It doesn't quite have that output, from memory it's around 70 ponies per liter, with matching torque figures (Also ECU limited to the same numbers), so it isn't a power house. But 50 Liters is ~10 Gallons (13US), A full tank in the Omega is around that. So even if it was tuned to be hitting higher figures, filling the tank would give it enough fuel to finish the trip.
Right, so well you're sat around for hours on end charging a car off mains, which is putting stress on the national grid. Someone else can just drive a car into a garage fill up the tank and drive off. Sure it burns the sweet black stuff, and yes as a race we are addicted to it, but there really isn't a better alternative.
I know that if allowed new tech would get far, as using petrol wasn't the best preformer when it started. And even upto recently cars would burn fuel to crack out 20hp. But over time it was refined to be more efficent. Which is what new tech needs, but currently the only alternatives are worse for the enviroment then the "problem".
Maybe in the last versions of S3 we might get all the cars that they considered putting in (I bet there's more than just the LX8 people just haven't found out about them) Wouldn't that be great getting all the cars that the devs considered putting in.
it was taken out just for being a single class car (like the other LXs which have been until now), and because it was a rediculous car to drive apparently, but once again that has all changed (if you remember what the FV8 drove like originally, put that on a lighter skinnier body and you have a donut making machine)
also, believe it; apparently eric made the FOX in '04 so..
If crude oil, the only source of petrol, was inexhaustable and easily mined for eternity, then petrol won't be so bad in the long run if we generatestraegies to keep exhaust emmsions in check. If we start regrowing deforested plant life, then petrol is fine as long as it's inexhaustable.
Unfortunately, the petrolhead community MUST wake up to the fact that the above ifs will never come true, especially with todays socioeconomic climate. Unless there's biopetrol or some other infinitely renewable form of petrol (like biodiesel), our petrol prices will rise beyond the range of your middle classed car enthusiast. Anyway, we are already running on borrowed time as oil stocks dwindle and oil gets more difficult and expensive to access. Sorry fellow petrolheaded LFS drivers, but simply can't bury our heads in the sand any longer. I hope none of you here are petrol sniffers...
Biodiesel just needs more biotechnological developments to succeed. Believe me, the biotech industry is no slouch when it comes to technological progress. As new biodiesel crops are discovered or created, we will have a much more susainable source of fuel. in lay man's terms, here's how it goes:
Diesel car burns diesel. With high tech and highly effective emmsions control systems, the dominant emmisions will be CO2 and H20(water). To MAKE oil for biodiesel, plants need to INGEST CO2. So overall, our carbon footprint is lower then dpetrol engines can ever hope for.
The truth is, we WILL burn through crude oil supplies faster than nature can ever cope with. Energy needs will only grow if humanity progresses economically in the future.
My real point is that until a relatively clean and efficient way to generate electricty is created (such as nuclear fusion), biodiesels and high tech diesels are our best PRACTICAL choice for now.
Biodiesel isn't a good source. To grow the plant life in sufficient quantity you need land. To make land you need to cut down trees. Cutting down trees (aka: rainforests) means less trees and planted damage (possibly).
Unless, of course, that farmers can be pursauded to stop growing so much food (we produce way too much as it is globally at the moment, but this will change as populations increase) so that current arable land can be used for the production of biofuels.
Even then, I bet the emissions of those biofuels are somewhat different to crude oil fuels, but whether they are better or worse is a mute point.
I'm just saying that if we actually engineer biological organisms such as the oil producing algea I mentioned just now, biodiesel has real potential. FYI, Malaysia is currently suffering from palm oil overproduction and poor palm oil prices. That's one already existant biodiesel source.
As for emmisions, biodiesel has a serious lack of toxic contaminents compared to mineral based fuels, e.g. sulphur. Biodiesel is still hydrocarbon in nature, so its burn characteristics are no mystery to chemists.
Besides, biodiesel has superior lubricuty to petroleum diesel. Its naturally superior detergency keeps diesels clean. In fact, you should replace your oil filter more often than usual (e.g 1000km intervals) on first use of diesel after long term use of petroleum diesel. This is due to the fact that the sludge and all the gunk generated from mineral diesel use gets cleaned off with use. Once the filters stop cloggong up, you can safely return to normal oil filter change intervals while enjoying superior engine cleanliness, both improving performance AND reducing emmsions.
I'll give it a read, but I rarely trust anything on wikipedia to use it as education. Any fool could have written it. And the writer might just ignore/not know flip sides of an argument. I know it's MEANT to be unbiased, but it's simple human nature.
Just a suggestion. I've seen more detailed and scientifically established sources, though I can't remember them (too many) and I highly recommend you find and read them. Remeber, I'm not saying biodiesel is perfect in every way. I'm just saying it has a better potential future than petrol.
It's on the website as $100K, with an $8K extra fee if you live far away from their SF, CA base (to cover the cost of sending someone out to service your car).
I'm glad you have that much confidence in the editorial policy of Popular Mechanics. Are you sure it's justified? I may be stretching a point here, but I'm just referring to the fact that all venues for the reporting of human knowledge are open to the biases Tristan listed. I work in science and have been involved for a long time in the scientific publishing process: I understood it a lot better once I realized that just because something's printed in a journal doesn't mean it's not BS.
Once a journal is published, it's there for all to see.
If somebody types rubbish into wikipedia, some comes along and corrects it.
I'd rather use the mighty wiki myself.
I know that IRL, there's no such thing as a complete lack of human bias. Well, at least the wiki article I recommended was actually quite balanced, showing both the advantages and the problems of biodiesel.
Hence my encouragemnet to seek as much info on biodiesel as possible to make well informed opinions.
Anyway guys, lets get back on topic. So do we want a high performacne EV on LFS in the near future or as an S3 level upgrade? Personally, I believe that LFS should enhance its sim status by simulating the performance of car types that actually exist.
I thought LFS was a sim, not a fantasy car island. Let's relegate LFS to irrelevance by completely ignoring modern performance automotive developments. Not to mention failing to SIMULATE real type cars.
Guy's lets open a poll and see how many of us hate the RA enough to kill it. Good bye to one of our hard-earned RL cars...
Don't get on another high-horse Jamexing, someone that disagrees with you on this forum probably as great hopes and intentions for LFS as you claim to.
There's a shed-load of cars I'd take in LFS before an electric "sports-car". Personally, I think LFS's sim-status is more dependant on simulating the types of vehicle that are most commonly raced and driven in the real-world. Ignoring these to add an electric car, driven by a minute fraction of the real world, and raced by noone, would be failing to SIMULATE the most important "real" type cars.
), biodiesels and high tech diesels are our best PRACTICAL choice for now.