What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
74 Comments
- lisapham, on 12/13/2007, -3/+50Sweet...now you can get 14 MPG.
- esbern1, on 12/13/2007, -3/+34you know who should be thrown into this debate for no reason at all? Ron Paul.
I wish Ron Paul were here.
In bed with me. - satanatnmtedu, on 12/13/2007, -5/+15RTFA - it says that Ferrari has "committed" to a 40% increase. It hasn't happened yet. It is like Bush has committed to bring all the soldiers in Iraq home when the job is complete. It doesn't mean anything until is occurs.
- Deranged, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6Can you not appreciate a step in the right direction? No, that's not a 'fuel efficient' car, but it is getting better. And what do you have against hybrids? They aren't fully developed yet. Give them time! Have you seen the Ford Explorer that gets the same gas mileage as a civic?
Sure, "Compact Disc" is an oxymoron since far more information can be held on a microSD card, but it doesn't mean it's not more compact than its predecessor.
It may not be "green" but its going the right way...
plus, its a great advantage over lamborghini, who is sporting the lowest gas mileage of any 2008 vehicle. - nobodyfresh, on 12/13/2007, -1/+7From the WrightSpeed website:
If reduction in fuel consumption is the goal, it would be better to replace 10mpg cars with 20mpg cars, than to replace 50 mpg cars with 100mpg cars. 5 times better. Counter-intuitive? Here’s the arithmetic. The 10mpg car uses 10 gallons to go 100 miles. The 20 mpg car uses 5: a saving of 5 gallons. The 50 mpg car uses only 2 gallons for 100 miles, so replacing it with a 100mpg car only saves one gallon. - tinselt0wn, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6ok, but...
how many people own ferraris? its a drop in the bucket of total oil consumption. those few million (compared to car owners world wide) people in the world who actually own ferraris, and out those, i bet theres a handful+ who dont drive them every day.
buried as lame - Error601, on 12/13/2007, -6/+11Dugg down for stupid "electric vehicles can outperform Ferraris" thing. That's called trying to get the answer you want by ignoring undesirable details.
- BigManOnCampus, on 12/13/2007, -1/+5Technically speaking, lightweight sportscars of all types are more "green" than your average sedan. The reason is because they have a huge power-to-weight ratio. This means if you drive one like a grandma, you'll sip gasoline like a camel in the amazon.
- duggfunny, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4There's very little gasoline in the Amazon, as it is located primarily in Brazil and their main liquid fuel source is ethanol. Further, why would a camel consume gasoline or be in the Amazon for that matter.
Zing!!! - Dipster, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Why would a camel in a South American rainforest need to sip?
- Chirp08, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4whoever dugg down Number23's comment is a *****, everything he said was factual. Dodge is coming out with a hybrid version of their hemi for 09. The problem is that hybrids cost about $10,000 more than a regular version, and usually are less equiped, less poweful, and overall less of a vehicle for more money, hence they don't sell.
- Raider007, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4he gets 625 miles out of a tank in his Jetta?
gawd damn diesel laws in California *mad*
no, i'm not bitter, not at all... - ryanlive, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Absolutely correct. You forgot to mention that, due to their batteries, hybrids are more harmful to the environment than traditional combustion engine driven vehicles.
- janks444, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3pointless. ferrari sells less than 6000 cars a year. most of these cars a driven very infrequently, as most ferraris are poor commuter cars. Ford sells tens of thousands of trucks a month. ferrari is not the problem.
- triskele, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3We have the same problems here in NY, but VW will be shipping a 50 state compliant green diesel Jetta by end of next year.
- razrielle, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Its sad that cars are only getting 30 mpg, they have had the technology to make them have better gas mileage since atleast the 80's. I constantly get 45 mpg in a non hybrid car by being sensible in my driving and making sure the car in whole is in a good shape
- mathchemist, on 12/13/2007, -0/+340 % decrease = 60% previous usage, which would amount to a 66% increase in milage since 1 / 0.6 = 1.666
- Logicexe, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3You do know that there are cars on the market right now that can shut off some of their cylinders while coasting and idling right? As soon as you press hard on the pedal those cylinders start up again. This isn't even expensive technology since the goddamn 2008 Honda Accord will use this system, GM has been doing it with some of their mid-size SUVs since 2005.
- Number23, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3They can and they do, but to a lesser extent than Ferrari. Lightweight materials are expensive.
FYI the Corvette is perhaps the most efficient sports car you can buy, boasting nearly 30mpg highway and a lower curb weight than any Ferrari or Lambo. - Logicexe, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4Dugg for being buried for being a random jackass.
- yabos, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Chrysler Hemis can shut off 4 cylinders. The technology has been around for 20+ years but now with fuel injection it's a lot better than it used to be. The CORVETTE does this too. It's very helpful on the highway when you are cruising at a near constant speed and the response by the computer to resume firing all cylinders is near instantaneous. You'll never notice the difference.
- Technopope, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2No, you will get over 16 MPG.
The article claims a reduction in fuel consumption of 40%, not a mileage increase of 40% like the digg title says. They are not the same thing. - plncrzy, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Chrylser and GM (and probably others, but I'm too lazy to look it up) have done exactly that, smart guy.
MDS = Multi-Displacement System, which is Chrysler's version. I think GM calls it DOD (Displacement on Demand). The engine basically fires on 4 cylinders while cruising and the other 4 cylinders are just kind of "along for the ride". - salinemist, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2No, even Ferrari's are an opportunity for partisan political crap from diggerals.
- shagmin, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Increasing fuel efficiency by 1 mpg in a full size pickup is much more significant than increasing it by the same amount in a compact.
When you have a Silverado getting 30 mpg you better be able to get at least 100 mpg out of an econobox. But then if that were happening, you'd probably be saying "anything that gets less than 100 mpg should not be considered green". A bigger vehicle is always going to require more energy to move it. And that hybrid Silverado is the most fuel efficient full size pickup there is, is that something to hate? Wouldn't that make it the 'greenest' in its class? - sparr, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2So are they reducing consumption or increasing mileage by 40%? Story submitters need to learn to do math.
Say I get 10MPG, or .1 GPM. If I reduce my consumption by 40% then I am using .06GPM, and getting 16.67MPG. If I increase my mileage by 40% then I am getting 14 MPG. Since we are talking about "40%", a difference of 16% is significant. - ryanlive, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Never appease liberals. They won't appreciate or accept your compromise and efforts.
- ryan899, on 12/13/2007, -2/+4Dugg, just so everyone sees your creepiness.
- fusuke31, on 12/13/2007, -3/+5What's next? A green(er) Hummer?
- cawpin, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Agreed, you have to appreciate the effort. A truck, even the half ton models that all the soccer moms drive, are built primarily as a work vehicle. The must be able to haul and tow a lot of stuff. Having that ability makes fuel mileage go down. Also, using the Silverado as an example was a bad idea given that it has the best fuel economy of any full size pickup.
- cawpin, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Another point, GM has had this technology since the mid 90s in the Cadillac Northstar series of engines.
- Axeman2063, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2I think the big point to remember here is that while it didn't state it directly in the article, Ferrari spends more money on R&D than most automotive companies (between 17 and 20% of their profit margin). I'm willing to bet that any major breakthroughs in reducing emissions and increasing gas mileage will have Ferrari behind it.
- BigManOnCampus, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I don't know. Why does that infernal bunny have a pancake on his head?
- Tippis, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Depends – are you going by the title, or by what they're actually doing?
Increasing the mileage by 40% isn't that much, no. Reducing the fuel consumption by 40%, however, is quite a lot – you almost *double* your economy.
...granted, double of nothing is still nothing ;) - wrestlingnrj, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I like how the picture is of a specially customized Hamann Ferrari 599 instead of the more prominent Ferrari Red F430.
- rizzo2008, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1California, NY, etc laws are very counter-intuitive and have actually prevented the proliferation of more fuel efficient cars for many years now (diesel cars being one example).
- Logicexe, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Well not really considering you've still got 8-12 cylinders running. Of course, if they shut down most of the cylinders while coasting or idling (which is what I suspect they're going to do) that could go a very long way towards, um, sipping gasoline like a camel in the amazon.
- _skin_, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Yeah if you just throw them in a landfill. Have you ever heard of recycling batteries.
- websyndicate, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1OMG I still cant afford one!
- duggfunny, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1Touché
- Chirp08, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1most top level drag cars run on alcohol anyway, they aren't very efficient though. Alcohol is harder to burn then straight up gas, but is necessary when you get into compression ratios of 14:1 and higher. The internal combustion engine as we know it will never be "green" or "efficient", these steps are merely patches along the road to a real solution. Nobody is thinking outside of the box.
- skellener, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I'm not knocking Ferrari's at all, they are absolutely awesome. Great news about the MPG. But I'll never own one in my life time. So I say Tesla FTW!! Never needs a fill up of gas and I may actually be able to afford one, one day.
- rizzo2008, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1yeah but the batteries will wear out at 60k miles and you will be screwed
- janks444, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1yes. a lot of people have tiny penises. but i'm saying ford should have to increase their mileage, because their gas-sucking trucks are driven 1000 times more milesa year than ferraris.
- aelias, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1My head just asploded, and my respect for Ferrari just went up, if that was possible. Article missed this point entirely. Good jorb!
- Logicexe, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1You can keep your performance and improve fuel efficiency by building the car out of lighter materials and shutting off all but 4 of your cylinders when coasting or idling.
Anyone wanna bet that within 5 years new Ferraris will have an "Econ" button right next to the "Sport" button? - Tippis, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1They're more harmful during the *production* as well.
- cawpin, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1No, people buy Lamborghinis to drive at 200+mph on random highways. This one is right down the road from my house in Chandler, AZ. (suburb of Phoenix)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ftAhdcmIHn8 - BigManOnCampus, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Why would a camel be in a South American rainforest?
-
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is