235mpg Renault.... I've seen worse......

https://autos.yahoo.com/news/renault-eolab-hatchback-gets-235-mpg-looks-good-163049165.html

Looks cool but those flying buttresses would make for poor visibility.

I misread the thread title and thought this was about a 235 mph renault. When I saw the pic, I was a bit surprised as that thing didn't look like it would fit in at Bonneville. Lol.

bgkast wrote: Looks cool but those flying buttresses would make for poor visibility.

No worse that the bridge pillions they use for A pillars in...everything these days.

I like it.. distinctive, quirky in that distinctive French way, efficient, and with 146hp.. not exactly slow.. all that and 235mpg too.. could be cake and eat it time

They should make a fully electric one and you don't have to burn gas.

Mr_Clutch42 wrote: They should make a rotary one and you can burn way too much gas.

FTFY

mad_machine wrote: I like it.. distinctive, quirky in that distinctive French way, efficient, and with 146hp.. not exactly slow.. all that and 235mpg too.. could be cake and eat it time

that was exactly my thought......

Appleseed wrote:

bgkast wrote: Looks cool but those flying buttresses would make for poor visibility.

No worse that the bridge pillions they use for A pillars in...everything these days.

The "outer" pillars (really aerodynamic vanes) on this car could be made of clear plastic too...but manufacturers like to intentionally reduce visibility to make the car "feel safer." Kind of like the peril-sensitive sunglasses from HHGTTG I guess.

Does it get that mileage because of time spent on a flatbed looking for a Renault dealership? It is French .... So I have to ask.

That thing is remarkably good looking for a French car.

And before everybody starts posting pictures of what they mistakenly think are good looking French cars, I will acknowledge an affinity for Bugatti T35s, the R5 Turbo II and various Alpines, only because they look good in a cool badass way. But that's it.

I hate Talbot Lagos and Delahayes.

Woody wrote: I hate Talbot Lagos and Delahayes.

Are you blind, my good sir?

Also Citroen SM

And what about Bugatti? They made some of the best looking cars ever made.

And Gordini

In reply to 93EXCivic:

93EXCivic wrote:

Woody wrote: I hate Talbot Lagos and Delahayes.

Are you blind, my good sir?

They were overly styled simply for the sake of style, and without purpose. The Citroën SM is just ugly.

Mr_Clutch42 wrote: They should make a fully electric one and you don't have to burn gas.

When they make an electric car that will go from new York to California and back in the same time it takes a car that uses fossil fuels then I'll care. Until then pure electric cars are just a novelty.

Nick_Comstock wrote:

Mr_Clutch42 wrote: They should make a fully electric one and you don't have to burn gas.

When they make an electric car that will go from new York to California and back in the same time it takes a car that uses fossil fuels then I'll care. Until then pure electric cars are just a novelty.

I never understood this train of thought. How many of us would EVER need that capability? Most electric cars would work for 90% of Americans needs. I can see that some people would need a second ICE vehicle, but I wouldn't call it a "novelty" by any means.

Hey what's he's asking isn't that excessive or far off. The driver has to sleep after all

And remember a battery only has to reach 1/3 the energy density of gasoline to effectively match it, due to the amount of energy that goes out an ICE's radiator.

Cone_Junkie wrote:

Nick_Comstock wrote:

Mr_Clutch42 wrote: They should make a fully electric one and you don't have to burn gas.

When they make an electric car that will go from new York to California and back in the same time it takes a car that uses fossil fuels then I'll care. Until then pure electric cars are just a novelty.

I never understood this train of thought. How many of us would EVER need that capability? Most electric cars would work for 90% of Americans needs. I can see that some people would need a second ICE vehicle, but I wouldn't call it a "novelty" by any means.

Let me explain it a little better.

I drive on average 250-300 miles a day. It's not unheard of for me to put near 1000 miles on over a weekend. When an electric car can do that in the same time as a fossil fueled one it will have my interest. But the fact is the range is way too short and it takes way too long to recharge for me to consider it anything more than a curiosity at this point. When the technology advances to the point that one can do that, then and only then will they hold any appeal.

Now the car in question here certainly has appeal along with the Volt.

You, sir, have to acknowledge that the OEMs give just as little berkeleys about you as you give about the EV they have no plans to build for you. You are outside the ideal use case for battery electrics in general. Whether or not one exists that fits your needs is basically no reflection of the validity of EVs for the uses they are actually good at.

But, things like the Volt, and this theoretical Renault, and the actual real life VW XL1, will gradually become better and more available. It probably won't be long until some such thing is the best fit for your use out of ALL available options regardless of how they work.

I give Renault credit for putting forth this concept, but it's a teaser in a world where other very cool things actually exist and can be had. Here's hoping they bring some of this goodness to a mass produced product as soon as possible.

Nick_Comstock wrote: Let me explain it a little better. I drive on average 250-300 miles a day. It's not unheard of for me to put near 1000 miles on over a weekend.

And that's what you would call an outlier. You may as well say you drive a Semi and they can't haul 40,000 lbs.

Just because electric cars can't possibly cover the needs of 0.1% of the population doesn't make them novelties.

I meant that "to me it's a novelty". It's great that they are making huge leaps in the technology. It's just that until they have the capability to equal any gas powered car in the ability to cover large miles with minimal downtime (refueling/recharging times are similar) electric cars are as useful as a bicycle FOR ME, MYSELF, PERSONALLY.

I never said that the concept is useless. I never belittled the achievements made thus far. I love the idea of large numbers of the population using electric cars. I really would love to see a class for a small, electric powered, formula type car for SCCA solo racing. I would be all over that.

But as I said in my first post. Until they are capable of equaling a regular car they are a novelty (to me). And I still stand 100% by that.

bastomatic wrote:

Nick_Comstock wrote: Let me explain it a little better. I drive on average 250-300 miles a day. It's not unheard of for me to put near 1000 miles on over a weekend.

And that's what you would call an outlier. You may as well say you drive a Semi and they can't haul 40,000 lbs. Just because electric cars can't possibly cover the needs of 0.1% of the population doesn't make them novelties.

Why does everyone get a hardon for total EV?

Sure, his example is an outlier.

But the reality is that buyers who can depend entirely on a total electric are ALSO OUTLIERS at this point.

The technology does not meet the needs of the average driver. THAT'S WHY THIS CAR IS A HYBRID.

Hybrid technology meets the needs of a majority of drivers. EV's do not, and are therefore a novelty.

They may one day. But Renault (and others) are putting their money where the market is.

And for the record, we've got a Leaf. Almost anyone who has a Leaf also needs access to a 2nd car. Prius owners do not have that problem.

To nick - fair enough. Don't think they make any sense in your case.

Svrex - LOUD NOISES

Anyway, I think 2 things:

1) People overestimate how badly they need all the cars in their household to be able to go more than 80 miles in one trip. Most in this country, and many more overseas, would be better served by one car with distance capacity, and one with uber-economical city capability. And most households have 2 cars. Most GRMers have many more.

And 2) pure EVs are interesting because of all the excess technology they shed over the range extenders and hybrids. No engine, gas tank, motor oil, exhaust, coolant, and therefore no real maintenance. It's also nice to never ever go to a gas station.

I know in my own daily driving.. I do about 300 miles every two weeks. That is the fuel range on my Disco (300 to 320 miles) and I generally only fill it up every pay day (I get paid every other week)

Once upon a time, I did 25,000 miles a year in my own vehicle plus another 100,000 in company trucks. Back then an EV did not make sense.. today it would

Another (final) point I'll make about EVs: Range matters, but in ways I didn't expect. An EV only makes financial sense if you're able to rack up a reasonable amount of miles, because the cost of driving a gas-powered vehicle only a few hundred miles a month is not very great.

So, if you drive very few miles, you might as well have some fun and burn gas - you'll never recoup the initial cost of investment of an EV. And if you drive a ton, of course an EV doesn't suit you because of limited range. But if you're in the ~10-12k miles a year sweet spot, an EV makes a whole lotta sense.