As linked in the FPP, DaimlerChrysler already has their Smart brand of ultrasmall cars, which already get performance fairly near what Loremo is claiming for their 50 hp model, so maybe with some technical tweaks they can pull it off.
However, as an American who is pro-fuel efficiency (a Geo Metro was the first car I ever bought when I was an 20-year old kid), even I think the Smart cars are tiny and kind of scary to ride in. My Geo Metro was destroyed in a t-bone accident at an intersection, and the only reason no one was killed was because I wasn't carrying any passengers.
I see folks in these on the Autobahn here in Germany and I think "What if one of the gerbils they use to power that thing dies of a heart attack? Some Mercedes doing 225 kph is going to end up punting the little thing like a football into the next county."
posted by moonbiter at 4:06 AM on February 26, 2006
still one of my favorties i've seen on mefi: commutercars are all electric with 0 to 60 in about 4 seconds (of course they still ain't cheap). But i've never seen one in person or had a chance to try out the cupholders.
posted by NGnerd at 9:32 AM on February 26, 2006
posted by NGnerd at 9:32 AM on February 26, 2006
"Everyone seems to be missing the fact that despite its light weight, the engines produce only 20 or 50 hp. A typical 600cc sportsbike (motorcycle) produces around 100 hp and weighs 158 kg."
Sports bikes have no torque, a small turbo diesel has lots of it.
"vehicle weight has been steadily going up because of crash safety requirements. Rigid bodyshells and high-strength steel structures are heavy.""Combining crash safety and light weight definitely requires technical innovation."
Power everything adds weight, lots of it. Get rid of heated seats, power windows, power 12 way seats, power moon roofs, power sliding doors, power trunk lids, power locks, dual zone A/C, plus all the upgraded electrical and cooling systems to handle them and you can trim hundreds of pounds. For example even an amateur prepared rally car usually weighs less than the donor and we have to add fuel cells and rollcages.
posted by Mitheral at 9:59 AM on February 26, 2006
Sports bikes have no torque, a small turbo diesel has lots of it.
"vehicle weight has been steadily going up because of crash safety requirements. Rigid bodyshells and high-strength steel structures are heavy.""Combining crash safety and light weight definitely requires technical innovation."
Power everything adds weight, lots of it. Get rid of heated seats, power windows, power 12 way seats, power moon roofs, power sliding doors, power trunk lids, power locks, dual zone A/C, plus all the upgraded electrical and cooling systems to handle them and you can trim hundreds of pounds. For example even an amateur prepared rally car usually weighs less than the donor and we have to add fuel cells and rollcages.
posted by Mitheral at 9:59 AM on February 26, 2006
For Americans, as is somewhat the case in Europe, I think the most promising model is to have a small, light fuel-efficient car for everyday use, and a more comfy vehicle for longer trips.
Of course, this doesn't help the person who commutes 60miles a day r/t to the office, but not sure there's any hope for such a creature...
posted by ParisParamus at 10:06 AM on February 26, 2006
Of course, this doesn't help the person who commutes 60miles a day r/t to the office, but not sure there's any hope for such a creature...
posted by ParisParamus at 10:06 AM on February 26, 2006
The diesel engine may be a piddling 20HP, but remember that that's a diesel 20HP. Massive torque = plenty of ability to put all those 20 horses to the wheels.
Some notes: here and here.
(That it's a diesel also means that the worry about losing speed while going up a steep hill is bogus. A good diesel could climb a wall without hesitation.)
The smaller car's 0–100kmh time is atrocious at 19s, and surely means you'd best use it only for running about in-town. The larger car does it in 9s, which is acceptable.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:18 AM on February 26, 2006
Some notes: here and here.
(That it's a diesel also means that the worry about losing speed while going up a steep hill is bogus. A good diesel could climb a wall without hesitation.)
The smaller car's 0–100kmh time is atrocious at 19s, and surely means you'd best use it only for running about in-town. The larger car does it in 9s, which is acceptable.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:18 AM on February 26, 2006
Right now, any money I'd save in gas with a hybrid gets eaten up monthy car payments.
It may be true that a hybrid doesn't end up saving you that much money at the end of the day over, say, a Civic LX. I think this misses the point of why people buy the hybrids, however. The car still uses less gas overall, thereby reducing your carbon footprint. It's also a matter of early adoption of a technology that is here to stay. Collecting wasted energy during the normal operation of a vehicle is simply smart. With further design and greater adoption, the pricepoint will come down on those technologies, while the price of gas will go up, up, up. I'm thrilled that a concept car like the Loremo can get the attention it does - it means we're headed in the right direction.
To be fair, in Southern California, I think most people buy hybrids to save time on their commute, as they can ride in the carpool lane with only one occupant.
posted by kahboom at 10:42 AM on February 26, 2006
It may be true that a hybrid doesn't end up saving you that much money at the end of the day over, say, a Civic LX. I think this misses the point of why people buy the hybrids, however. The car still uses less gas overall, thereby reducing your carbon footprint. It's also a matter of early adoption of a technology that is here to stay. Collecting wasted energy during the normal operation of a vehicle is simply smart. With further design and greater adoption, the pricepoint will come down on those technologies, while the price of gas will go up, up, up. I'm thrilled that a concept car like the Loremo can get the attention it does - it means we're headed in the right direction.
To be fair, in Southern California, I think most people buy hybrids to save time on their commute, as they can ride in the carpool lane with only one occupant.
posted by kahboom at 10:42 AM on February 26, 2006
Power everything adds weight, lots of it. Get rid of heated seats, power windows, power 12 way seats, power moon roofs, power sliding doors, power trunk lids, power locks, dual zone A/C, plus all the upgraded electrical and cooling systems to handle them and you can trim hundreds of pounds.
Hey now. Seat heaters are essential. Other than that, you are indeed correct. While hybrids are cool and everything a small car with less equipment makes more sense. Now an European A or B-segment car is not going to have as much room as the Prius, but it will also cost a lot less money.
To be fair, in Southern California, I think most people buy hybrids to save time on their commute, as they can ride in the carpool lane with only one occupant.
And to be fair, in Europe, I think most people buy small cars because taxes make cars expensive, not because of concern for the environment. Although fuel taxes also steer people towards vehicles that use less fuel.
I'm thrilled that a concept car like the Loremo can get the attention it does - it means we're headed in the right direction.
I'm annoyed that cool concept cars steer attention away from real-life solutions.
posted by insomnus at 1:21 PM on February 26, 2006
Hey now. Seat heaters are essential. Other than that, you are indeed correct. While hybrids are cool and everything a small car with less equipment makes more sense. Now an European A or B-segment car is not going to have as much room as the Prius, but it will also cost a lot less money.
To be fair, in Southern California, I think most people buy hybrids to save time on their commute, as they can ride in the carpool lane with only one occupant.
And to be fair, in Europe, I think most people buy small cars because taxes make cars expensive, not because of concern for the environment. Although fuel taxes also steer people towards vehicles that use less fuel.
I'm thrilled that a concept car like the Loremo can get the attention it does - it means we're headed in the right direction.
I'm annoyed that cool concept cars steer attention away from real-life solutions.
posted by insomnus at 1:21 PM on February 26, 2006
but that's a diesel 20HP.
I don't care if its nuclear 20HP, 20 horses does not equal 120+ km/hour, what a joke--that is a lawnmower engine.
posted by uni verse at 2:22 PM on February 26, 2006
I don't care if its nuclear 20HP, 20 horses does not equal 120+ km/hour, what a joke--that is a lawnmower engine.
posted by uni verse at 2:22 PM on February 26, 2006
Horsepower does not directly correlate to speed.
Old John Deere tractors, with huge inline 4 or 6 cylinder engines often were rated for only 5-10-15 horsepower. Doesn't sound like much. But that horsepower, through the right transmission, produces enough torque to do serious work.
With low HP for a car, you can get really good torque for the low end, which means really zippy performance in stop-n-go traffic; yet with a good transmission, that torque can be converted into solid road speed as well.
Basically, if you've got good torque, you can do anything with it, including transferring it into speed.
posted by yesster at 2:52 PM on February 26, 2006
Old John Deere tractors, with huge inline 4 or 6 cylinder engines often were rated for only 5-10-15 horsepower. Doesn't sound like much. But that horsepower, through the right transmission, produces enough torque to do serious work.
With low HP for a car, you can get really good torque for the low end, which means really zippy performance in stop-n-go traffic; yet with a good transmission, that torque can be converted into solid road speed as well.
Basically, if you've got good torque, you can do anything with it, including transferring it into speed.
posted by yesster at 2:52 PM on February 26, 2006
'zactly.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:22 PM on February 26, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 4:22 PM on February 26, 2006
An ICE doesn't have torque and horsepower curves in lock step with each other like your formula would suggest. When it comes to determining drivability you've got to look at more than just peak horsepower. Early beetles had 24 and then 30 hp engines, a drag coefficient of 0.45-0.49!, a higher frontal area and massed 50% more. The 24hp version was still capable of 97km/h.
The numbers being put up by this prototype don't seem out of line. It won't be a sporty car to drive but many would find it adequate.
b1tr0t writes "20HP is 20HP, regardless of whether it is produced by a diesel engine, a gas engine, or a nuclear submarine's steam turbine."
I'll disagree when it comes to actually putting an engine in a car, everything else being equal I'd much rather be driving a car powered by a 20 hp electric motor than a 20 hp gas, diesel, or turbine engine.
b1tr0t writes "Also, you can build a gas engine that runs exactly like a deisel engine. Just lengthen the piston's stroke, and you end up with the same low-RPM, high-torque, slow acceleration performance typical of Diesel engines"
Original /6 which with less than 150 hp appeared in medium duty trucks up to 5 tons.
posted by Mitheral at 6:04 PM on February 26, 2006
The numbers being put up by this prototype don't seem out of line. It won't be a sporty car to drive but many would find it adequate.
b1tr0t writes "20HP is 20HP, regardless of whether it is produced by a diesel engine, a gas engine, or a nuclear submarine's steam turbine."
I'll disagree when it comes to actually putting an engine in a car, everything else being equal I'd much rather be driving a car powered by a 20 hp electric motor than a 20 hp gas, diesel, or turbine engine.
b1tr0t writes "Also, you can build a gas engine that runs exactly like a deisel engine. Just lengthen the piston's stroke, and you end up with the same low-RPM, high-torque, slow acceleration performance typical of Diesel engines"
Original /6 which with less than 150 hp appeared in medium duty trucks up to 5 tons.
posted by Mitheral at 6:04 PM on February 26, 2006
« Older Popularity, therefore Authority? | My mom read it and thinks it's good. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:56 PM on February 25, 2006