And that's the urban figure. Someone needs to reveal these sorts of cars to our wonderful EPA - they really do make sense!

http://www.topgear.com/drives/E1/A3/...sts/27/01.html

I like how it's actually a good long-range cruiser as well. A few people at my work commute 60+ miles each way (120+ a day) and would give an arm and a leg to drive this car...

 

The EPA other governmental agencies would legislate it down to 35 - 40 mpg here...

 

Or they would smother it with fees, and other safety crap so it woud become completely unfeesable to buy. I hate how our gov't tries to "help" us.
DS79

 

Our local school district is in a panic because of a double whammy: Not only has the price of diesel destroyed their fuel budget, but all the new busses they got last year (with the new emissions crap) only get 6 mpg! The old ones got 11 mpg.


Tell me EPA, how is that good for the environment??

 

It ain't . .it's good for the EPA people's oil stocks.

 

Point well taken, and that's always been my thought. However, it's NOT the perspective of the EPA, CARB, and the Sierra Club. WHAT they desire is reduced HC & NOx emissions, with a further emphasis on CO & CO2 emissions reduction. Fuel mileage is of secondary importance to them. Unfortunetly, it takes MORE fuel, given currently known technologies, to reduce these emissions. Take a look via a Google search on historic emissions testing and you'll begin to understand.

My point is - there exists a balance that's acceptable. Lean one way or the other too much - and well, you know what's going to happen. These folks don't see life this way, and they are vocal, and they have put the blinders on our goverment to make these "improvements" a matter of legal requirement. Some of it is good, however much of it borders on insanity.

 

That's amazingly good mileage. I would never drive my truck or any other vehicle if I got that. So it's actually good that they don't sell them here so I can be happy with my 18 hwy mpgs.

 

It's good for the environment because not only did they reduce school bus emissions, they also reduced the number of miles driven by each bus since busses now only get 6 mpg. So, less emissions + less miles = way less emission and waste.

 

I havent looked at any stats, but now they are burning twice the fuel so it seems to me that they would be poluting(sp) just as much as the older trucks.
Maybe they are poluting less per gallon, but they are using more gallons.

 

Originally Posted by wcbcruzer >>
"It's good for the environment because not only did they reduce school bus emissions, they also reduced the number of miles driven by each bus since busses now only get 6 mpg. So, less emissions + less miles = way less emission and waste."

Originally posted by AllanP >>
"I havent looked at any stats, but now they are burning twice the fuel so it seems to me that they would be poluting(sp) just as much as the older trucks.
Maybe they are poluting less per gallon, but they are using more gallons."

That is exactly my take on it too. & i won't even comment on that stupid particulate trap & its regen cycle!! (dumping raw fuel into the exhaust pipe to lower emissions!?!?!?!!?!?!?)

 

Hey if we all had our head up our rectums like they do, we would understand...
DS79

 

that is a pretty cool little car, I'd drive it. I betcha Smarty would have a new programmer for it before too long! If ya bombed it, would it get 100 mpg driven at a leisurely 1900 rpm?

 

the only thing about most of these cars from oversea that you dont see here is they dont pass the govs crash test rating

 

Yeah but here in IL I can ride my motorcycle without a helmet.

 

introducing a new drag race class