UK-POLOS.NET - THE VW Polo Forum

Opinions and incensed bullsh1t follows

Thinking about the impending petrol price doom this summer (will the govt help by dropping tax? will they buggery... heloo pound a litre - im investing in a big canister, hoarding laws be damned), whats everyone's thoughts and plans.
It may all be a big game to try and shock the planet into reducing consumption bigstyle as the truth of oil stocks comes out from more than just BP... I dunno.

It just got me running things round in my head about various stuff. For one thing... diesel engines. Super torquey and so on and so forth. But if you dig a bit more closely... that's only because of increased capacity next to their petrol brethren. A naturally aspirated diesel has to jump through some fancy hoops to keep up even torque-wise with an octane-loving sister engine, let alone horsepower. 1.9 TDi's may pack plenty of punch, with an improved top end, but guess what also had a fair bit of go behind it - almost directly as good BHP, and despite a fair bit less torque, a better rating cc-for-cc in that domain? The G40... using much the same methods as the TDi does no less (ie artificially increasing the capacity still further with an air compressor) with a mere 1.3 engine. If the petrol engines were as big they'd put in just as much oomph. It's all distraction.
I do however have to admit that the economy figures are quite good, especially with direct injection etc (the diesel tech just catching up with petrol), giving you a saving in your wallet.... mostly down to it being a thicker and more energy rich fuel though? (it's not a startling difference any more, but 10mpg is still 10mpg)

((I could have directly put the argument of the Mk3 diesel in - 1400cc but barely improved figures over the 1043 - but it's a little outdated. diesels are still larger though, take a look. mind you, again, the diesel takes the economy cake - the mk3 one could kiss 70mpg on a run according to the manual... take that, hybrid fans... makes the idea of the 2-cylinder charged freaky thing turning in 90mpg or more seem quite plausible))

Honda and Toyota's hybrid technologies sure are innovative, but they seem to be under a bit of a corporate blanket. For example, being very limited in the scope of vehicles and applications they're optionally applied to, when they should be immediately included as standard on all machines being sold by the company.
A website i recently got sent to was Honda's IMA flashsite. All very nice, showy, informative about the technology and it's benefits in simple terms, with that soft voiced geezer from the adverts providing narriative. But checking into the figures behind the scenes...... this quite excellent bit of economy-improving kit is available for one car - the Civic Saloon (dunno bout you but i've NEVER seen a live one) with the already quite punchy 1.4 litre engine that doesn't really need any electric boost to turn in decent performance, or economy for that matter. Now if the car was offered with a drastically smaller engine (say if that 1.4 was dropped to 1-litre - assuming a linear graph of power vs capacity it would still put out a healthy 60hp and a fair bit of torque!) but with the same electric motor it could still fly, the top speed may be reduced (but still just over the ton - and if you're driving for economy with acceleration this shouldn't be much of an issue!)... and the fuel savings would be quite incredible. As it is, it doesn't do well enough on the petrol compared to other frugal non-electrified competitiors (especially diesels) to seem like a great difference, so is it really worth the purchase for economy-freaks? This could kill the hybrid thing in it's cot..
Other oversights - not available on the other engines (like the larger ones that could do with better fuel consumption) or cars in it's range. Only available with the 5-speed manual gearbox, which is a bit of a waste of it's talents and suggests to me that one of the greatests assets of this tech - electric-only running in stop-go traffic - is neglected as the leccy motor is likely bolted to the crankshaft. Also meaning not available with an efficiency-friendly CVT box.
But that isn't too much of a problem anyway... my understanding of modern CVT was that it put even manual boxes in the shade, economy and acceleration-wise, but Honda's appears to affect the performance about as much as the 4-speed auto. Slower and more thirsty than the manual, at least on the non-IMA hatchback.

(Insight? Don't make me laugh... nice enough little eco-buggy and all, but only two seats. And Paul, mate of my dads, drives a Lotus Elise 2-seater than can turn in 60mpg when he wants it to without much effort, but still rattle off 0-60 in under 8 seconds)

(Yeah, I'm comparing a little to the Toyota Prius there... which has a CVT that stops the engine revving past 4000rpm and seemingly has a top ratio of about 50mph/1000 - fantastic for cruising, and electric-only option. Still, that's a moderately large car, like a 5 door Focus at the least, maybe not the most ultimately popular format (especially for people buying from Toyota in this country), certainly not the most potentially efficient and/or in need of efficiency, and in any case - why limit yourselves to just one slice of the market even IF it's the largest? the ideas and tech are readily portable..)

Now, that kind of tech in a small VW that's had some serious weight-reduction and aerodynamics engineering put in without sacrificing much of safety. 998cc engine sticking out at least the 50hp of the later mk4 1-litre, moderate IMA (smaller motor/battery pack for a smaller car), decent CVT box able to rev the engine down as low as neccessary in economy mode*, electric-only drive option in traffic... You've got yourself a 100mpg car I reckon! And the ability to drive free in London
(anyone got a real, live mk3 diesel anywhere? were they even ever sold in the UK? that'd be worth a trial with a home brewed IMA type system... maybe plugged into the differential side of the gearbox)

(* because hell, even my 1-litre makes pretty good tracks with the throttles open to give the most unimpeded running - without even revving it past 2500 in 2nd thru 4th.. a CVT that could hold it at 2000rpm in extra-eco mode even with locked throttles and offer ratios up to "6th" compared to the 1.3 CL's 5th? (=about 60mph, past which the engine couldn't sustain it anyway)... super thrifty!)
(another one for honda to ponder - their 84hp 1350-odd cc engine would also math down to a 40-ish hp, 659cc engine.. which would get them into the lowest japanese tax bracket on capacity, produce a very light powerplant, give good economy anyway (though maybe only a ~85mph top speed under thrash - some extreme tuning for a bit more power at slightly lower revs maybe required) and even better frugality and decent performance in something low and light, and be perfect for hybridising into a little 4-seater city runaround, like the size of a Lupo or so but not even as chunky or tall externally)

discuss, ignore. your bag.

Tahrey,

while I agree that the planet badly needs to curb oil consumption and carbon and other nasty emissions, most of the solutions you have presented are only feasible in the developed markets, which are already saturated anyway. Of course, these markets (the USA in particular, but Europe also has some troublespots) are responsible for over 50% of total oil consumption and gas emissions, and could afford, and see, a gradual replacement of current technology with more efficient hybrids, etc. Because they WON'T take smaller cars and smaller engines. And not just in the U.S. - I've been following the European market for what, 16, 17 years now and anyone can see that cars have been getting bigger and engines have been getting bigger in Europe over time. Twenty years ago it was all about 1-litre, 1.3-litre cars throughout Europe. These days... Ever seen a 1-litre, or 1.3-litre Ford Focus? Thought not.

So it's gotta be hybrids and stuff like that to power chubby cars for chubby Europeans.

However, these things cost a lot of money, and the economies of scale just won't be there initially - so even if there are huge government crackdowns on inefficient cars, manufacturers would still have to find ways to fund these new technologies. How? Why, by selling 'conventional', unsafe, inefficient, polluting outdated (or 'de-contented') cars to the developing world - where all the car manufacturing growth would be concentrated anyway.

Demand for cars is growing almost exclusively on poorly developed and badly regulated markets. Just take a look at emissions standards in China and India, or minimum safety standards in Latin America, and you'll quickly realise that any reduction in emissions or oil consumption in the West would be more than compensated by the old designs that'd be flogged in say, India and China to make money to fund the more efficient models. Or the interesting phenomenon in places like Brazil and Mexico, which always get the latest European desings about six months after the E.U. (in Brazil's case) or the U.S. (in Mexico), minus any safety-related items. Incidentally, places like Chile and Argentina get the safety features as standard - but they're the exception in the developing world.

(hmm... maybe they plan to compensate for the increased emissions by killing us - thus preventing us third world drivers from driving and polluting the planet even more! How machiavellic - sell them a car to help fund electric cars to the rich, have 'em crash it - and by God we're good at crashing our cars - and get 'em killed by not fitting anything that could prevent serious injury, thus solving two problems, or three, all in one go )

Now seriously. Most car buyers in the planet just can't afford hybrids and other new technologies right now - or rather, the industry can't afford to offer that sort of thing to them. Not at a reasonable price anyway.

Just take a look at what Renault is doing - anyone seen that new Dacia thing, the 5,000 Euro car? It's a sh*t design which Renault themselves admit that "won't pass current E.U. emissions standards". It's going to be sold in places like India and China, where people couldn't care less about such standards - even if they have to live with western pollution levels in many cases. It's not going to be the most fuel-efficient thing in the world either - it's got a 15-year-old engine under the bonnet.

Now, in Latin America emission laws are tighter because we have both environmental problems and, more importantly, a public that's more environmentally conscious than the Asians and perhaps the Africans. All that 'save the Amazon' stuff - even if most of us believe that's more like 'save the Amazon for when we invade it'. So, our main problem is the complete lack of commitment (both from the government and the drivers themselves) to road safety, which leads to things like Fiat being able to sell a car like the Stilo without any airbags or ABS for the same price as the fully-featured Italian car in Europe. The extra cash Fiat makes in that little operation could be used for funding new research for their european products. (well, Fiat's a bad example, they're using the money to service their huge debt).

'Course, manufacturers will say they leave the emissions controls, fuel-efficiency systems and safety features out because they can't justify the costs in developing markets. Oh, and they claim they're working on very tight margins in the developing world. Yeah right - just look at how much they pay a Chinese, Mexican or Brazilian worker, or the prices of raw materials and government incentives, and you can't help but think that manufacturing costs are not an issue in these places.

Back to Tahrey's ideas... Electric cars could be a good idea in large cities, but you'd have to know where that electricity came from. It'd be of no help if it came from fossil-fuel-burning power plants, would it? Again, that'd be a good solution in a place like Brazil where more than 90% of the electricity comes from our water reserves with the help of hydrelectric plants. But even those have certain environmental costs related to the flooding of large areas. And besides, nobody would be able to afford electric cars here anyway at the moment.

So... Unless the arabs come up with some really crazy sh*t to get oil prices to explode, things will remain the same for while. Well, maybe the U.S. will need to invade a couple more countries, I don't know , before they (and Europe, which loves to pose as an innocent bystander to all of this but in fact is just as bad as the U.S., just not as rich) decide to do something about gas-guzzling cars (or diesel-guzzling cars, take your pick).

I know there's a lot of disparate ideas here. I do support new technologies (particularly electric engine 'aids') but they have to be available for everyone. You can have the technology you want, our goverments can demand whatever emission levels - but the global energy and contamination porblems will only be solved after something is done to eliminate this deveped/developing divide. And by that I don't mean us becoming 'developed' as that'd f*ck the entire planet as much as today's 'developed' countries have f*cked their own environment. It means both us getting closer to you, and you getting closer to us. The current level of consumption (of everything, from paper to cars to fuel to whatever) in the U.S., Europe and Japan is unsustainable!

Cheers!

(wow look at the size of this post! )

You two are nutters!

Here: Solution number 1 (and the one I'll be using if petrol prices break £1 / Litre for any great length of time):



engine

3-cylinder suprex turbo engine (698 cc) with charge cooling (rear mounted)
61bhp (45kw), petrol
Electronic power management
softip - automated sequential 6-speed transmission
softouch - automated gear programme with kickdown function (Automatic/manual gear change mode selectable)

chassis

McPherson front axle with anti-roll bar, wishbone
DeDion rear axle with wishbone, anti-roll bar, coil springs and dampers
Rack- and pinion steering with damper

brakes / handling

ESP - Electronic Stability Program with Hill Start Assist
Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) with Electronic Brake-force Distribution (EBD)
Hydraulic Brake Assist
Acceleration Skid Control (ASR)
Hydraulic dual-circuit brake system with servo assistance

wheels / tyres

"Styleline" alloy wheels
Front: 145/65 R15; rear: 175/55 R15

exterior

tridion safety cell in black (available on request at no extra charge) or in sliver

etc...

safety

tridion safety cell
Crash elements at front and rear
Crash sensor (auto switch-on of hazard warning lights/interior lighting)
Safety steering column
Full size driver and passenger airbag
Safety seats with integral seatbelt
Self-tensioning safety belts with belt-force limiter
Indicators with lanechanger function
Hazard triangle

comfort & security

3-button key-lock key (lock/unlock/boot open)
Central locking and immobiliser with remote control
Air circulation/fresh air switch
Air conditioning with exterior temperature indicator and frost warning
Electric windows
Heated rear window
Auto headlight switch-off
Interior tailgate release switch
Drive lock – activated when driving at approximately 9mph

engines

Engine type 3-cylinder in-line engine at rear with turbo charger, charge cooler
Engine capacity in cc 698
Max. power in bhp/kW at rpm 1 61 (45)/5,250
Max. torque in Nm at rpm 95/2,000–4,000
Bore x stroke in mm 66.5 x 67
Boost pressure control Electronic
Max. charge pressure in bar 0.8
Compression ratio 9.0 : 1
Fuel delivery Multipoint fuel injection with electronic accelerator
Exhaust gas purification/exhaust gas standard 3-way catalytic converter/EU 4
CO2 emissions in g/km 3 6 113 (softouch: 115)
Maximum speed in mph (km/h) 2 84 (135, Electronically limited)
Acceleration 0-62 mph in s 15.5
Engine position Rear

performance & economy

Fuel type Premium unleaded (at least 95 RON)
Fuel consumption in mpg 3 6
Urban cycle 47.9 (softouch: 47.1)
Extra-urban cycle 70.6 (softouch: 68.9)
Combined cycle 60.1 (softouch: 58.9)

dimensions & weights

Vehicle length/width/height in mm 2,500/1,515/1,549
Turning circle in m 8.7
Track width front/rear in mm 1,272/1,354
Wheelbase in mm 1,812
Kerb weight (without driver)/safe load in kg 730/260
Permissible total weight in kg 990
Luggage compartment capacity 150/363//260 5
Tank capacity/of which reserve, in l 33/5

Smart fortwo Coupe Spring Eddition:
from £8,195.00

Josh_PoloGTi wrote:You two are nutters!

Here: Solution number 1 (and the one I'll be using if petrol prices break £1 / Litre for any great length of time):

And you can chip em up to 83bhp real easy unlike bloody Polo 1.4CL 8V's

I suppose a Smart is a pretty efficient way to get around if it's just you or a single passenger and as much limited luggage as you can cram - but I still maintain that even 70mpg is pretty rubbish "typical" economy (ie trucking about at 60mph) for a 2-seater when I have to thrash the polo to drop below 35mpg even five-up. Why not a scooter, or an Aixam?

(hey.. now THEYRE ripe for hybridising.. considering that in town traffic past 20mph i can generally keep pace with a feather touch on the throttle in top, they dont need any more than their 14hp once theyre moving - just an acceleration boost off the line)

If I could find a nice one second hand though, that I could afford, I would be all over it. For such a dinky engine they do go like stink from a standing start (maybe the reason for the "low" economy - adrenaline junkie drivers!), its got the looks, and 70mpg is 70mpg after all. Mind you that is with a turbo, 6 speed bike-shift, and a freaking intercooler!
(hey... with the speed limiter omitted... can i get one of those powerplants (chipped..) fitted for the dub?)

Jeez, though, there's a figure there you should look at - the kerb weight for the Smart is within an Asda value rice sack of a Mk2!!

On that subject, my tripmeter, the local petrol pump, and demon mathematics conspire to tell me I managed somewhere between 60 and 70mpg myself on the trip home from Derby - with both a (unneccessary, it turned out) roofrack & ropes AND a "new" door in the back of the Polo. With the seats up and parcel shelf in tunes-blasting place . Is this figure even possible from an over-1000cc, square-edged car?!

Anyone who might be familiar with the area - I headed north from "California" (southwest derby) on the A516 and 5111 to the A38, filling to the first click-off at Sainsburys (80p/L!) and mileage-marking the receipt, then cruised on down to north birmingham on the 38, breaking starboard to home at Bassetts Pole. Sticking mainly to 90km/h with some slowdowns, some speed-ups (peaking maybe to 70mph) and a good few miles of truck slipstream leeching. Fairly pleasant little ride home (after cruising up rather faster, 70-75... found myself a new "quiet" zone in the engine speed, though it's still uncomforably over 4000rpm). Admittedly I did kill the engine at the lights and down a couple of larger, slower hills, but I reckon the effect of that is marginal on such a trip.

Whaddya think? Is the closer-to-home pump just screwy? (and worth revisiting!) It was a little over 35 miles point-to-point, and i squeezed 2.6 litres in... though i think everything past 2.2 (half gallon) might have ended up spilt, between the expansion valve and the filler neck, as it seemed to trickle-overtop twice.

It first clicked-off at 1.86L!
And I wasn't driving in bright sunshine or driving snow either, so I can't put it down to either fuel expansion or metal contraction.

Wondering whether it might partially be down to the leads. The old ones must have been sucking so much extra current it's untrue. On turning the starter, ever since I got the stereo, it's powered itself off whenever I run the leccy motor, and fired back up 5 or 10 seconds later. Since I whacked the fresh ones in... theres an ever so slight dimming of the display, but it keeps on pumping at full power. Which I make to be at least a 150w saving on power consumption if not far more. Perhaps the old cabling overheating and melting the insulation was caused by... itself? That kind of cockup in the ignition probably isn't too good for the combustion either.
Hmmm! Perhaps I *too* can reach 110 in a 1-litre now!

Babe, why should these solutions only be valid in the 'developed' markets? If I'm thinking of attempting the mods to my own car.... which is an almost 14 year old mk3 that cost me as much as 3 months hire-purchase lease on the cheapest current Focus.... and you (who, for right or wrong i may take as a typical up and coming south american) drive a 9n ... wouldn't i be a little justified in thinking you might be in a better situation than me for such an idea?
There are several 1.3 and below cars still being made and run around... mainly it seems to be the japanese and their asian clonesters taking hold of that market now though, with a few meagre italian (Seiscento/Panda), french (..i think?) and anglo-deustch-american (ie, Corsa) holdouts. Which is a shame really - I can't argue against you too much on this front to be fair! - as a modern 1000cc engine is a far more competent power unit than many of it's 80s 1300cc brethren!

But "people" (i don't know whom! the marketing men obviously do..) are supposedly more interested in power and trading-up the numbers in their life right now than thinking of economy. Which is kind of my beef with the IMA - why not keep similar power levels and boost the efficiency lots, rather than giving the power and efficiency a small boost each?

Even my mother has gone, in the last decade, from a 1000cc baby fiat (great) to an 1100cc Peugeot 205 (poor!), 1275cc mid-size Fiat (ok..), and a pair of 1400cc Rover 25s (first one 3 door and 84hp, the next 5 door and 104hp - both bought mostly for warranty and a super-cheap workers' family deal)... despite the fact she mostly takes cross-town trips and sedate motorway journeys (rarely above 75mph, unless she forgets - as ever - to keep check) and never carries any luggage that would have overtaxed even that old 1000cc fiat. Her driving needs and speeds are much the same (except for a current desire for a warranty - i'm trying to convince her that "buying 80s/early 90s vw" counts as one), just now she's paying more tax (for the high capacity) and more on fuel. For some reason she has the idea she needs the power - whether just for status, i dont know - of the larger engine and doubtful extra flexibility of the larger car (dont seem to be much that'll go in hers won't go in mine - it's just chubbier)... and then likes to tick me off for driving too quick and accelerating too hard in the dub

Well, the higher fuel prices should see that off.

The 1.4 to 2.0 litre cars aren't really the problem though, I don't think. A student friend of mine doesn't seem to be financially crippled by the running costs of his old 1.8 Sierra (he does get into 5th at about 25mph though). What of all those 4x4s?

I wonder... with the line of thinking you proposed - ie people not taking smaller cars and engines... If they were still offered for sale, would people maybe still buy them? The mk4 and 5 engine ranges spanned 1.0 to at least 1.6 litre, but i see plenty of them with 1.0L badges on... and we're talking almost up to 2000 there, when the SUV binge had definately set in. The fiat cinquencento and seiscento sold solidly. There's many Daewoo Matizes and the like fizzing about, and they (along with the fiats) are arguably smaller than Smarts. 4 rather than 5 passenger cars!

Problem probably is - you can't turn a profit off that ickle a car any more, as the likely customer for them has a buyer's market in the second hand area, with many very cheap, efficient, well made small cars that have got up to 10 years life left in them - for example, the housefly-like 1989 Ford Fiesta popular..... on a side note, my used car guide says it'll return 40-65mpg! ..... The selling price for such a vehicle made brand-new has to be so low to be competitive against even the later machines in this category (viz - the mk5?) that the manufacturer either has to make it a very "cheap" car (seicento/matiz) backed up by a mental warranty they hope most drivers wont need or bother to use, or make a decent car that ultimately sells at a loss (the lupo? )

Which turns to the unfortunate situation of the big boys saying "sorry, our toys are too good for your common type, you can't play with them" to the hungry consumers in developing nations.... who as you say should be acting maybe as a testbed for more cost effective ways of integrating safety and economy technology (because, now it's been invented and developed, can't honda and toyota suck up the cost of the hybrid stuff as a "public service" and make it cheaply available to those who need it most? the company implodes the same way, but leaving a legacy of kindness and a world that runs on cleaner energy with the oil left for plastics and medicines, rather one of corporate greed where they died because suddenly there was no fuel for their products anywhere except a small segment of the developed world, and no-one left alive in the developing markets to drive anyway as they're all dead from accidents).

It's a very callous thing and i can back you all the way on it - it's a bit odd to not sell your product to all those who want it, instead soldiering on using the old designs when it really wouldnt make so much of a dent in your fortune to make an extra couple copies of your fabbing equipment and send it to the local factory, ditching the old design & melting down rather than selling the machinery to e.g. china - or even, just export the goods direct from the existing factory. Do sony still sell betamax and 8-track tape players in your electronics stores? Of course not. It's obsolete, inefficient, low quality (well, except for the advanced beta tapes), probably has safety issues.... and we have recordable DVD anyway now for chrissakes, you can get a drive for your computer for less than the price of a tank of petrol.
(wow, when you look at it that way - the beetle/sedan production stopping in brazil might have been a teary-eye time for some amercian/european hippies, but people were dancing in the streets of the southern continent at the thought of ditching that noisy, inefficient, unsafe dinosaur!)

Maybe we should get on to the UN about setting minimum standards for vehicles sold* in "developing" nations by "developed"-world country manufacturers. In terms of emissions, safety, etc. I suppose there's little realistically that can be done about content, economy or performance unless you b***h like crazy to your dealer that you wont buy your car without air con and a TDi in it, and they will of course adhere to the minimums and nothing more, but those minimums could be set pretty high. Say, the same as they are for the nation the vehicle is built in

* I was going to say exported to or some other word like that, but of course, there are loopholes around such a suggestion. Like building the thing locally - with local, underpaid labour. Now there's another discussion and a half.

*looks at renault dacia feature found through google*

Man I hate it when I come over all precog like that. Apparently now it *will* meet euro emissions and safety standards (like, the minimums?) but it looks a rather messed up thing. Something the site of a Polo sedan, with only 1.4 and 1.6 engines (of indeterminate power, economy, source), an ugly body shell, rather spartan interior (let's guess... it features instruments, controls, and lights as major selling points?).... and an unashamed nature of a car being built down to a pocket money price. Produced in developing nations scattered across the globe as the labour and land is cheaper (and, i wouldnt like to think, the industrial pollution regulations are more lax) - truly a multinational miracle! - and designed with the somewhat troublesome aim of being sold "outside of western europe as the primary market". Why not just sell it worldwide?

If those engines aren't so crap as they're cracked up to be, though, it could be what those countries need - not only some much needed financial investment, but a replacement for knackered old smoke-belching rust buckets (Ladas... 1970s Toyotas... and whatever the hell you find in Mumbai! ... all seeming to be part of the landscape in many broadcasts from such states) with something that is at least halfway decent, wouldn't look *too* out of place on the streets of Marseille, and is actually sort-of affordable as a replacement to that smokey 2-litre, 30hp toyota.
Its market seems to be places with pretty run down economies that havent quite yet totally collapsed. Ex soviet block and central asia, etc. Might be a bit of a kick in the face for those who seriously can't even afford 5000 euros (i know i couldnt without a loan - or, i could save for a year), and be just another insult to the more sophisticated economies that have flourished (brazil etc).... hmmm.

oh wait.. i just re-read something that gave me pause

which leads to things like Fiat being able to sell a car like the Stilo without any airbags or ABS for the same price as the fully-featured Italian car in Europe

man, i just don't know any more. think i might give up.

Electric cars could be a good idea in large cities, but you'd have to know where that electricity came from. It'd be of no help if it came from fossil-fuel-burning power plants, would it? Again, that'd be a good solution in a place like Brazil where more than 90% of the electricity comes from our water reserves with the help of hydrelectric plants. But even those have certain environmental costs related to the flooding of large areas. And besides, nobody would be able to afford electric cars here anyway at the moment.

Well... for a hybrid... it would still ultimately come from fossil fuel, but you would be making far better use of that fuel..
For electric cars - well, i quite like the idea of an american electric vehicle experimenter (who has almost completely ditched internal combustion, except for an insight "wilderness long distance" backup) who has a roof covered in photovoltaics for trickle-charging their car. Because it may be slow to charge, and certainly totally impractical to run a car directly off solar (better to attach a mast and sail), but it gets there. With a normal kind of lifestyle but some actual thought and pre-planning, it's actually working. Their main car (again, polo sedan sized) is totally workable off solar energy - using it up a lot faster than it's put in, but of course, you can't spend all day in your car unless you're a delivery worker (and then, you can have fresh cells swapped in from a charging bank instead of filling up).
In truth, it sometimes ends up charging off the mains grid, but the solar panels are also hooked into this grid and feed power back when it's being generated from sunlight exposure but not being used (i.e. car and spare pack both fully charged). Amp-hour meters attached to the whole caboodle show the setup being mainly in energy *credit* even when a fair bit of driving is done, in winter. (not counting the power used by their home of course).
What's the environmental impact of manufacturing solar panels, I wonder? It can't be totally harmless. To examine a photovoltaic it looks like some kind of liquid crystal set hard, which much involve some fancy chemicals and lots of energy.

If that's not available of course, well... take whatever you can. At least you can still reduce inner city pollution even if it's running off a fossil electric plant (and that plant can use coal, natural gas, whatever). Nuclear would be good, if only you can find a safe place to put the stuff for a few hundred thousand years. Hydro, if the flooding can be justified, also great.

A variation - I used to live near a pumped-storage hydro plant in the welsh mountains - that was cool. It basically acted as a giant reverse IMA system for the electric grid. There was a natural large glacial lake up the side of one mountain, and some clever soul noticed how it sometimes filled high with rain (but not over-running), sometimes almost ran dry, and how high it was from a very close almost-sea level lake. A short bit of drilling, a couple pipes, a few turbines, some wiring and a control room, and a set of fish-filters later... ta-da... llanberis electric mountain. Surplus energy from when the power stations are effectively "idling" goes in (or from wind farms, people's solar panels ) and pumps water up from the large, lower lake to the smaller, higher one. When there's a demand surge that the turbines can't spin up quickly enough for, just open the floodgates a bit and let gravity do the rest. And of course, the extra weight of water added fairly consistently by the weather in that area doesn't hurt!

Unless the arabs come up with some really crazy sh*t to get oil prices to explode, things will remain the same for while

Saw an interesting edition of "Question Time" this evening... amongst the issues covered was petrol pricing. A good point raised by someone was... how high will it have to go to shock people into getting out of their cars for the most mundane trips (and i can confess to being guilty of that - it's comfy) and maybe walking or cycling, taking public transport too.

Quite high, I would think. Like double the prices at the start of this year.
Because then it would become cheaper to take the train than to drive at the same speed with twice as much gear! (Or even higher, if you're car sharing)... and paying a pound-fifty per litre would be just a nasty thing to watch, you'd want to go to the pump as seldom as possible.

Not to mention the public transport system in this country is bobbins - it rocked me a little to hear that it's development doesn't actually benefit from all the fuel duty that must be headed to government. (First of all there's the actual fuel tax, fixed at a certain amount per litre, which at current prices is at least 2/3 of the total cost - as much as 3/4 in cheaper areas... then there's the 17.5% VAT / Sales Tax on top of that, which means the more the fill costs "raw", the more that is taken after that!). If it wasn't actually cheaper, quicker, and easier for me to take the car and find a space to park than public transport (bus, train, whatever) in most cases, i'd be more compelled to put up with waiting 10-15 minutes for a ride to arrive when i could be already there.
Impatience and love of comfort has a lot to answer for...! but mainly cost. The only cost effective train journey I can currently go on is on the local cross-city line, and it's just fortunate I live less than 10 minutes walk from the station and the service is uncharacteristically frequent. When it hasn't been knocked out by a points failure the other side of the terminus at a station over 20 miles away!
It's a certain small amount for a return ticket (£2.60?) and a very, very reasonable £1.50 for a 'cheap day return' at off-peak times. Considering that parking in the city centre starts at 80p for a half hour and barely offers any kind of economy of scale, it's the best choice.

All other train (and pretty much all bus except the budget carrier) journeys are off though!

Diesel-guzzling cars - i'll take biodiesel please. Well.... i guess... what's the skinny on the agent you have to add to "clean" the oil?

I'll follow you on the divide bridging. It wouldn't be good for the developing nations to not learn by others mistakes (then who are we to deny them the opportunities even so?) and go overboard like the "western" nations did from... well.... basically the mid 1800s through to the present day, though there are definate peaks. You bring yourselves up, we if not blinded by hubris (i dispair of my fellow western man i'm afraid) shall "fall" a little (define falling!) and we'll meet you in the middle.

Current low energy (in)action plan:
Keep low capacity car, try to drive it more frugally and less, where possible and practical. Attempt to do some kind of Havana-style hybridisation to it.
Try to cycle/walk more (lose some of the weight!). I'm more active than many of my peers but that doesn't exactly make me fit.
Compact flourescent or LED lighting everywhere!
Desktop PC to laptop
Minimise the TV use (see more films at cinema instead) - get news etc from radio.
Try to get more in synch with daylight hours.
Solar panels and warmer clothes...

Eh monkey la



and if you read all that, you can have a child of the sun medallion

This is all making me think I really need to do something about my car's economy.. I'm still only averaging a bit over 35mpg, yet I've done everything I can think of to push it up I think I'll have the engine out over the summer, see if a bit of an overhaul helps it out..

ouch... tinker with the carb maybe, adjust the auto-choke... could be running a little rich.

i think the retail price of my 1.0 mk5 soared over-night
as its so damn economical
-Ben-

what are you getting PP?
i'm not sure whether to estimate on better than mine, or worse. you'll have a more modern, ground-up designed 998cc powerplant in it so probably more efficient (along with torquier and a little more powerful), but then the machine is also a fair bit heavier too

yeah im not sure wat im getting to be honest, its roughly about 40-45 to the gallon i think only a guess though (depending on how its being driven )
and yes it is bloody nippy for a 1.0 must be the mpi engine
-Ben-

try driving really gentle and tailgating some arctics (55mph i know, and less on the hills, but aerodynamics wise its more like 30), see what you get

be sure to do at least 60 miles otherwise you might not be able to put your minimum 2 litres in!

you might be surprised... (and hey... i need extra results to compare against)

omg I can't belive I just read the whole of that! , my eye's hurt now. Interesting debate there...

On the note of MPG i think im gettin about 11litres to about 100miles, although the last tank of petrol it drank like a ruddy fish

Ever since i put my 17"s on, my car is a thirsty mofo !

Will be nice in the winter when i put my BBS's back on to get some kind of decent mileage out of her !!

Calâ„¢

i hope you havent been sat there constantly reading since i wrote it dan... you'll have done yourself an injury...
remember to put your monitor up from 60hz to something better unless it's an LCD, if you dont know it already

11litres to about 100miles

Interesting way of writing it.......

So that's about 6.8 litres to 100km (not sparkling?)
OR
2.42 gallons to 100 miles
OR
41.3mpg (ah, not really so bad - especially for an ageing 1.3 4-speed that might not get the most sympathetic treatment )

worked out all my predicted finances through to end of january last night (the earliest point that i'll likely be in completely clear credit that won't drop back into agreed overdraft) and it looks a bit dire. and i think i probably forgot to include petrol. so i'm going to be seeing how economically i can drive it from now on, assuming i can set off early enough

including today - its sunny, so im going to cycle to work (well, to the day job anyway. night job is far too bloody far and i knock off at 3am).
Infinite mpg!