Want a Car That Gets 117 mpg?

ABC News-


Tell us if you share this frustration. You pull into a gas station, hand over your life savings, fill the tank and - and for what? With gas in the United States averaging $3.31 per gallon this week and the average car getting about 27 mpg in regular driving, you'll just have to hand your life savings over again when you refill next week.

Some gas-electric hybrids can do better than 50 mpg, but not a lot of people own them. Though you spend less on gas, you generally spend more up front on the price of the car. Their batteries are heavy and expensive.

But what if someone offered you a car that could get up to 117 mpg in city driving? A car that would cost about $1,500 less than typical hybrids? It need not look like some pod from a Lady Gaga concert. When it's not running on gasoline, it uses … the air. There would be a sturdy tank of compressed air in the floor or trunk, recharged by the engine or the brakes.

Peugeot Citroen, the French automaker, has now shown off a prototype for such a system and claims on its website (in French) that it could start selling air-hybrid cars in Europe by 2016. The company, according to European news reports, says that on local streets, the cars would mostly run on compressed air, cutting gasoline use - and costs - by as much as 80 percent. The technology would start in existing subcompact models, the company said, but soon expand to include vehicles of all sizes.

" We are not talking about weird and wacky machines," a company spokesman was quoted as saying. "These are going to be in everyday cars."

Peugeot Citroen says it took on "the challenge of creating an environmentally friendly vehicle," and expects it would also save its customers money. It got some backing from the French government, which, like the U.S. government, is pushing automakers to get better fuel efficiency.

But will it be viable? Peugeot and Citroen, which joined forces in the 1970s, both pulled out of the U.S. market decades ago, and have been losing market share in Europe. It's important for them to look innovative.

So are they on to something big? Or is it just one more concept car that you will never see on the road?

But what's there catch? There always is one. Chances are this car wont operate as well as gas powered autos....likely wont be as fast or powerful...or comfortable. And the picture they show...the car looks a little bit like an egg...and is small. But at this point I'm intrested in any new automobile that will save fuel costs. Unfortunately I fear the big oil Barons will move to buy up the car and keep it from the public, just so they can sell its product.

Dennis324 wrote:
Tell us if you share this frustration. You pull into a gas station, hand over your life savings, fill the tank and - and for what? With gas in the United States averaging $3.31 per gallon this week and the average car getting about 27 mpg in regular driving, you'll just have to hand your life savings over again when you refill next week.

$3.31? Hang on a minute, let me get my violin out... :-P We're paying around $7.70 a gallon at the moment. Then again, our cars tend to average 50-60mpg so we get a bit more bang for our buck in that area (if we had the gas-guzzling monsters ye did, we'd all be just handing our wages over to the nearest petrol station at the beginning of the month).

But what's there catch? There always is one. Chances are this car wont operate as well as gas powered autos....likely wont be as fast or powerful...or comfortable.

Well, there we go. "fast and powerful" as a criteria is going to bugger you up every time. A general rule of thumb would be "fast & powerful, fuel efficient, cheap: pick any 2". I think possibly the problem with fuel efficiency in america is that y'all are still a bit in love with the myth and the mystique of the big muscle car, and as a result the car makers don't see the need to make smaller more fuel efficient models unless they're required to by law. Over here, apart from the price of gas, we have other motivations to buy fuel efficient cars: for the last few years the amount of tax you pay on your car includes a "green tax": the more fuel efficient the car (and hence the lower the carbon emissions), the less you pay in tax.

Now the untold story:

Due to higher gas mileage, government is missing the revenues from gas tax. Therefore while our attention is on gun control and immigration reform, they are writing a bill that institutes a useage tax on fuel. Basically they want to install a "black box" in the cars so that they can monitor and tax us on the miles we drive. I don't know if it will pass or not, but it seems there is never any relief for working stiffs.

Miles1 wrote:

Dennis324 wrote:
Tell us if you share this frustration. You pull into a gas station, hand over your life savings, fill the tank and - and for what? With gas in the United States averaging $3.31 per gallon this week and the average car getting about 27 mpg in regular driving, you'll just have to hand your life savings over again when you refill next week.

$3.31? Hang on a minute, let me get my violin out... :-P We're paying around $7.70 a gallon at the moment. Then again, our cars tend to average 50-60mpg so we get a bit more bang for our buck in that area (if we had the gas-guzzling monsters ye did, we'd all be just handing our wages over to the nearest petrol station at the beginning of the month).

But what's there catch? There always is one. Chances are this car wont operate as well as gas powered autos....likely wont be as fast or powerful...or comfortable.

Well, there we go. "fast and powerful" as a criteria is going to bugger you up every time. A general rule of thumb would be "fast & powerful, fuel efficient, cheap: pick any 2". I think possibly the problem with fuel efficiency in america is that y'all are still a bit in love with the myth and the mystique of the big muscle car, and as a result the car makers don't see the need to make smaller more fuel efficient models unless they're required to by law. Over here, apart from the price of gas, we have other motivations to buy fuel efficient cars: for the last few years the amount of tax you pay on your car includes a "green tax": the more fuel efficient the car (and hence the lower the carbon emissions), the less you pay in tax.

*Chuckle* Man we do love muscle cars. But thats not what I was really referring to.

The United States is a vast open space with interstates. With the exception of people who live in urban areas like NYC, the vast majority of Americans drive ...a lot. And its not just a few blocks. Many of us have to commute, sometimes hours to get to and from work. And while I'm not saying a small, compact cars like the tiny Daimler AG's Smart or Fiat SpA's 500 wouldnt work here...they might have problems. These autos are excellent in the dense cities and around college campuses. I'm not sure a tiny 2-door job works very well for a family of 4, or for hauling cargo. How well would they handle in the Rockies? I had a Honda Accord once that I wouldnever dream of taking into the mountains.. It just wasnt powerful enough to make it without possible damage to it. Great for around town. Did ok on the highway but...