Awesome and amazing MPG heck 75 or 100MPG would still be great.

This begs the question: do we have hundreds of pounds of safety systems because our cars are so heavy? or are our cars so heavy that we need hundreds of pounds of safety systems?

I think we need all the safety systems mainly because our cars are so heavy. Too many people want a 350 HP car.

On the other hand...it's a long road back. Good luck getting a 5-star safety rating int hat Opel or anything like it.

I saw a guy who got 100mpg with his mid-eighties civic, but this is really crazy. Just keep in mind that modern cars get a lot fewer mpg's in part because of added safety features.

I love the sawed off Eames school chair that they are using for a seat. Green and stylish!

Seriously, why can't I buy something like this? This thing gets 4X the mileage of my scooter, and even without the modern safety features, I'm willing to bet it's more safe than two wheels.

This isn't as impressive as it may seem. It takes very little power to keep a car going at such a low speed. At a constant speed of 30 MPH, most unmodified compact car could achieve 100 MPG easily. If you were to drive that car in real life, you would get much poorer millage due to the fact that you would actually be accelerating now and then (not to mention the increase in wind resistance if you go highway speeds).

I thought getting 48 mpg in city traffic with a regular gasoline engine was good, but this opens up a whole new dimension to efficiency.

We really can get 100mpg right now. A plug-in hybrid (diesel or gas) with a properly designed body (eg: Cd of 0.25 or less), while still maintaining all the safety features and practicality of the average car these days, is entirely possible, and at a modest cost premium.

Ya when you go 60mph approximately 70% the load is air resistance. One of the lowest air resistance cars has quit manufacturing. The Honda insight. If it were fitted with a small diesel I think it would be over 100mpg at 60mph. Now that's a real world driving that North America has rejected. Most people are into style and what's in the movies. It might turn around at $10 a gallon.

Amazing what could be done with a junker car, 35 years ago. Makes you think that the SMART car is leaving a lot of milage on the table.

Most of the recent weight gain in cars is attributable to electronics, electric motors and comfort items. And size. Cars of all classes have been getting larger and larger with each new model. Safety upgrades don't add all that much weight. Better engineering, and some limited new structure, creates most of the crash survivability. Door beams and bumpers are pretty light - a whole lot lighter than in the '50's! I bet an unreinforced VW Beetle door from '59 weighs as much or more than a new Civic's door - minus electric motors.

So: small car; nothing you don't absolutely need; weight minimized; engine minimized; low rolling resistance; maximized aerodynamics; ultra-smooth driving style.

If they didn't count the energy needed to heat/vaporize the fuel, then the overall mpg should be recalculated...

Wow, it's amazing they did that well, even at such low speeds, in a car like that!

There is a renaissance in high MPG vehicles right now - check out all the 100 MPG+ vehicles that are going to compete in the Automotive X Prize:

X Prize Cars

Aptera - 130 MPG
Fuel Vapor Tech Ale - 92 MPG
Loremo - 117 MPG
Velozzi - they claim >100 MPG
and the list goes on...

Achieving 300mpg is easy.

Achieving 3,000 mpg isn't all that hard.

It's the other constraints placed on the car that make it hard to get good mileage.

The safety features are just some of the constraints that limit mileage, but some of the other constraints are placed on them by consumers.

Honda did a lean burn fuel car before (I think 20:1 air fuel ratio) but it did so by allowing the ratio to go to normal under high power. Not doing so severely limits the lifespan of the engine.

FYI, if you do the math on diesel versus gasoline btu per gallon, a Honda Insight will get around 78mpg (versus the EPA claimed 70mpg highway) so well short of 100mpg. In reality you may do a bit better due to the engine efficiencies, but well short of 100mpg.

"This isn't as impressive as it may seem."

Are you kidding me Jeremy? Let's say you made something similar, with a top speed of 60mph, a little more weight for safety features, and it got, shucks, let's just say 1/3 the gas mileage that this car got back in 1975... That would STILL be 125 miles per gallon!! Isn't as impressive as it may seem? What's NOT impressive is that the average fuel economy of cars these days is around 25mpg. That my friends is irresponsible and repulsive.

"Common sense wins again: Make cars lighter, more aerodynamic, and use smaller engines."

Let's not forget the slower speeds. : )

I want to know the logical base behind modern cars getting lack-luster fuel performance is because they must have certain safety features. Lets break it down:
Steel safety cages/strong frames protect us and make cars heavy but F1 drivers and combat soldiers (hopefully) are protected by carbon fiber because it is both lighter and better at absorbing energy during impact.
Most consumers trended toward SUVs because automakers claimed them as safer but their height make them more likely to tip over, increases their frontal area, (leading to greater wind drag) and endangering pedestrians by knocking them under them under the vehicle.
Airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones, abs do not contribute significantly to weight when compared with the metal in a car.
I think the problem is we have a bad feedback loop of uninformed consumers and automakers wanting us to replace our cars before they are mechanical defunct.

Goes to show it could be done then , and could have been done all along. We need to start with :
1. A safe cage for the passengers.
2. Real bumpers.
3. Carbon fiber or plastic panels.
4. A small engine, preferably electric.
5. Light weight innards.
6. Aerodynamic design.
7. Narrow tires.
8. A transmission designed for mileage not high performance.

Back in the 1920's they acheived 220 MPG....of course back then they only went 30 mph. But let's look at it this way, 60% of us drive 12.5 miles daily within a city environ, at an average speed of 30 mph in stop and go traffic. Here's an idea, RIDE A BIKE. In Madison WI in the dead of winter I see people riding their bikes. In Seattle during the rain one can see 100's of people riding their bikes back and forth to work....In Portland, OR. 20% of the downtown workforce ride their bikes. Quit being a baby, go buy a bike.....last I heard one doesn't need to stop by the gas station except for air when riding a bike. Put the damn oil companies out of business, get into shape and stop whining!!

"Let's not forget the slower speeds. : ) "

Well, long ago the speed limit was 55mph, and the slogan was "55 saves lives" which was true, but it also saved gas.

Other than the rampant unpopularity of the idea, what's "wrong " with going back to that? It would still save gas and lives.

The only way that we will sell a car that gets 100mpg is if it fits what the customer wants! Customers do not want little econoboxes with plastic uncomfortable chairs!!!

As gas prices rise, the private investors will start companys to adress the problem of bad gas mileage AS SOON AS THE DEMAND IS THERE!!!

Please go back to basic econimics!!! Lets hope that eestor is on the right track with the right product to serve the customers needs.

What do you poeple think???

Safety features save lives of people in accidents, so we put them in cars. Now, these features make the fuel efficiency of the car suck, so cars pollute the planet. Global warming kills us all and now we are all dead? hmmm maybe we should rethink how "safe" these features really are?

Not all the added weight and complexity of a modern auto are safety features. A great many vehicles in America today have power windows, remote controlled power locks, power trunk release, power seats, power moon roof and high power stereos with numerous speakers scattered throughout and a power antenna. Add the extra weight of these goodies (don't forget the wiring) and maybe you opted for the DVD system for your rear seat passengers, a touch screen navigation system, following distance measuring cruise control and an automatic parking system (because you don't know how to parallel park?) and/or rear video camera so you can see what's behind you.

Maybe we expect too much from our mobile status symbols, err automobiles....

One of the biggest impediments to better fuel economy is emissions standards. Though carbon emissions have taken center stage lately, they have to compete with hydrocarbon and NOx pollution. This is critical for smog control in urban centers like Houston, LA, and Atlanta. In essence, cars have to be "de-tuned" from maximum carbon efficiency to achieve acceptable NOx emissions, which reduces mileage. (N2 and O2 will combine under the high heat and pressure inside a combustion chamber, though this is thermodynamically unfavorable under atmospheric conditions.)

"Bring Back the Electic Car"

nuff sed,
td

That car probably didn't even have a catalytic converter and produced more pollution than an excursion. My motorcycle gets 70mpg but it also produces more pollution than an SUV. MPG isn't everything.

cars these days are more efficient but require much more power because people want comfort. Air Conditioning...automatic transmissions...power steering. It all adds up to power consumption. Sure we could have a 50hp hybrid car pushing the limits of the gas mileage but people would never buy it without the commodities.

Interesting stuff but you aren't helping the cause by getting basic math wrong, even if it's merely in the name of hyperbole: "when even our modern hybrids are orders of magnitude less efficient?" One order of magnitude less efficient than 375 mpg is 37.5 mpg ... behold the power of the decimal system!

I guess my first suggestion would be that 2/3 the commenters actually need to learn the rudiments of automobiles and transport before making inane comments.

It was a stunt. Do you see any headlights? A seatbelt? It's a go kart with a fancy outside, and undrivable in any real world.

It's also obvious a lot of you don't have kids, transport cargo, or have long commutes. No, not everyone does, but cars have to be built with that in mind.

The rest of you can ride scooters or bikes. I encourage it. But one size does not fit all.

I'm betting on good electrics and LPG replacing gasoline. The technology for the former is almost there, and the latter is tried and true. People just have to be persuaded to do so.

And losing the paranoia of nuclear power wouldn't hurt, though American ignorati will be last on that boat.

I'm not surprised, I've seen ads from the 1930's of Dodges getting 30+ MPG & I have an ad from an old newspaper for a 1970 toyota & the advertised MPG was 40MPG!

http://students.sae.org/competitions/supermileage/

One thing that no one has pointed out is how incredibly dangerous those tires are. They have no tread whatsoever! Just try stopping if a kid follows his ball out into the street. Smush. I once drove a 1930 Model A. I couldn't stop in time for the intersection. Good thing no one was coming.

Everyone has also failed to point out that this car has had its headlights removed. Not too safe for driving after dark. (Oops, I see someone else did mention this.) I don't see any turn signals or brake lights either, for that matter. The car probably has no electrical system whatsoever. Good luck starting it up!

Yes, it is amazing that the car got the mileage that it did, but you have to face up to the fact that the car is a deathtrap. That's not worth it to me. I want all those safety features!

The problem with HCx and NOx in the exhaust from internal combustion engines is because they combust/burn the fuel slowly instead of detonating it.
The fuel isn't even burned completely when the exhaust valve opens. That's why there's a catalytic converter in the exhaust system.
Detonation mode would get rid of the hydrocarbons and NOx in the exhaust, without catalytic converters.
The burn mode is (only) necessary because of the crankshaft, which introduces sideways force on the piston as it is pushed downwards. The piston would tear up the cylinder walls quickly, if the detonation mode was used.
This problem was actually solved a long time ago with the Bourke/VLB engine, but for some reason or another this engine never got into production.
The patent on the Bourke/VLB engine has long since expired, so anyone is free to start production.

But, I guess none of carmakers want a car on the street with an engine that would run ten times as many miles between oil changes, require very little maintenance and last several million miles. It's simply more profitable to sell expensive spare parts, and new cars more often.

Now it just dawned on me; I've seen that Opel before:
http://www.race-cardrivers.com/Shell%20Opel.htm
It's been cleaned up very well since then.
Even if 376 mpg seems like much, it still looks like it has a wind resistance only slightly better than a brick on wheels.
I guess it really was necessary to go that slow (30 mph) to get mileage that high.

Btw; did you know that a 1908 Ford model T got 25 mpg?
What's the mileage on your 2008 car?

Let's sum it up; how to get good mileage:
1. Low wind resistance; rounded/egg shape, cover tires.
2. Low rolling resistance; big, narrow tires.
3. Efficient engine; detonation mode, Bourke/VLB engine.
4. Low weight. Carbon fiber or other lightweight material.

Let's see; 2008 car:
Drag coefficient: 0.25-0.35
Normal tires.
Engine efficiency: max. 25 %
2000 pounds or more.

Ideal car:
Drag coefficient: 0.07 (PAC-Car II shape)
Big, narrow tires.
Bourke/VLB engine efficiency: unknown, but from what I've read, still over 50 % in the worst case.
Weight would be a compromise between comfort and low weight, but 1500 pounds for a big four-seater would be easy.