Green Cars You Can't Buy 528
Geoffrey.landis writes "Auto industry blogger Lawrence Ulrich notes that Honda is now making a "Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle" (or PZEV for short) version of the 2008 Accord, an all-new vehicle that is redesigned to meet California emission standards. He notes "So, just how green is a PZEV machine? Well, if you just cut your lawn with a gas mower, congratulations, you just put out more pollution in one hour than these cars do in 2,000 miles of driving."
But the irony is that it's actually illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states they were designed for! Apparently, anybody selling one of these ultra-green vehicles out of the correctly-designated venue — which means either California, or seven northeast-states with similar pollution laws — "could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500. Volvo sent its dealers a memo alerting them to this fact, noting that its greenest S40 and V50 models were only for the special states.""
Partially Zero? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Partially Zero? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Partially Zero? (Score:5, Funny)
Of course you can. That's the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
Re:Partially Zero? (Score:4, Informative)
That's a common misconception. There is no "the" antiderivative of an integrable function. In general, there are many. The Second Fundamental Theorem of Calculus only applies to the continuous antiderivatives.
To see why, consider the function f(x)=(x^4-3x^2+6)/(x^6-5x^4+5x^2+4), and try to compute the definite integral from x=1 to x=2.
g(x)=Arctan((x^3-3x)/(x^2-2)) is an indefinite antiderivative (try taking the derivative if you don't believe me), but it gives the wrong answer because it is discontinuous at x=sqrt(2).
On the other hand, g(x)=Arctan((x^5-3x^3+x)/2)+Arctan(x^3)+Arctan(x) is another indefinite antiderivative, which gives the correct answer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you for the college lecture flash back... every once in a while I forget about all the negatives of being in college and I only remember positives.
d
Re:Partially Zero? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Partially Zero? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Partially Zero? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Partially Zero? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Partially Zero? (Score:5, Funny)
It's a contradictory sounding term... (Score:3, Informative)
Partial zero emission vehicle means that during some portion of time while the vehicle is operating, it does not produce any emissions. Example: The Toyota Prius is a PZEV because when the engine is off and it is operating on its electric motors, it is operating and not producing any emissions. Note that not all hybrids are PZEVs because with some the engine runs constantly.
PZEV is becoming one of those buzzwords that journalists like to latch onto. It's meant to simplify what is being talked about
Re:It's a contradictory sounding term... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's a contradictory sounding term... (Score:5, Informative)
The PZEV actually means that for some of the many types of emissions normal combustion engines make, these cars have zero emissions. PZEV vehicles have zero evaporative emissions from the fuel system, but PZEV doesn't address things like CO2 emissions. Hence they are partially zero - zero in some areas, not zero in others.
A Prius is an AT-PZEV because it sometimes runs with a standard combustion engine and therefore faces all the normal emissions such an engine would produce. To further enhance its green credentials, Toyota made the combustion engine meet the Californian PZEV standards.
The article itself is a bit misleading. A PZEV vehicle can be sold outside the listed states, it just can't be marketed as such, as this would also mean it offers other things such as an enhanced emissions warranty for 150,000 miles. So my Focus would be a PZEV vehicle if I'd bought it in California. Having bought it elsewhere it has exactly the same engine but without the warranty advantages.
Re:It's a contradictory sounding term... (Score:5, Informative)
Partial zero emission vehicle means that during some portion of time while the vehicle is operating, it does not produce any emissions. Example: The Toyota Prius is a PZEV because when the engine is off and it is operating on its electric motors, it is operating and not producing any emissions. Note that not all hybrids are PZEVs because with some the engine runs constantly.
No, it doesn't. PZEV is a California Air Resources Board designation that means that the vehicle has extra pollution control equipment that allows it to produce very low smog forming emissions and is counted as a partial vehicle toward meeting California's Zero emissions vehicle mandate.
The way that this odd name came about is that in the 1980's (If I remember correctly) California created a regulation that a certain percentage of all vehicles sold in the state would have no smog-forming emissions). Car makers responded by objecting, suing and by building electric vehicles (remember the EV1 of "Who Killed the Electric Car" fame). Unfortunately, because they couldn't come up with battery technology that was good enough to make a competitive car, automakers went to CARB (the Califoria Air Resources Board) and offered to produce conventional vehicles with MUCH better emissions control, which would reduce pollution more than the EV mandate would have at a drastically lower cost. CARB agreed and designated these vehicles PZEV's. Since California, alone among U.S. states has the authority to independantly set emissions standards, which then can be adopted by other states, California terminology spread to other states which follow California regulations, which led to PZEV's in other states.
Re:It's a contradictory sounding term... (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to reply to myself, but I thought I'd also mention that the PZEV designation applies to smog forming emissions only and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, you whippersnappers. I recall having to flip a control switch on the dash to get a truck into 4WD. Prior to that, I recall having to stop my truck, get out, lock the drive mechanisms via the hubcap, walk around to the other side of the truck, and, get this, lock the drive mechanism for the other front wheel.
Anyway, I digress. Here [4x4abc.com]'s a link that describes 2WD and 4WD terms without spin --
Re:It's a contradictory sounding term... (Score:5, Informative)
It's called "locking the hubs". The old versions of this had to be locked manually from outside the vehicle. However, automatic hub locking is widely available now (where you just flip a switch). However, this is probably why realtime 4WD is not called "automatic 4WD" -- they aren't the same thing. Most realtime 4WD systems employ a 4-wheel differential (usually limited slip) that transfers power to other wheels when one or more wheels is slipping). Because it doesn't have locking hubs, the realtime 4WD system avoids the inherent stress placed on tires and transmission that is caused by running 4WD on dry pavement. In other words, the car decides when you need 4WD instead of letting you make the decision. While this is probably a good thing for the mentally challenged drivers who feel "safer" driving around at normal speeds on dry pavement with the 4WD engaged, it doesn't always work out so well for people who need true 4WD. Realtime 4WD is not very good for off-road driving, and systems that employ an open differential will not always engage the 4WD when you would expect them to. I had an experience last year where my realtime 4WD car had trouble getting up a steep snow-covered driveway, and it was really clear from outside the car that the 4WD wasn't engaging.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sigh engineering is a superior school. Poor Information Technology students learn to despise marketing folks all by themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See, it's partially zero...
You are right! (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right, lets not discuss the assinine laws that prevent green vehicles from being sold in all locales. Let's, instead, get picky over a term. That's more important, isn't it?
Re:Partially Zero? (Score:4, Funny)
You have to take it into context.
It obviously means that part of the car has no emission.
With today's technology they can easily make a car have only emission from the exhaust.
Re:Partially Zero? (Score:5, Funny)
This certainly is an improvement from (especially British) vehicles of yesteryear which emitted oil, gas and water even in the garage.
Progress as promised!
These are hybrid vehicles (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:These are hybrid vehicles (Score:5, Informative)
While the PZEVs are most likely hybrids, I don't believe all the hybrids on the market are the PZEVs. The Civic Hybrid gives out the roughly the same amount of pollution as a regular car does once it goes to running on gas.
Though, I could be mistaken. I can't remember where I was reading about it, so my head could be playing tricks on me. However, I'm fairly certain the hybrid models available on the market aren't PZEVs. I'm pretty sure some of the Volvo models for 2008 are however biodiesel hybrids (though, it might be regular diesel hybrids), which would make sense for the restriction in terms of shifting crop production.
Re:Hybrids != PZEV (Score:4, Informative)
CA Clean Auto classes (Cleanest to Least Clean) (Score:5, Informative)
ZEV
Zero Emission Vehicles have zero tailpipe emissions and are 98% cleaner than the average new model year vehicle.
AT PZEV
Advanced Technology PZEVs meet SULEV tailpipe emission standards, have a 15 year / 150,000 mile warranty, have zero evaporative emissions and include advanced technology components. For example, a plug-in hybrid or a compressed natural gas vehicle would qualify in this category.
PZEV
Partial Zero Emission Vehicles meet SULEV tailpipe emission standards, have a 15 year / 150,000 mile warranty and have zero evaporative emissions.
SULEV
Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicles are 90% cleaner than the average new model year vehicle.
ULEV
Ultra Low Emission Vehicles are 50% cleaner than the average new model year vehicle.
LEV
Low Emission Vehicles are the least stringent emission standard for all new cars sold in California in 2004 and beyond.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Probably because it's not (Score:5, Informative)
Might be valid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On a side note: The LEV/ULEV vehicles have a higher-than-normal level of platinum in their mufflers, thus making them extremely expensive compared to normal mufflers, ~$1,700 for a retail replacement. My 3rd-party replacement was s
Re:Partially Zero? (Score:5, Interesting)
But the article is lame because it doesn't give any of the reasons why these cars may be illegal outside these few states; my understanding is that Californian laws are be definition stricter than US EPA regulations because no matter what, the US EPA regs apply too. Most makers gave up building a special "California Car" ages ago and just make 1 clean model to keep mass market efficiencies. It does hint that these cars cost a premium that is being absorbed by the makers, which is why they might want to restrict sales, but thast not the claim of the article. Keep in mind PZEV has nothing to do w/ economy or CO2, it has to do with byproducts like CO & NO2.
Perfect article... for yellow journalism (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the article is lame because of WHY they didn't give any details. After admitting the fault is the government's the author uses most of the article to IMPLY that it is all some sort of conspiracy of the automakers. Had the author gave a clear explanation of what sort of government stupidity was preventing 'out of area sales' on these green cars he would have looked pretty daft trying to lay the blame on the auto industry. But
They will never be legal here (Score:2, Funny)
Why are they illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But since the author of the article decided that citing the specific statute wasn't necessary it's hard to say for sure.
What?! What do you mean? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Under terms of the Clean Air Act--in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off--anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500
Clean air act (Score:3, Informative)
The clean air act [epa.gov] is mighty large, but I don't see this in there. I tried various searches on Google including site:http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/, but no hits on "27,500", "27500", or even "fines". Seems that by "civil" they mean "invented".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Folgers? (Score:5, Funny)
Smells like sucker (Score:3, Insightful)
This discussion has over 300 posts and yet no one has found a single law to explain that stu
Not just that, but many Euro diesels with 80+ mpg (Score:4, Informative)
And even the so-called plug-in hybrids (which I love) that will be sold by GM and Ford etc will be in such short supply that production until 2012 will be so minimal it's unlikely you'll be able to get one.
Re:Not just that, but many Euro diesels with 80+ m (Score:2)
Re:Not just that, but many Euro diesels with 80+ m (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not just that, but many Euro diesels with 80+ m (Score:4, Interesting)
Could be true, but there are many more 50mpg diesels than 50mpg petrol cars. And a 125g/km diesel emits less CO2 than a 150g/km petrol car. And at the same time, the Diesel engine gives you much more power at lower speed (that is, everything up to the speed limit
Re:Not just that, but many Euro diesels with 80+ m (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not just that, but many Euro diesels with 80+ m (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
UK Gallons are larger too (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not just that, but many Euro diesels with 80+ m (Score:2)
I's purely politics. The Smart is safe as hell as-is but the Morons at the Govt make them put in useless safety crap and jacks the price up to insane levels so nobody buys them.
Don't Get it? (Score:4, Informative)
then
It's not all the fault of the car companies. The crazy quilt of environmental regulations is forcing carmakers to design and build two versions of the same cars. And it costs real money to make a car this green. So in states where there are no regulations to force their hand,automakers don't want to have to boost their prices for the green versions--or to simply eat the extra cost and make less profit.
It DOES sound like the fault of the automaker. If they don't have to sell a cleaner car in other states why should they?
Um... (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be unfair competition (Score:5, Insightful)
If they let Honda sell near zero emissions automobiles in states where it's not mandated, that might put pressure on everybody else to also make near zero emissions cars, and that's just not fair!
So we should all thank our friends in the Government, for helping ot insure that competition in the marketplace does not create unfair competition.
Sometimes you can't tell spoof from reality.
Re:It would be unfair competition (Score:5, Insightful)
So you have to maintain a pure capitalist model for health-care even though it's really inefficient, but if you try to do that for cars you get punished? I know cognitive dissonance in government is common, but this is mental.
Does anybody else wonder whether the US government has been taken over by somebody (possibly giant alien lizards [wikipedia.org]) who are deliberately trying to ruin the country? I honestly can't see how they could do a worse job if they tried. It's even more amazing how much congress and the senate sit back and watch them piss all over 50 years of dominating the world, pushing the nox button on the hand-basket heading towards hell.
As a Brit, I feel grateful that our Empire went out in a blaze of glory. Yours is just imploding. My sympathies.
Peter
Re:It would be unfair competition (Score:5, Funny)
The Republican party believes government is incompetent to provide many basic public services and therefore underfunds it and runs it incompetently in order to prove their point.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
After they closed many of the mental hospitals in America, they had to put the more dangerous lunatics somewhere, and they're far less of a threat to ordinary citizens being locked up in Congress than allowed out on the streets.
As for the giant alien lizards, I have to disagree. Deranged creatures from the corridors of time [bbc.co.uk] seem much more likely.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, most people would say our system is inefficient because it's nothing close to a "pure capitalist model." Not even remotely close to one; the government interferes on every level.
As a Brit, I feel grateful that our Empire went out in a blaze of glory. Yours is just imploding. My sympathies.
Dude, you guys were beat by Ghandi. GHANDI!
Dude, that's by design (Score:3, Insightful)
If healthcare was purely capitalist, the doctors, pharmacists, insurance companies and so on would be acting for the benefit of the consumer.
But that means curing people. There's more money to be made in treating symptoms. And don't you dare try to change that! You'll be called anti-business for trying to cut into their profi
Re:Imploding? Hardly.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If those sites are what you've been reading then it's no wonder you're worried about the U.S. declining. If find the anti-Bush site [bordergate...otocol.net] particularly interesting. There's a lot of good sound bites in there and there's a grain of truth in every one of them but the author is insinuating a number of cause-effect relationships where there is only correlation. Please, let's not forget about reason. Correlation does not prove causation. It's not just something you use when doing science, it's a foundation of any sound reasoning.
I'm not going to go through everything you posted and rebut each one but I can at least cherry pick a few as examples. For instance, "I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period." Or how about, "I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market. " The government does not control the stock market last I checked although they do regulate it. Let's also not forget that when Bush took office we had a highly inflated stock market due to several investors speculating on companies with no serious business plan. But I'm not going to turn around and blame Clinton for that even though that occurred on his watch. Anyone who puts his money into a company with no sound plan is taking a huge risk. Sometimes it pays off. I find it odd that anyone would hold the government responsible for this at all.
Sayers discussed this quite a bit in her excellent book The Mind of the Maker. Why is it that people look to politicians to solve their problems? That is simply not their job. Their job is to keep the government running as in protect the country from invasion and to allow the people in the country to live their lives with as little interference as possible. That's it. If you haven't read The Mind of the Maker you should. It unfortunately gets shoehorned into the theology category so you may find it over in that section of your local bookstore. You can also find various copies of it online since the copyright has long expired. The online copies all have varied levels of transcription errors.
Anyway, getting back to the point, some of the criticisms of Bush are valid. For instance, "I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States, called the "Bureau of Homeland Security " Yeah, he did do that, and I'm not particularly happy about it although I'm not sure that what existed before with various government agencies fulfilling overlapping niches was necessarily better.
Then there's the Olbermann piece [crooksandliars.com]. Frankly, I find Olbermann to be as much of a journalist as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. He's an opinion maker and there's not necessarily anything wrong with that except for that he tries to pass off his opinion pieces as hard news which in my book makes him a hack.
NBC regularly puts Olbermann on the Nightly News identifying him as a reporter. Every segment he does is absolutely loaded with opinion. Again, there's nothing wrong with being an opinionated journalist but please don't pass it off as hard news reporting. It would be like FNC putting O'Reilly or Hannity on the Fox Report. Not that the Fox Report is unbiased but it is intended to be a hard news pure reporting program, not an opinion/entertainment program. I'm very wary of anyone claiming to do a hard news program. It's impossible for any normal human not to have some level of bias. Better to disclose your bias than to try to keep it in the closet. Sooner or later anyone with half a brain can clearly see what's going on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're absolutely right that the President does not control every minutiae of the economy, but it is worrying that the US economy seems to be struggling. I read recently that the Chinese have so many US treasury bonds now that if they cash them in it would devalue the dollar. I know these things are always true to some extent, but it's still not something you would have said in the 50s. Your foreign commitments are, in many
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Something doesn't seem right. (Score:3, Insightful)
So... Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop it. (Score:5, Insightful)
New MSN Autos columnist puts his foot in it (Score:5, Informative)
These vehicles are heavily subsidized by the states where you may sell them, and they're interested in getting their investment back. California lays out wads of cash for some cleaner vehicles, so California wants them driven in California (for example; there are several other states involved). The automakers are not allowed to sell them anywhere else. It's that simple.
If these vehicles were produced without subsidies, they'd be so expensive that no one would buy them. Lawrence Ulrich seems to think that automakers should make a highly expensive clean-burning vehicles on their own and sell them at a loss, perhaps so they can go out of business in two or three years.
At least Slashdot used a non-misleading headline instead. Kudos for that.
Re:New MSN Autos columnist puts his foot in it (Score:5, Funny)
But waitaminute... (Score:5, Interesting)
But how does letting other people buy the same kind of car in other states hurt their investment? The people of California would
Now I could see California saying they will only pay a subsidy for cars sold IN California, which would mean they would cost more in other states that don't subsidize. But I don't see why they would care.
No wonder they are close to zero emmisions... (Score:2, Funny)
Vincent Price's Orphan Powered Death Machine has zero emissions too; it does not exist.
Or does it..?
Plug-in Hybrids (Score:2, Informative)
Laws that inhibit good and desirable behaviour, are bad laws. No other way to say it.
Capacity != Capability (Score:2)
One caveat is that the electric transmission capabilities are not up to the task of something like this. Yes, in theory there is sufficient power generation capacity, but moving there isn't a strong enough transmission infrastructure to move this capacity around to where it would be needed. That's one of the reason there's so much extra generation capacity to be found.
Zero is absolute (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
lets take a 3 second "timeline"
Second 1 -
second 2 - 0 cu feet CO2
second 3 -
one out of every 3 seconds has ZERO emissions. So the vehicle is a PARTIAL Zero Emissions vehicle.
Re:Zero is absolute (Score:5, Insightful)
now take California's "normal" driving conditions of sitting on the freeway STOPPED for hours. An Ultra low is making it's small amount of emissions sitting there... A PZ is making NOTHING.
It makes perfect sense why california would be crazy about them. A prius makes as much pollution as a camry in Texas, but a prius makes much less than a camry(ulev) in california, because in california, pollution is a function of TIME, not MILES like most other places.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
PZEV is a super-set of SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emissions). a PZEV meets SULEV standards, has zero evaporative emissions, and has a long (15 years/150,000 mile) warranty on the emissions control systems.
So what's the deal? (Score:2)
Before I put on my tinfoil hat, does anyone have a bit more info than "must not sell them there"? "Why" is the only really interesting question (most of the time it is), and if
Am I right in assuming... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Inaccurate summary? (Score:2)
I see no reason why it would be illegal under any state or federal law to sell a car that has super-low emissions. The end of the article implies that the manufacturer doesn't want to sell cars with the low-emissions hardware outside the states with strict emissions laws because 1) it increases the cost of the car, and 2) t
calling BS (Score:2)
One possible reason this is BS: the Clean Air Act is a Federal act, so can not vary from state to state?
One possible reason for the confusion: modifying the emissions control on your own car is illegal under the CAA, but t
Slightly misleading summary (Score:4, Informative)
There is nothing preventing the car makers from releasing the same vehicles into all the other markets; they don't because the cars cost a little bit more ($150-$400 according to the article), but still get the same MPG even if the tailpipe emissions are almost nil. They don't believe consumers will pay the premium so they don't bother.
In other words, the manufacturers are free to produce the same exact car but instead of stamping "CALIFORNIA ONLY" on it and being unable to sell it outside that designated market, they can just sell it everywhere with no problem.
Poorly-written article (Score:4, Insightful)
No Less CO2 (Score:4, Insightful)
But also:
This is quite telling. If the PZEV cars get the same fuel efficiency as conventional vehicles, then they are consuming the same amount of carbon and putting the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
So how can they be less polluting than a lawn mower? The article must NOT be including CO2 as a pollutant (the same view the Bush administration took of the Clean Air Act). So these vehicles probably emit less sulfur and nitrogen compounds and particulates, but the same amount of CO2.
Carbon Dioxide is the most important pollutant (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway - pretty pointless concentrating on the less important pollutants rather than on those that may irreversibly change the earth's climate through global warming...
You may now waste lots of time trying to convince me that global warming doesn't exist or is not caused by human activity. (FX: rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.)
PZEV Subaru in Boston, Zipcar (Score:3, Informative)
Gov'ts dont want fuel efficient cars (Score:5, Insightful)
very simple reason for it (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not saying it's right, but it is not 100% rediculious.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:very simple reason for it (Score:5, Insightful)
Logics like this makes me wonder if the whole world has gone mad or just me.
The R&D is done. The money is gone. Whether the car is sold outside the state or not it wouldn't cost more tax dollars. Instead of setting such stupid prohibiting fines, they really should have just made an agreement to tax each and every out of state sale in a reasonable manner and recover some of that R&D cost back for the tax payers.
Re:very simple reason for it (Score:5, Insightful)
It starts from this innocent sounding premise: you can't charge the government more for something than you do the private sector.
Oddly enough, this is why the government pays more for things than the private sector. Private sector purchasers don't think this way. They don't care how much you charge other people, so long as they are paying as little as possible. This means they can buy from anybody, not just vendors who are willing to do the accounting to prove they are charging you the same as everybody else. The government, on the other hand, often finds itself dealing with vendors who specialize in providing things to the government, or provide special versions of products and services that they sell only to the government.
While this case is not exactly parallel, the logic is the same. On the surface, making the sale of these vehicle "fair" to CA consumers would seem to imply making them available at the lowest possible price. It just happens to turn out that "fair" and "as inexpensive as possible" are two somewhat different things. They can't both be the highest priority. So when government money is involved, you don't get the lowest possible price, you get the lowest possible price that is consistent with documentable "fairness".
So, it is probable that in the long term that CA residents pay more for their cars by making sure other states' residents don't "freeload".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are 2 things going on here:
We have environemntalists who are pushing for cleaner cars. This can be met by gas powered cars that maybe are no more efficient, but run cleaner.
Then you have people trying to reduce our reliance on gas. A car that runs on gas and not only does not produce polution, but by some magical process removes existing polution from the air would would not be seen as an improvement from this light.
I suspect this law is driven by the folks w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Total SHENANIGANS on this article. (Score:4, Insightful)
That last quote's the big bell-ringer. OK, a car that puts out less emissions by turning off the engine part of the time. And you expect me to believe that it gets the same gas mileage? How, by dribbling fuel out on the road through a hose?