NationStates Jolt Archive

"Clean car" (http://www.motordeaire.com/ing/UKPressrelease.html#Eng)
This is just one of the MANY examples of why clean cars aren't selling. Because they are UGLY, UGLY, UGLY. When they come up with a nice looking clean car, then I'll be interested!

like this one?

http://www.edmunds.com/media/news/innovations/hydrogen.powered/01.07.bmw.hydro1.175.jpg

like this one?

http://www.edmunds.com/media/news/innovations/hydrogen.powered/01.07.bmw.hydro1.175.jpg
Just another LRC to me ( Little Round Car ). I hate 'em.

Sick Dreams, does it matter to you what shape your pasta comes in? It's still pasta - whether shaped like macaroni or shaped like bow ties.

I don't see anything inherently unattractive about the car you profess to loathe.

It's a sad reflection on society when something as subjective as fashion ranks above something as critical as saving humanity.

Now THIS is an AUTOMOBILE, not just another LRC:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8700/dodgedaytona1969a1zg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

( although the color on this one sucks )

It's a sad reflection on society when something as subjective as fashion ranks above something as critical as saving humanity.
Oh get over yourself. Jeeze. :headbang:

Just another LRC to me ( Little Round Car ). I hate 'em.
That "little round car" is an old shape BMW 7 series that was developed by BMW and is Hydrogen powered

http://www.racdyn-usa.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000002/1213438010.jpg

Oh get over yourself. Jeeze. :headbang:
lol

Now THIS is an AUTOMOBILE, not just another LRC:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8700/dodgedaytona1969a1zg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

( although the color on this one sucks )

Man, that one's awesome. Part penis, part rocket, part...celery?

Yeah, this car is just soooo ugly (http://www.detnews.com/pix/2003/11/05/g03priusmain.jpg)[/sarcasm]

Now THIS is an AUTOMOBILE, not just another LRC:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8700/dodgedaytona1969a1zg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

( although the color on this one sucks )
yea. but then who can argue with a 500bhp race bread V10 with traditional amazing BMW dynamics?

2005 BMW M5
http://www.advertisebarbados.com/vehicles/M5side.jpg

Oh get over yourself. Jeeze. :headbang:

Eutrusca, Achtung made a valid point. Esthetics should never surmount innovation as a commonly-held value. It's sad, really.

That "little round car" is an old shape BMW 7 series that was developed by BMW and is Hydrogen powered

http://www.racdyn-usa.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000002/1213438010.jpg
It's still an LRC, and ugly! Ick!

oh, and this car is not ugly

http://www.edmunds.com/media/2003/tokyo/mazda.hydrogen/mazda.hydrogen.f34.500.jpg

Mazda RX-8. Rotary engine, many horses.

Yeah, this car is just soooo ugly (http://www.detnews.com/pix/2003/11/05/g03priusmain.jpg)[/sarcasm]
Actually, that one doesn't look half bad, but until I can afford to buy one that actually looks like an automobile, I will continue to assiduously avoid LRCs. :)

Now THIS is an AUTOMOBILE, not just another LRC:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8700/dodgedaytona1969a1zg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

( although the color on this one sucks )
Eutrusca, that is one ugly car. What the heck is that thing sticking out of its back?

I agree that cars today lack personality (except the new Mustang) but, c'mon! That's the other extreme!

While I agree with Dobbsworld that aesthetics should not be the main concern here, I have other reasons not to buy one.

1. They are more expensive, even considering the gas savings over the lifetime of the car.

2. The maintenance costs, at least at the current time, are going to be higher than traditional gasoline cars, because the mechanics are newer, more complicated, and parts will be harder to get.

Eutrusca, that is one ugly car. What the heck in that thing sticking out of its back?

I agree that cars today lack personality (except the new Mustang) but, c'mon! That's the other extreme!

Speak no ill of rocket-vegewang-moblie! If it's good enough for Speed Racer, it's damned well good enough for you!

oh, and this car is not ugly

http://www.edmunds.com/media/2003/tokyo/mazda.hydrogen/mazda.hydrogen.f34.500.jpg

Mazda RX-8. Rotary engine, many horses.
Better, but still an LRC. Sorry. :)

I don’t care what a car looks like. I care about price, dang it!

It's still an LRC, and ugly! Ick!
Damn sight better looking that that odd dodge you posted.

And the old shape 7 series is neither little nor round.

It is also a very beautiful car

2. The maintenance costs, at least at the current time, are going to be higher than traditional gasoline cars, because the mechanics are newer, more complicated, and parts will be harder to get.

???

The article describes the maintenance costs as being 1/10th that of a fossil-fuel powered vehicle - ???

Speak no ill of rocket-vegewang-moblie! If it's good enough for Speed Racer, it's damned well good enough for you!
ROFLMAO!!! You TELL 'em, Dude! :D

oh, and this car is not ugly

http://www.edmunds.com/media/2003/tokyo/mazda.hydrogen/mazda.hydrogen.f34.500.jpg

Mazda RX-8. Rotary engine, many horses.

tis a good paint job, but the commercial cars wont have that paint job, so i would never buy one of them

If Chrysler would build it, I'm sure it would sell -- and would give the big C some "green cred". Sadly, it's just a gas powered concept car from the early 90s... :(

http://www.carsoft.ru/auto/c_chrysler/95atlantic_2_small.jpg

Drool.

For more, hit: http://www.allpar.com/cars/concepts/atlantic.html

The car is 199.5” long, 75.8” wide, and stands 51.6” tall. Its wheelbase is 126”, and it rides on 21” wheels in front and 22” in the back. Power is provided by a 4.0 liter straight eight.

Better, but still an LRC. Sorry. :)
once again...that car is neither little, nor round.

You have some very strange concepts :p

Damn sight better looking that that odd dodge you posted.

And the old shape 7 series is neither little nor round.

It is also a very beautiful car
ROFL!

Piffle! :D

And the only thing better-looking than the 1969 Dodge Daytona is this ( one of which I paid cash for after Vietnam, only mine was "Calypso Coral" ):

http://img336.imageshack.us/img336/3182/boss3020oa.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

Now THIS is an AUTOMOBILE, not just another LRC:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8700/dodgedaytona1969a1zg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

( although the color on this one sucks )

ooooo... 1969 Charger Daytona! Ugly color; but with a repaint... mmmmm... Though I tended to like hte '69 Charger 500 over the Daytona, or the R/T (like the General Lee)...

once again...that car is neither little, nor round.

You have some very strange concepts :p
Perhaps. Chalk it up to having been born before Detroit went to hell in a handbasket. :D

ooooo... 1969 Charger Daytona! Ugly color; but with a repaint... mmmmm... Though I tended to like hte '69 Charger 500 over the Daytona, or the R/T (like the General Lee)...
Ahhh! At last! A man of true erudition and taste! :D

???

The article describes the maintenance costs as being 1/10th that of a fossil-fuel powered vehicle - ???

My apologies, I didn't read the link, thinking was referring to more traditional hybrid or hydrogen-powered vehicles.

Ahhh! At last! A man of true erudition and taste! :D

I was also impressed with Ford's new retro'ing of Mustang.... Ford has some kickass designers left in their force...

http://home.pon.net/hunnicutt/images/05Mustang_front_driver.jpg

And I assume you think the Pontiac Solstice is a LRC:

http://autobzor.com/photo/pontiac_solstice_1.jpg

As is the 2006 Mitsubishi Eclipse:

http://forum.motoweb.pl/files/thumbs/t_mitsubishi_eclipse_2006_1.jpg

I was also impressed with Ford's new retro'ing of Mustang.... Ford has some kickass designers left in their force...

http://www.dieselstation.com/wallpapers/MustangGT-Concept/Ford-Mustang-GT-Concept-002.jpg
Broken pic! :(

And I assume you think the Pontiac Solstice is a LRC:

http://autobzor.com/photo/pontiac_solstice_1.jpg

As is the 2006 Mitsubishi Eclipse:

http://forum.motoweb.pl/files/thumbs/t_mitsubishi_eclipse_2006_1.jpg
I don't care WHO builds them or how damnably EXPENSIVE they are. They still LOOK like someone ran them through a metal-melting machine, then put them in a wind tunnel! I want my cars to look like friggin' AUTOMOBILES!

ROFL!

Piffle! :D

And the only thing better-looking than the 1969 Dodge Daytona is this ( one of which I paid cash for after Vietnam, only mine was "Calypso Coral" ):

http://img336.imageshack.us/img336/3182/boss3020oa.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
Lies! blatant lies! :p

i can think of many cars better looking than that dodgy Dodge (see what i did there?)

like this

http://www.classics.com/images01/frc01-10s_old.jpg

or this

http://www.astonmartins.com/v8/images/am020512.jpg

I don't care WHO builds them or how damnably EXPENSIVE they are. They still LOOK like someone ran them through a metal-melting machine, then put them in a wind tunnel! I want my cars to look like friggin' AUTOMOBILES!
how about this one (http://www.shadetreemechanic.com/images/Ford%20100%20yr%20Anthony's%20Model%20T%20Lunchoen%20005.jpg) then! :D

The Deputy Prime Minister was given a free clean car and refused it

Perhaps. Chalk it up to having been born before Detroit went to hell in a handbasket. :D
Thats alright, nothing Detroit builds sells over here :)

(im not counting Ford Europe or the European GM brands, who build entirely different cars to the ones they make in the US)

how about this one (http://www.shadetreemechanic.com/images/Ford%20100%20yr%20Anthony's%20Model%20T%20Lunchoen%20005.jpg) then! :D
ROFLMAO!!!! Bite me! :p

I am wondering how the overall energy yield compares to gasoline. For gasoline, need to consider the energy used to pump the oil out of the ground, refine it, transport it to market, and pump into your car. For this aircar, need to consider the energy needed to compress and pump that much air into each car. Any thoughts, anyone?

Well, either way you can't call this beaut an LRC:

http://i15.ebayimg.com/04/a/04/53/4b/5d_1.JPG

1987 560 SEL Mercedes-Benz. (Well, the picture is a 1986 model but it uses the same body)

Well, either way you can't call this beaut an LRC:

http://i15.ebayimg.com/04/a/04/53/4b/5d_1.JPG

1987 560 SEL Mercedes-Benz. (Well, the picture is a 1986 model but it uses the same body)
well, he managed to call a late 90s BMW 7 series an LRC, and its a similar class of car

ROFLMAO!!!! Bite me! :p
lol, aw Eutrusca, you don't know how long I've waited for you to say that! :D

I don't care WHO builds them or how damnably EXPENSIVE they are. They still LOOK like someone ran them through a metal-melting machine, then put them in a wind tunnel! I want my cars to look like friggin' AUTOMOBILES!

Fan of the Dodge Dart, perhaps?

It's a lovely shade of day-glo green...

http://www.seriouswheels.com/1970-1979/1973-Dodge-Dart-Swinger.htm

Well, either way you can't call this beaut an LRC:

http://i15.ebayimg.com/04/a/04/53/4b/5d_1.JPG
True. Mercedes is pretty much in a class by itself, though they're WAY too expensive ( in every sense of the term ) for the likes of me. :)

There are many good clean cars. Toyota isn't the only environmentally friendly company! Honda makes a hybrid civic which looks just like a regular civic and a hybrid accord which looks like a regular accord. Ford makes a hybrid Escape. Also, hybrids are not the only option of clean cars. Honda and Toyota are both known for being very economical on gas. VW offers some great deasil engines which are as good as hybrids on gas usage and just as clean. The only problem with deasil is that its expensive. Although clean cars may not have the raw coolness factor of a '69 Dodge Charger, you don't have to sacrifice as much as some people believe in the way of looks, performance, price, etc...

Fan of the Dodge Dart, perhaps?

It's a lovely shade of day-glo green...

http://www.seriouswheels.com/1970-1979/1973-Dodge-Dart-Swinger.htm
No. I never liked those, primarily because I use to blow their doors off with my Boss 302 Mustang. :D

Besides, I would be scared to death to own a car painted that puke-green color! Hehehe!

I am wondering how the overall energy yield compares to gasoline. For gasoline, need to consider the energy used to pump the oil out of the ground, refine it, transport it to market, and pump into your car. For this aircar, need to consider the energy needed to compress and pump that much air into each car. Any thoughts, anyone?
Depends on where you get the energy to compress the air. Gasoline will always be cheaper than most other sources, though. All energy on Earth (except for nuclear and geothermal) comes from the Sun, and it has to be tacken from the Sun and stored in a chemical to be used later or transformed into electricity to be used immediately. That process costs money and time.

Oil and gasoline are chemicals that store energy that came from the Sun, but the conversion was not performed by people, but by plants over the course of millions of years. That's what makes it cheaper for us.

But even if you use gasoline-powered plants to produce electricity that will then compress the air in the cars, having one central plant to replace several thousands small power plants is more efficient and its emmissions easier to control.

Now THIS is an AUTOMOBILE, not just another LRC:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8700/dodgedaytona1969a1zg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

( although the color on this one sucks )

So a BMW is ugly, but you like... erm... that... car?

So a BMW is ugly, but you like... erm... that... car?
LOL! As they say, there's no accounting for taste. But you'll note that I did say I hated the color. :p

ooooo... 1969 Charger Daytona! Ugly color; but with a repaint... mmmmm... Though I tended to like hte '69 Charger 500 over the Daytona, or the R/T (like the General Lee)...

One of the more interesting chapters in technological history was the 1969 Dodge Daytona. This mass-produced vehicle had a drag coefficient (cd) of just 0.28, better than most cars made today. It would have produced even less drag, if it weren't for the tall spoiler (added to keep the rear wheels on the ground at high speeds). But, despite its 200 mph speed record (set by Buddy Baker on March 24, 1970, at 200.447 mph around Talladega), the car didn't sell well at some dealerships because people thought the aero look was ugly! The price, about $4,000, was high, but not exorbitant (it was also cheaper without the Hemi engine...the standard 440 was probably enough for most people...).

There is a 440 V8-Sixpack Superbird at the auto museum here where I live:

http://www.fast-autos.net/plymouth/plymouthsuperbird.html

The 1969 Dodge Charger Daytona and the 1970 Plymouth SuperBird were created for the singular purpose of putting Chrysler across the finish line first on the nation's stock car tracks. Racing was becoming big business in the late 1960s, due to the factories' recognition of racing as a valuable marketing tool. It was generally understood that a win on the track often lead to a "win" in the dealer show rooms when the public came to buy the "same car" that won at the track. Because NASCAR rules required that bodies and motors be legalized (homologated) through a minimum street car production quota, the Aero Warriors graced the streets that lead to the tracks where their racing brethren performed.

Chrysler's 426 Hemi motor joined the NASCAR fraternity in February, 1964 at Daytona, permitting Chrysler automobiles to dominate the race. The 426 Hemi was state-of-the-art (at least within the confines of the NASCAR rules) in 1964, and had the potential engineered-in for significant performance gains in the future. The 426 Hemi would serve Chrysler's NASCAR efforts well for a decade, living up to its potential and in the process establish its legendary reputation.

As the 1960s progressed, and even with Hemi powered cars, it became clear to Chrysler that they couldn't rest on their laurels if they wanted to visit victory lane regularly. Because the 426 Hemi was the "ultimate" racing motor, it made sense to look at other methods to get more speed, and thus more victories, from the cars. Improving the aerodynamics of the automobiles proved to be a logical and cost effective choice, especially since wind tunnels large enough to effectively test automobiles were becoming more common. And so the NASCAR "Aero Wars" were underway.

Chrysler's success in 1967 was stunning, primarily due to the efforts of one man, Richard Petty. In his Hemi powered Satellite, Richard won 27 of 49 races, including 10 in a row. Ford was determined not to allow a repeat performance in 1968, and had prepared two new offerings for the '68 season, the Ford Torino and the Mercury Cyclone. Powered by 427 "tunnel port" wedge motors, these bodies helped tip the balance of power to the Ford camp. 1968 saw 27 victories for Ford and 21 victories for Chrysler.

It was no secret that Ford was developing even more aerodynamic platforms for the '69 season (the Talladega for Ford and the Cyclone Spoiler II for Mercury). The '68 Dodge Charger was one of the most appealing designs of all time, except to the air that it passed through. The recessed grill trapped air and created turbulence, and the rear window created a low pressure area which effectively lightened the rear end of the car. Translation - the car was "slow" and hard to handle a higher speeds. This body style would be no match for the even sleeker '69 Talladegas and Cyclone Spoiler IIs, especially when powered by the new Ford Hemi, the Boss 429.

The '69 season saw an improved Charger, the Charger 500, take to the tracks. Its grill was flush, and the rear window was reworked. The car was faster, but still not fast enough to contend with Ford's offerings. It was clear very early in 1969 that something even more radical would need to be done to keep Chrysler in the hunt.

The 1969 Dodge Charger Daytona was Chrysler's next attempt at superiority on the NASCAR tracks, debuting mid-season at Talladega. It was essentially a Charger 500 with an extended nose that would cut through the air and a huge wing aft to apply down force to the rear tires, allowing higher cornering speeds. The Dodge Charger Daytona was successful, winning almost a quarter of the races in which it participated during less than two full seasons on the NASCAR super speedways.

Plymouth's attempt at NASCAR domination culminated in the production of the 1970 Plymouth SuperBird. Plymouth's '68 Road Runner was aerodynamically poor, and it became even more so when Richard Petty opted to race a Ford rather than pilot a boxy Plymouth in '69. Richard scored ten victories in his new Ford ride, including a victory in the fist race he drove it in at Riverside, California. This made it abundantly clear to Plymouth that if they wanted Petty back in a Plymouth (and they wanted the all-time winningest NASCAR driver back very badly), they would need a car which Petty felt was competitive, and thus the SuperBird was born. The Plymouth SuperBird won more races in fewer appearances that its winged brother the Daytona, bringing home eight of Plymouth's 21 victories in 1970. The Plymouth was considered a great success, although ironically, Bobby Isaac won the 1970 Grand National Championship driving a Dodge. Richard Petty finished fourth, due to a serious crash at Darlington which side-lined him for several events.

It is estimated that about 40 racing Daytonas and 20 racing SuperBirds were built during the winged car era. All Daytonas were based on already existing chassis that had Daytona sheet metal "hung" on them. SuperBirds were built from a "body in white", bare chassis shipped from the factory to the car builders. Only a few racing winged cars survive today, and they are found primarily in museums. It appears that about 550 street Daytonas were produced, with over 300 surviving to this day. The street Plymouth SuperBird was produced in larger quantities, with about 2,000 having been manufactured and about half that surviving today.

NASCAR rule changes for the 1971 season effectively eliminated the winged cars (and Ford's Talladega and Spoiler IIs) from serious contention by requiring that they be powered by nothing larger than a 305 cubic inch motor. Although Richard Brooks had some success with a 305 cubic inch Daytona in the 1971 Daytona 500, there were simply too many problems associated with making that motor consistently competitive. Considered with the fact that Bill France did not want "exotic" cars running in his "stock" car series, it was clear that whatever teams did with the winged cars, "Big Bill" would simply change the rules again to penalize them further. These arbitrary and capricious rule changes were not only the death knell for the winged cars, but played a significant role in the manufacturers' decision to universally withdrawal from NASCAR in the early 1970s.

Off the NASCAR tracks, things were getting tough on the street winged cars too. Emission requirements were becoming more stringent, strangling the high performance motors that rested between the frame rails the of the winged wonders. In addition, insurance rates on high performance cars were moving faster than the cars, and this was especially hard to swallow for the young performance enthusiasts who had enough trouble scraping together money to buy a performance car, let alone afford the exorbitant insurance rates. The Dodge Charger Daytona and the Plymouth SuperBird went permanently out of production less than eighteen months after the first one rolled off the assembly line.

Just an fyi... :D

Maybe people would buy an electric car if the horn didn't sound like a kindly gay man.

...I would be scared to death to own a car painted that puke-green color! Hehehe!

If that's your idea of 'puke'-green, I'd hate to be your dietician...

Har de har har har.

I've seen plenty of Hydrogen cars that looked like normal cars...why they don't sell? Not a good enough infrastructure....fuelling stations etc.

Here's a photo of a 1970 Boss 302 Mustang identical to the one I bought. Man, I sure wish I still owned that car!


http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/1728/boss30219705ac.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

I've seen plenty of Hydrogen cars that looked like normal cars...why they don't sell? Not a good enough infrastructure....fuelling stations etc.
That's why the air car could be more successful. It's easier to find a place with air.

What do you put if you are going to buy a clean LRC when you need a car, but that won't happen in the next few years?

If that's your idea of 'puke'-green, I'd hate to be your dietician...

Har de har har har.
Oh, you're a regular laugh riot, you are! :p

Here's a photo of a 1970 Boss 302 Mustang identical to the one I bought. Man, I sure wish I still owned that car!


http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/1728/boss30219705ac.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
Now, that's a nice car! And much better color!

Here's a photo of a 1970 Boss 302 Mustang identical to the one I bought. Man, I sure wish I still owned that car!


http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/1728/boss30219705ac.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
"meh"

Here's a photo of a 1970 Boss 302 Mustang identical to the one I bought. Man, I sure wish I still owned that car!


http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/1728/boss30219705ac.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

Was that back when you were three inches tall?

I mean - take a closer look, it's a model car sitting on the hood of another car... lol.

Did you take Barbie surfing in it?

Sick Dreams, does it matter to you what shape your pasta comes in? It's still pasta - whether shaped like macaroni or shaped like bow ties.

I don't see anything inherently unattractive about the car you profess to loathe.
You eat pasta, you drive around in cars, I don't suppose you wear shirts with shoulder pads or any of that?

What do you put if you are going to buy a clean LRC when you need a car, but that won't happen in the next few years?
Um ... you wait? ;)

Ihatevacations']You eat pasta, you drive around in cars, I don't suppose you wear shirts with shoulder pads or any of that?
No, I have it on good authority that Dobbsworld wears a codpiece. It's called "dressing to impress!" :D

Ihatevacations']You eat pasta, you drive around in cars, I don't suppose you wear shirts with shoulder pads or any of that?

I eat pasta, I don't drive, and yes, a few of my blouses are padded.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you.

Was that back when you were three inches tall?

I mean - take a closer look, it's a model car sitting on the hood of another car... lol.

Did you take Barbie surfing in it?
Hmmm... and he did say "identical", didn't he? :)

No, I have it on good authority that Dobbsworld wears a codpiece. It's called "dressing to impress!" :D

If I had issues with my sexual endowment, presumably I'd be driving a Lexus. I walk. What's that tell you?

Was that back when you were three inches tall?

I mean - take a closer look, it's a model car sitting on the hood of another car... lol.

Did you take Barbie surfing in it?
Very funny. Ha. Ha. Yes, I know it's a model, duh. I just couldn't find a photo of the full size version in that color. :p

If I had issues with my sexual endowment, presumably I'd be driving a Lexus. I walk. What's that tell you?
Um ... that you walk? :)

Sick Dreams, does it matter to you what shape your pasta comes in? It's still pasta - whether shaped like macaroni or shaped like bow ties.

I don't see anything inherently unattractive about the car you profess to loathe.
I don't drive my pasta, and I don't have to look at pasta sitting in my driveway every day. I also don't spend $35,000 for a box of pasta!

Yeah, this car is just soooo ugly (http://www.detnews.com/pix/2003/11/05/g03priusmain.jpg)[/sarcasm]
EEWW EEWW YUCCKKKKKKKK
That things about as attractive as boils on a baboons ass!

EEWW EEWW YUCCKKKKKKKK
That things about as attractive as boils on a baboons ass!
ROFL! Wellll ... I wouldn't go THAT far! :D

oh, and this car is not ugly

http://www.edmunds.com/media/2003/tokyo/mazda.hydrogen/mazda.hydrogen.f34.500.jpg

Mazda RX-8. Rotary engine, many horses.
How much energy and how many fossil fuels were used to extract the hydrogen to fuel this car? I said "clean" cars. It is REALLY nice looking though

Allow me to post my own review of all the cars so far linked to in this thread. In order of appearance:

http://www.motordeaire.com/ing/UKPressrelease.html#Eng
Ugly. As. Sin.

http://www.edmunds.com/media/news/innovations/hydrogen.powered/01.07.bmw.hydro1.175.jpg
Pretty nice, I've seen better, but I'd buy it. In fact, it's one of the better looking cars in this thread.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8700/dodgedaytona1969a1zg.jpg
It's be nice without the huge fin. And a color change would also be greatly appreciated.

http://www.racdyn-usa.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000002/1213438010.jpg
Wonderful. This is luxury-mobile embodied.

http://www.detnews.com/pix/2003/11/05/g03priusmain.jpg
Not as ugly as the first car pictured in this thread, but it's close.

http://www.advertisebarbados.com/vehicles/M5side.jpg
Not quite my cup of tea, but I can see why some people would like it. Very sleek, with a balance between sexiness and maturity.

http://www.edmunds.com/media/2003/tokyo/mazda.hydrogen/mazda.hydrogen.f34.500.jpg
An excellent car. I really like it, especially in other colors.

http://www.carsoft.ru/auto/c_chrysler/95atlantic_2_small.jpg
Drop. Dead. Gorgeous. But realistically, a little too Corvette-like.

http://img336.imageshack.us/img336/3182/boss3020oa.jpg
I want one. Right now. It's too nice.

http://home.pon.net/hunnicutt/images/05Mustang_front_driver.jpg
The new Mustang is truely a wonderful vehicle. If I were not myself a Crysler man, I'd get one.

http://autobzor.com/photo/pontiac_solstice_1.jpg
Beautiful, but not what I personally look for.

http://forum.motoweb.pl/files/thumbs/t_mitsubishi_eclipse_2006_1.jpg
A very 'generic' looking car. Nice, but nothing outstanding.

http://www.classics.com/images01/frc01-10s_old.jpg
Nice, but in the context it was posted in (a comparison), it falls short.

http://www.astonmartins.com/v8/images/am020512.jpg
I like what I see, but I want to see more before final judgement is passed.

http://www.shadetreemechanic.com/images/Ford%20100%20yr%20Anthony's%20Model%20T%20Lunchoen%20005.jpg
This clearly doesn't count.

http://i15.ebayimg.com/04/a/04/53/4b/5d_1.JPG
Too 80's-boxy-car for me, but apparently people liked them back then,

http://www.seriouswheels.com/1970-1979/1973-Dodge-Dart-Swinger.htm
Dodge Darts are wonderful looking cars, no matter what color.

http://www.fast-autos.net/plymouth/plymouthsuperbird.html
This is nice, though it has the same big-fin problem. Made worse, again, by the color. I just don't like yellow cars.

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/1728/boss30219705ac.jpg
Another nice car, even if it is just a model.

I'm going to have to say that Eutrusca seems to have okay taste in classic cars, but your fear of the so-called "Little Round Car" has clouded your judgement when it comes to modern wheels.

"Clean car" (http://www.motordeaire.com/ing/UKPressrelease.html#Eng)
This is just one of the MANY examples of why clean cars aren't selling. Because they are UGLY, UGLY, UGLY. When they come up with a nice looking clean car, then I'll be interested!

If I had a choice between that car and Janet Reno, I'm not sure what I'd do. Oh, suicide might be an option. :D

How much energy and how many fossil fuels were used to extract the hydrogen to fuel this car? I said "clean" cars. It is REALLY nice looking though
There are no clean cars. They all use energy to move them, that has to come from somewhere eventually. And they all need energy and materials to make them, which is another cause of pollution all by itself. All we can expecto to accomplish is reduce their "dirtyness", and hydrogen cars do very well when compared to gasoline powered ones.

Slap a "clean" drivetrain in a '69 Chevelle, and I'll be "Mr. Green"!

If I had a choice between that car and Janet Reno, I'm not sure what I'd do. Oh, suicide might be an option. :D
ROFLMAO!!! WTF does Janet Reno have to do with anything? Huh? :p

Now THIS is an AUTOMOBILE, not just another LRC:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8700/dodgedaytona1969a1zg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

( although the color on this one sucks )

Even in the right colour that thing is FUGLY with a capital OH NO MY EYES!
Yeesh...with all the absolutely gorgeous American muscle cars out there, why that the thing? It would be really nice without the idiot guilotine (spoiler) on the back. Just my FFHO (far from humble opinion)

http://www.edmunds.com/media/news/innovations/hydrogen.powered/01.07.bmw.hydro1.175.jpg
Pretty nice, I've seen better, but I'd buy it. In fact, it's one of the better looking cars in this thread.

...

http://www.racdyn-usa.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000002/1213438010.jpg
Wonderful. This is luxury-mobile embodied.
Theyre the same car :p

Oh, and luxury-mobile embodied is now the new Bentley Flying Spur...a two and a half ton car that can carry 4 men with the air conditioning on and an outside temperature of nearly 40 C....at over 200 mph with level of engine, wind and tyre noise you would get cruising along at 50mph in a normal car. Its official top speed is 195mph, but Autocar took it to 208mph...under those conditions

http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/08/flyingspur05_05.jpg

It's a sad reflection on society when something as subjective as fashion ranks above something as critical as saving humanity.

yes we all know clean cars mean the difference between world peace and armageddon.

Beauty does take a valid point in whether or not somebody buys something or not, your car is viewed as a part of you and people will make first impressions of you based on your car. Im sure you bought the clothes you are wearing right now because of their functionality and not for what they look like :rolleyes:

Better, but still an LRC. Sorry. :)
At this point I have come to the conclusion that have REALLY BAD TASTE. You probably think Hummers are really nice looking vehicles (personally, I thinkl they degrade the sexual slang term their named after...even a sloppy blow-job is better than that ugly piece of shit)

ROFLMAO!!! WTF does Janet Reno have to do with anything? Huh? :p

UGLY Eut and so is that car. :)

Regarding the Air Car, other than the necessity for the French to cooperate with the Germans, I don't see why they couldn't put the compressed air system into one of THESE (http://www.smart.com/-snm-0144316892-1120477606-0000028783-0000003902-1121538876-enm-is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/mpc-uk-content-Site/en_UK/-/GBP/SVCPresentationPipeline-Start?Page=issite%3a%2f%2fmpc-uk-Site%2fmpc-uk%2ecom%2fRootFolder%2fsmart%2fmodelle%2fsmartroadster%2f360%2faussen%2epage) allready efficient bodies.

As for "no" car being green, If one was to hook the Compressed Air car to a Solar/Wind turbine/Water Turbine system that had 220 capacity for recharging, then outside of the occasional (synthetic) lubrication, it would, in fact, be a Green car.

"Clean car" (http://www.motordeaire.com/ing/UKPressrelease.html#Eng)
This is just one of the MANY examples of why clean cars aren't selling. Because they are UGLY, UGLY, UGLY. When they come up with a nice looking clean car, then I'll be interested!

The real reason I think those cars dont sell as many as they should is not because of their looks. Its because of their PRICE. If you are a 17-25 year old kid and you are looking to buy a new car which are you going to choose: the car that looks decent and costs 5,000 or the car that looks decent and costs 25,000. The fact is "clean" cars have just not become popular enough, or been around long enough, for the price to drop. Just give it time and I think car companies will lower prices (and make them look as good as normal cars in the same price range) and the cars will become much more accessible.

At this point I have come to the conclusion that have REALLY BAD TASTE. You probably think Hummers are really nice looking vehicles (personally, I thinkl they degrade the sexual slang term their named after...even a sloppy blow-job is better than that ugly piece of shit)
LOL! What a coincidence! If I ever got the money, I would buy an H-1 Hummer in a New York minute! :D

UGLY Eut and so is that car. :)
True, true. But even that car ain't THAT ugly! :D

-snip-
I agree about the price. In general, if the prices were reduced then more people would buy them.

If we're just going to go by looks however, what about this?
http://www.clean-auto.com/IMG/jpg/Fetish1-600.jpg
http://www.clean-auto.com/IMG/jpg/Fetish2-600.jpg
Not very practical, but looks nice.

Fan of the Dodge Dart, perhaps?

It's a lovely shade of day-glo green...

http://www.seriouswheels.com/1970-1979/1973-Dodge-Dart-Swinger.htm

I think I'm in love.

looks are not the only challenge facing the marketing of clean cars... performance is another.

I love a car that can accelerate fast and handle well ... and from what I've heard, clean cars suck in terms of performance.

That said, I'm sick of all these SUVs guzzling gas and keeping oil demand (and not helping gas prices one bit -- high demand means that oil companies can justify keeping prices high) extremely high, when 90% of them are used in CITIES, where they can never be used for their 4-wheel drive, off-road capabilities.

You're far better off buying a car if you live in a city: easier to park, far better gas mileage, better handling, and they're PRACTICAL for cities. They also generally cost less than SUVs. The SUV seems to be pretty much a vanity purchase.

Unless you live in mountains or on a farm (or other such place where 4WD and off-road handling are necessary, of course).

I will say this though. Wait till there are used clean cars showin up on front lawns for sale, and in the paper.(10-15 years) then they will catch on, because they will be affordable to broke people too!

looks are not the only challenge facing the marketing of clean cars... performance is another.

I love a car that can accelerate fast and handle well ... and from what I've heard, clean cars suck in terms of performance.

That said, I'm sick of all these SUVs guzzling gas and keeping oil demand (and not helping gas prices one bit -- high demand means that oil companies can justify keeping prices high) extremely high, when 90% of them are used in CITIES, where they can never be used for their 4-wheel drive, off-road capabilities.

You're far better off buying a car if you live in a city: easier to park, far better gas mileage, better handling, and they're PRACTICAL for cities. They also generally cost less than SUVs. The SUV seems to be pretty much a vanity purchase.

Unless you live in mountains or on a farm (or other such place where 4WD and off-road handling are necessary, of course).
Except the Prius has incredibly good acceleration, as much as any IC engine car, it handles incredibly well, and gets over 50 mpg. That "oh, they don't have enough power" arguement is now obsolete as the technology for hybrids has increased dramatically. I've driven a Prius, and it has plenty of power for turning onto roads in front of other cars, getting on the highway, and passing, you can't even tell it's a hybrid until you see the recipt for the gas!

And it's stupid how people get H2s and shit that are designed for heavy off-roading and they only drive it around cities.

It's not just price, or looks, or performance, it's all three with the "Clean" cars.

1. Performance- 0-50 in over ten seconds is suicidal on the on-ramp to a modern freeway. TOP speed of 70 means you can't pass, or accellerate to avoid an accident. Most 'clean' cars have one or both problems in their "clean" modes.

2. Looks. the snub-hood glass-bubble doesn't look 'good', it looks like pure shit. The wind-tunnel-melt look lacks personality other than Kaspar-Milquetoast personality. The ones built using 'stock' bodies that don't look like something puked out of a number-crunching windtunnel usually suffer more from item 1) than the ones that do.

3. Price. Your car loses half to 3/4 the value on the sticker when the rear wheels leave the car lot. "Green" autos tend to cost 2-3 times as much as non-'Green' cars of similar size and carrying capacity, underperform in driving duties, and require rare/specialized maintenance components. (Try, just TRY finding a Lithium battery that big outside the dealership!)
Air, Hydrogen etc. powerplants aren't well-supported infrastructurally, so you're paying 2-3 times as much for a car that you can use on 5% of the roads, can't get fixed anywhere, and provides no significant end-user bonus for ownership without introducing regulations.

I've owned a Propane-mobile (Conversion to propane), it got great gas mileage from LP gas, produced little in the way of emissions...and was wholly inadequate for freeway driving due to accelleration and cruising lacks.
I also had to get my "Fuel" at specific places. Not as specific as, say, I'd have to get something like compressed hydrogen, but still, a pain in the ass. (More places sell Diesel than Propane...)
Price in time-spent ate the advantages alongside local hikes in propane costs.
This doesn't begin to address the practice in some states of making back that Hefty Gas Tax income by levying punitive licensing fees on alternative fuel vehicles, effectively pricing them out of the bulk of the market. (No tabs, no drive.)

Except the Prius has incredibly good acceleration, as much as any IC engine car, it handles incredibly well, and gets over 50 mpg. That "oh, they don't have enough power" arguement is now obsolete as the technology for hybrids has increased dramatically. I've driven a Prius, and it has plenty of power for turning onto roads in front of other cars, getting on the highway, and passing, you can't even tell it's a hybrid until you see the recipt for the gas!

And it's stupid how people get H2s and shit that are designed for heavy off-roading and they only drive it around cities.

The Prius only works because you're running the "Gasoline" side. Try it on pure electrics. Also, to get that, they put a bodystructure on it that can be defined in terms of tinfoil and papier mache in any kind of accident.


H2's built for Off-Road??? Okay, let's look at this thing and examine the ground-clearance issue first. It's lower than a stock F-150 2wd pickup truck, the body is narrow, heavy, and tall for the wheelbase. It's a "Squared off" station-wagon, not a true off-road vehicle. I would submit that the H2 is nothing but a marketing gimmick built on a shortened Suburban chassis. An Off-Road vehicle it ain't, no matter how much the bodywork looks like a Humvee.

And it's stupid how people get H2s and shit that are designed for heavy off-roading and they only drive it around cities.
H-2 Hummers are just plain stupid, and are definitely NOT for off-roading. They're "conspicuous consumption" items for people who want to show off their incomes. I wouldn't have one on a BET! Ick. :(

The Prius only works because you're running the "Gasoline" side. Try it on pure electrics. Also, to get that, they put a bodystructure on it that can be defined in terms of tinfoil and papier mache in any kind of accident.


H2's built for Off-Road??? Okay, let's look at this thing and examine the ground-clearance issue first. It's lower than a stock F-150 2wd pickup truck, the body is narrow, heavy, and tall for the wheelbase. It's a "Squared off" station-wagon, not a true off-road vehicle. I would submit that the H2 is nothing but a marketing gimmick built on a shortened Suburban chassis. An Off-Road vehicle it ain't, no matter how much the bodywork looks like a Humvee.
wtf? That's why Toyota has spent years coming up with the best algorithm to combine the power of the gasoline side with electicity! It has power when you need it, and conserves it when you don't.

whoopdeedoo. You disproved my point because of my ignorance to H2s. They are not offroad. So why the fuck would you need to spend $50,000 on a car that gets horrible mileage when you can't even drive it offroad!?

Except the Prius has incredibly good acceleration, as much as any IC engine car, it handles incredibly well, and gets over 50 mpg. That "oh, they don't have enough power" arguement is now obsolete as the technology for hybrids has increased dramatically. I've driven a Prius, and it has plenty of power for turning onto roads in front of other cars, getting on the highway, and passing, you can't even tell it's a hybrid until you see the recipt for the gas!

And it's stupid how people get H2s and shit that are designed for heavy off-roading and they only drive it around cities.

point taken on the performance aspect of the Prius. I did not know that. Thank you, sir/madam.

hehe

as for the SUV thing, yeah... I'm generally a free-enterprise capitalist but cripes, driving an SUV in a city is about as logical as driving a snowmobile on dry asphalt.

then when you throw in the bad gas mileage aspect, they look even worse. and yet people are gobbling them up like Dollar Menu medium fries at McDonald's.

point taken on the performance aspect of the Prius. I did not know that. Thank you, sir/madam.

hehe

as for the SUV thing, yeah... I'm generally a free-enterprise capitalist but cripes, driving an SUV in a city is about as logical as driving a snowmobile on dry asphalt.

then when you throw in the bad gas mileage aspect, they look even worse. and yet people are gobbling them up like Dollar Menu medium fries at McDonald's.
lol, stupid jolt titles! (the former btw :) )

hey! I like the dollar fries! lol

I've owned a Propane-mobile (Conversion to propane), it got great gas mileage from LP gas, produced little in the way of emissions...and was wholly inadequate for freeway driving due to accelleration and cruising lacks.
I also had to get my "Fuel" at specific places. Not as specific as, say, I'd have to get something like compressed hydrogen, but still, a pain in the ass. (More places sell Diesel than Propane...)
Price in time-spent ate the advantages alongside local hikes in propane costs.
This doesn't begin to address the practice in some states of making back that Hefty Gas Tax income by levying punitive licensing fees on alternative fuel vehicles, effectively pricing them out of the bulk of the market. (No tabs, no drive.)
I hope to convert my '68 Bug to propane as part of the Resto process... Should work great around N-IN/Chicago.

I'm an "if it gets me from A-B" kind of guy so I don't really care what it looks like.

If someone's invented a decent electric car, suitable for urban driving at least, it ought to be quite a big thing. However, it's the first i've heard of it. So perhaps it's a problem with marketing?

Being electric doesn't make much difference unless the eletricity is made from an envrionmentally friendly source too.

LOL! What a coincidence! If I ever got the money, I would buy an H-1 Hummer in a New York minute! :D


:cool: Thank God for both of us that we don't have to share the same tastes as anyone else. While I may despise much of what you find great design, I know it goes both ways. Kudos for sticking to what YOU like. If more people did, we'd have a lot more variety and also a lot more really cool, original desgins.


Personally, I'm a huge fan of bespoke coachwork/custom bodies. I'm a total sucker for auto styling from the 30s to the early 70s, on both sides of the Atlantic. There just ins't enough personality in most of todays cars, and the ones that have it, I can't afford. Hence, I drive this (http://www.atspeedimages.com/pebble99/italiano/fiat_dino_spyder.jpg), which is much less expensive then it looks, or reallly should be, though the price has begun climbing, as more people clue into what a great value it is for a classic, especially as an Italian sportscar.



What I look for in a car is mostly not even present in ANY hybrid/clean car currently in exisitence. I want loads of fun, great power and pick up, fantastic handling and balls to wall driving fun, with truly great design and styling. Fuel economy and practicality are almost tertiary concerns. As long as its reasonably reliable, and I can drive it all year up here in Canada, its practical enough for me. I'm not interested in getting from point A to point B, I'm interested in journey itself, and how good the car looks. About the only contemporary car that really interests me is this, (http://www.fantasycars.com/derek/cars/images/honda/s2000_6.jpg) but if I did buy it, I'd end up doing a lot of customizng in the styling dept. (and I mean one-off, my design, not those BS, ugly-ass tuner kits) I'll just stick to my classics until I can afford a nice new supercar (like that'll ever happen).

While I admire the ideas and the engineering solutions and the entire concept of low/zero emission vehicles, they'll have to come a lot farther before I myself would ever consider getting one.

ps: IMO the Prius is an abortion of an afterbirth, easily as ugly as a Bummer (Hummer) or Asstik (Aztech)

Like the Honda Element (http://world.honda.com/news/2002/image/4021105_1d.jpg) is the height of good looks.

Or the Hummer (http://krcorg.sts.winisp.net/Lists/Builders%20Board/Attachments/64/Hummer.JPG)

Or this piece of crap (http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/images/honda_fuya-jo.jpg) (I don't even know what to call it)

I'm an "if it gets me from A-B" kind of guy so I don't really care what it looks like.

If someone's invented a decent electric car, suitable for urban driving at least, it ought to be quite a big thing. However, it's the first i've heard of it. So perhaps it's a problem with marketing?

Being electric doesn't make much difference unless the eletricity is made from an envrionmentally friendly source too.

I could care less about looks when it comes to the car I drive to work in. Trust me, the one I have right now ain't so hot. I do however like ecologically friendly cars - I just can't afford to run out and buy one. That AIR one would be good if they bother to bring it over to the States. I was thinking of buying a MINI Cooper, but they only get 28MPG, which really isn't that good for such a tiny car. Heck, my 1989 Buick gets 28MPG.

Regarding cars with electric as their source: It depends on where you live. If the power in your area is mostly produced by nuclear or hydroelectric plants, than it definitely is more ecologically friendly. If you still have a coal fired plant, well... a coal-fired plant is still about 10% more energy efficient than an Internal Combustion Engine. But by the time you figure in power transmission losses and noxious chemicals (i.e. mercury) from coal burning, there is little advantage.