Received the following link from a friend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBnlXGvA1Wk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

We have argued in the past about car manufacturers being able to manufacture automobiles which can achieve 100 mpg. My point of view is the physics of internal combustion engines combined with the force of pushing an object through the atmosphere with the pull of gravity causing friction on four tires rolling along the earth makes such a car obsolete, untenable for transportation and as such unachievable.

So in response to what I see as pure propaganda and hyperbole:

OK, sounds terrific, however is this real world driving or on a test track? Did it include stops and stops? Did it include around town and then transition to freeway driving? My interpretation of the picture from the story showing the vehicle and following yellow vehicIe is it was done on a test track. From the comments on the YouTube page - "VW did sell in the US, but it did not sell well. So VW switched to larger diesel engines - "1.6-liter common rail four cylinder  TDI rather than the 2.0-liter TDI we see here in the States." The EPA tests typically show lower mpg than what is realistic. For the car in question, EPA: 44, Consumer Reports: 51." And from the actual article about the test this: "Obviously, Conway is well versed in the art of driving for high fuel economy." And then this nonsense: "To enhance fuel economy it also has auto stop-start, low rolling resistance tires, and a programmed charging system so the alternator only runs when necessary." and then this: "With that kind of range, the Passat could go from New York to Los Angeles with a single stop for fuel" except for things called the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada no longer known by illiterate writers who never studied Geography. How do you think a fully loaded Diesel Passat with a 1.6 liter engine would fair going I 70 west out of Denver? What fine MPG would be achieved by a 1.6 diesel motor revved up to 5000 - 6000 rpms in second gear traveling at 35 MPH? Are you interested in driving a car with special low rolling tires - better yet do you think you can find such tires now at Wal-Mart or Sam's Club and how do you think these tires might perform in wet weather driving, or what would be the speed rating, mileage rating and cost for such tires? An alternator which switches on and off - great another expensive item which will go bad - much like AC compressors which cycle on and off and have a high failure rate. And how do you suppose they start the engine after it stops at a stop light? I would assume via the starter motor. Does this mean the starter motor will have to be replaced several times over the life of the car because it fails from being used so often? The final kibosh is mentioned nowhere in the article  - the average speed at which this test was achieved. Are we all ready to go back to driving 50 - 55 mph so we can achieve such mpg's?

My friend Florian bought one of these with the 2.0 engine this spring and loves it. He bought it over the Prius because it gets better mileage than a Prius, it has way better driveability - it actually gets up and goes, can maintain speed driving up hills and can cruise at 75-80 mph's and still achieve higher mileage. I believe strongly in diesel powered cars as the best way to achieve high mileage vehicles i.e. the physics of diesel and the ability to get so much more power from a gallon of diesel to a gallon of gas, however in real world driving, in our consumerism society, with our geography Americans will never buy large quantities of small high mileage cars. As the article points out the 1.6 can be sold in Europe but not in America. Americans just won't buy such underpowered cars and any car which achieves 100 mpg (Mpg implies the average fuel economy. It means any vehicle which achieves 100 mpg is going to have to achieve significantly better than 100 mpg to compensate for the times it will fall significantly below 100 mpg for such things as: stopping, accelerating, changes in topography, weather, heat and cold.) will have to be significantly smaller, significantly lighter and significantly more underpowered than the current batch of cars.

OK, I have finally returned to comment. What do you suppose lead me to comment? Yes more hyper-tension about Israel attacking Iran! Oh, my the sky is falling!

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Do-Early-Elections-in-Israel-Imply-an-Israeli-Strike-on-Iran-This-Fall

In response to the above link I posted the following:


Oh come on, this is all horse hockey or is it horse puckie? Anyways -first Israel has the means to bring Iran to it's knees - destroy at will and in it's own time what it wants. Their nuclear weapons fall between "98" and "200" both numbers I have read via the internet (American intelligence at it's best). They have intercontinental missiles - which actually work -  to deliver them with impunity. They are the premiere military power in this area and I would say the second or third in the world. So securing Iran's air space and flying without impairment is within it's capability. Finally they have the guts, the fortitude and will -  "Never again."

Iran has no nuclear weapons, has a tin-pot third world nation military which farcically boasts claims of grandeur, has a economy and society decimated and hollowed by the Islamic revolution and the huge redirection of wealth from normal societal infrastructure into it's development of the atomic weapons program. I would also speculate on the quality of the "reinforced" structures "buried" deep underground. Israel does not have to destroy all of the parts of Iran's nuclear program they only have to destroy the part which is the most critical, deadly and most costly to permanently stop the process. Obviously the enrichment - disperse the already enriched material over a wide area, lethally contaminating the facility requiring a complete rebuild and reinvestment of billions of dollars. The financial collapse would be similar to that of the USSR, and surprise, surprise we would learn what we should already know - tin-pot dictators are all bombastic and never about substance. And democracies are about substance and never bombastic.