German carmaker DaimlerChrysler will today officially unveil a prototype of a new diesel vehicle that it says will meet more stringent pollution-control requirements and get higher mileage. The concept car uses lighter materials and an aerodynamic design that allows it to get about 70 miles to the gallon. Although the company has not yet decided whether it will mass-produce this prototype, the diesel technology will be incorporated into future models to help meet federal emissions standards that will come into force in 2007.
Interestingly, the inspiration for the design came from the boxfish, a variety of tropical fish, and the result (with its sleek lines and boxy rear) is strikingly similar. Maybe it's just me, but the boxfish doesn't look like it'd be particularly speedy. It does, however, make for a very cute car.
Tweet for the bees
Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!
Comments
View as Threaded
David Roberts Posted 10:00 am
07 Jun 2005
www.grist.org
Permalink
Lisa Hymas Posted 2:45 pm
07 Jun 2005
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 5:09 pm
07 Jun 2005
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 12:46 am
08 Jun 2005
www.grist.org
Permalink
bhurley Posted 4:44 am
08 Jun 2005
I don't think that's true. Despite their excellent fuel economy, most diesel vehicles (regardless of what fuel they burn) get low environmental marks because of their high emissions of particulates and NOx.
For example, EPA's Green Vehicle Guide gives the Volkswagen Beetle diesel model high marks for fuel economy (46 mpg highway), but only a 2 out of 10 for its tailpipe cleanliness. (Interestingly, the Honda Insight gets a similarly poor score). See EPA's Green Vehicle Guide and ACEEE's Green Car guide for more information.
Car manufacturers are working hard to clean up diesel engines; it looks like DaimlerChrysler may have come up with a good solution and I know that other automakers are trying to do the same. But in the meantime, I'd avoid diesel if you're looking for an environmentally benign car. Diesel emissions have been blamed for a significant portion of heart-related illnesses and deaths in urban regions.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 9:41 am
08 Jun 2005
More importantly, consumption of oil should be our main priority. The impacts of that consumption cause serious wildlife and wilderness destruction from drilling, transportation, spilling, and refining of oil. I realize that many enviros have become obsessed with global warming, but it's only one of many, many ecological and environmental problems, and not even the most destructive one in terms of its potential effects on non-humans.
Permalink
bhurley Posted 9:07 pm
08 Jun 2005
Gosh, that runs completely counter to every source I've seen on the subject. My understanding, based on publications and emissions tests by EPA and environmental groups, is that the tailpipe emissions of NOx and particulates from diesel vehicles (no matter whether they burn biodiesel or petro-diesel) are much higher than those of gasoline vehicles. And because those tailpipe emissions occur in areas where people live, walk, and work, they represent a significant risk to human health.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 2:56 am
10 Jun 2005
The problem is that you're only condsidering human health. Why should non-humans suffer from human-caused air pollution that only benefits humans? If people insist on driving, it's best for the rest of the planet for most of the resulting pollution to be emitted in areas where humans live. It's not like there's no life outside of human areas, it's just not human life.
Permalink