I lived in Europe when I was a child, and loved riding the subway and differnt rail lines at the train station. I don’t see any reason these rail lines can’t be powered by solar energy or hydrogen, since Mercedes already has fuel cell buses running in Europe since 2004.

But the Germans can’t be let off the hook that easliy. What’s that you say? BMW shipping their diesel over here? Well it’s bullshit, because it’s none other than a twin turbo DIESEL GUZZLER. Apparently they feel even with almost $5 diesel, it’s worth it to pay $50,000 for a 35 MPG diesel. Complete idiots. They don’t get the clue that those numbers should be reversed.

This year VW will be reintroducing their Jetta diesel, and next year Audi with their A4, but not before bringing over the Q7 SUV, another diesel guzzler.

Mercedes BLEW it by not bringing over the SMART diesel FIRST, or at the same time as the gas version. They’re also blowing it by not demanding the US govt. let them sell their ACTROS semi here. The one that recently got put into the guinness book for best fuel economy.

New Mercedes-Benz Actros Recorded As World’s Most Economical Series

http://www.roadtransport.com/blogs/big-lorry-blog/2008/06/-how-does-1453mpg-or.html

Test consumption of a similar car done in Germany ( where cars are driven much harder than in the States) yielded a consumption rate of 5,9 due to the Country’s superior roads and traffic control.

I used to pilot a ‘94 Mercury Villager (with Nissan VG30 V6 engine)
It would get 30mpg@70mph (without AC & windows closed) and 25@75 with.
The mileage went downhill when the eEGR failed…

The Honda civic (automatic) can get 30mpg@90mph.
I’ve seen a 44mpg 300 mile trip (with E10 gasoline) and the moving average was very good.

The US needs diesel vehicle. Just look at the old Audi A2 ‘3 litre’, it outpriused the prius
http://www.autozine.org/Graveyard/html/Audi/A2_2000.html

The US is still five years behind were we need to be in the transmission development.
Big engined large cars can get good mileage, they just need appropriately tall gearing for the highway.
For example, 1996 Buick Roadmaster. 2.56 axle ratio, unfortunately it only had a 4 speed automatic. So it was slow off the line, slow for passing, just slow about everywhere, perfect for its intended demographic.
The gearing was so tall, the car about made it to 60mph in first gear. 2nd gear would take you to 100mph.
Top gear was about 45mph per 1000rpm
A five speed automatic would have done wonders back then.

So 6 speed automatic should be the minimum, 7/8 speed autos should expand beyond Mercedes-Benz, Infiniti, Lexus, (and BMW when it feels like replace the ZF 6speed transmission with the 8 speed)

The other main thing that you touch on, but don’t really explore, is that engines in cars have gotten many times more efficient than they used to be… but that efficiency has been given over to increased power, not to better gas mileage. While some is necessary to haul around the heavier cars that are mentioned, most is just unnecessary power increases. Why do small cars like the Yaris have 105 horsepower, or the Honda Fit with 109? No, we don’t really want 30 second 0-60 times, but I think 15 seconds is an acceptable number.

In response to Brian, it doesn’t really help to say ‘I shouldn’t have to do anything, because the roads suck.’ That doesn’t excuse bad driving behaviors, or even having a long commute. One paradigm shift that will HAVE to happen if as a culture we are to make a dent in our energy consumption is that more people will need to live where they work and work where they live. If cheap transportation has allowed you to live an hour away from your job until now, I’m glad you’ve enjoyed it, but that doesn’t mean that has to, or even can, continue.

Finally, don’t be looking for highway departments and municipalities to be doing much in the way of roadway construction or upgrades in the next few years. The economy is hitting governments hard, and they’re going after a nice easy target – the transportation funds – to get more funding for politically popular spending. It’s certainly not something I want to see, since I design highways, but it’s the reality of the situation.

Five days a week I commute an hour to work and an hour home. Half of each commute is spent on the highway and the other half going through town roads. In this commute I drive through over crowded, pot hole infested streets that force me to constantly slow down and speed up, which wastes tons of fuel.

I also idle at traffic light after traffic light while only a few cars cross the intersection. Another great waste of fuel. And the highways here in Mass are no better. The highways are so underbuilt that my average speed to work and home during “rush hour” is about 40mphs (on 65mph roads). I know, “slower = better fuel economy”, but stop and go traffic adds 30 minutes (total) per day of extra fuel consumption, not to mention the fact that the traffic is stop and go, so I am again required to speed up and slow down numerous times over my commute. Overall, a colossal waste of valuable fuel.

During the prime vacation times of the year (when the highways are not as busy) I fill my tank up once a week. The rest of the year I fill up twice a week. Multiply the same conditions by thousands of drivers per day and I think you can see my argument. Bad roads = poor fuel econonomy.

I’m so sick of hearing how drivers can save fuel by “driving better”. Fix the roads first! They need to be repaired more often and they need to be built to handle today’s traffic volumes.