August 8th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
This has to be the least appealing car in the world! It is called “The American Roadster” and is owned/designed by the Eco-fuel corporation. Deemed the “car of the future”, it
- is a 3 seater
- can accelerate from 0 to 60 MPH in about 4.9 seconds
- runs at 70 MPG gallon with a 500 mile fuel tank range
- uses compressed natural gas (CNG)
- has the lowest pollution emission of ANY other fuel available today
- can even run on hydrogen
One of the corporate officers of the company says that
it is suitable for use as a commuter vehicle,
is low cost and convenient for grocery shopping and putting the groceries in the back seat alongside the child seat for your young one,
suitable for towing behind an RV, providing real convenience at your destination while reducing fuel consumption of the RV because of its light weight and is a really great snappy roadster for you or your teenager to drive and enjoy with its low cost and appealing eye-catching design.
This really does not look anything close to an “appealing eye-catching design”. I honestly don’t think any teenager will be caught dead in this car, let alone drive it and with a suggested retail price of $19,900 it is NOTHING close to “low cost”.
The company boasts of having a $2 Million+ sales backlog, hiring Gary Bolling, a highly experience plastics production manager, hiring a complete crew of Plastics production employees and Pat Blair, NASCAR race car designer who authored the NASCAR frame designed for the American Roadster to NASCAR standards.
Good concept, dreadful design … by the sounds of it, on their website, Pat Blair is in charge of the frame, suspension, steering only and is working part time while he juggles between his Nascar responsibilities.
I am not sure what the idea behind the way the car is shaped is or why they designed it such - maybe it plays into the fuel efficient concept. It looks more like they decided to cut cost due to lack of initial capital funds by cutting back on exterior design materials - sacrificing the overall exterior look.
Did I mention, as an added bonus, buying it will give you a “special” Home Fueling Appliance so you “don’t need to go to the gas station”.
Here are the detailed specs:
The American Roadster™ has the following specifications:
Amenities:
1. Colors Red, White, Blue, Yellow, Tan, Pink, and Silver
2. Removable Hard Top
3. 3 seat Personal Vehicle
4. AM/FM CD Player
5. Air Conditioned
Engine:
1. Flat 4 Cylinder
2. 125 Horsepower
3. Horizontally opposed piston engine
4. Similar to a Subaru WRX
Statistics:
1. 0-60 in 5 Seconds
2. 120 mph Top Speed
3. 1499 Curb Weight
4. 450 Mile Range
5. 92¢ per gallon in Oregon
6. Tubular Steel Frame
Suspension:
1. Dual A arm Suspension
2. Coil Over Shocks
3. 2 rear 150 Pound Springs
4. 1 front 400 Pound Spring
Transmission:
1. Manual 5 Speed
2. OR 3 Speed Automatic
3. Transaxle
Safety:
1. Frame and Suspension designed by Designer of Mickey Thompson Race Cars
2. Designer says it is designed meet NASCAR safety and handling design requirements
3. Says it will be the safest car on the US Highways
4. Says it will handle curves better than an sports car on the road.
Some of the practical advantages to The American Roadster™ are:
1. State tax credits are available in many states – California has a $1,000 tax credit.
2. CNG is sold in most states without gas tax.
3. IRS mileage allowance is 37.5¢ and your fuel cost is between 1¢ and 2¢.
4. Insurance costs for The American Roadster™ are about ½ the cost of a full size car.
16 Responses to “Would you drive this eco-friendly car?”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Green for life said: @ 1:41 pm
August 10th, 2006
Saying it is the ugliest car in the world is a major understatement. Yeech!
Steven Parkton said: @ 11:36 pm
September 3rd, 2006
First off your writer overlooks nearly $5000 in rebates and tax breaks that brings the effective price into the $15,000 range (and that combined with the fuel savings certainly is “low cost”).
Secondly, while the car obviously won’t appeal to everybody, your writer is clearly a styling luddite for whom cars MUST be square; drive a Scion XB do they?
The Foo said: @ 1:50 pm
September 4th, 2006
Steve,
Unless the company can show me that the wheelbase is wider than a similar 4 wheel car, I will assume that the car will tip over rather than slide.
My other issue with a tubular style vehicle is the safety factor with my legs or other part of my body not getting crushed. I will feel much safer in a similar formula one or indycar type tubular frame because I know they have spend millions thinking about the safety aspects and other stuff. But for $15,000 a car I highly doubt that those aspects were thought off or invested in i.e. with the cheapness feel of design and the rest of the company.
Now, if this 3 wheeler is a tilting type vehicle, then some of my fears for stability/ safety would probably minimized.
Quote from their website:
# Designer says it is designed meet NASCAR safety and handling design requirements
# Says it will be the safest car on the US Highways
# Says it will handle curves better than an sports car on the road.
I would probably like to see test results, crash test ratings rather than a mere blank statement of hear say. The Designer would obviously say something good about the car because he is being paid to do so but he does not really project a conclusive statement does he? Unbiased test results would help tremendously.
From an unbiased point of view, the company is built on cheapness and sense of low quality, with the unprofessional looking website, some of its blurry/pixelated pictures and its spelling errors. Its webpage source even shows me that it is made with Frontpage! How are they expecting the public to take it seriously if they project this kind of image? It becomes especially important with the consumers as within an automotive vehicle, lives are at stake. I am especially surprised that a Senator is one of the directors with everything being so cheaply done. It just makes me wonder what other areas (in terms of manufacturing, quality etc) they decided to \\\”cut cost\\\” in if they can\\\’t even be professonal enough to hire a decent web site designer, professional photographer and proof reader.
One can\’t honestly tell me that the vehicle does not look like a $300-500 electric battery powered car from Walmart. It seems that this company has spent all their money on development of the vehicle that they have little left for its marketing efforts. I am sorry, but the extra CD players and other gadgets won\\\’t help in making it look more expensive - more has to be done.
With this finicky world of consumerism - image, aesthetics sells and should be placed within the same realm as functionality. For a company to sell a cheap car, they don\\\’t necessarily need to make the end product look cheap as well. Companies like Dodge have succeeded in selling their Hemi engines even at the expense of it being a \”gas drinker\” and Starbucks has persuaded us to buy $5 coffee… why? because of good marketing and image of quality/ style. I would also state Saturn cars - cheap car, expensive look.
Now I do not know whether you are somehow related to this company or you have investments in this company but by your defensive emails, tone of comments and negative statements about my education/background (which I did not appreciate) - you seem to have a very (evangelistic) view of 3 wheelers and this company. If I did offend you, I do apologize but was merely making the observations from a consumer/outsiders point of view.
As with my reply to you, I have nothing against the concept but will stick by my comment that the design is horrible and highly doubt the other functionality aspects too (with the cost they are selling it at).
I have also nothing against the 3 wheelers as I have seen many other nicer looking stylish ones as well. Especially within the automotive world, the window for opportunity is very small, and if this company were to succeed, it has to step up (and spice up) its marketability and marketing strategy. In this world, you do not just succeed on a good product … there is more that comes with it too. It\’s sad but a reality.
If the company is already successful with their current strategy - good for them. However, I highly doubt that is the case and that this company will last. I will be interested to see whether this company is around in 3-5 years.
Greg said: @ 4:02 pm
September 4th, 2006
So, I saw this car in person at the Oregon state fair.
I must say that the car looks much better in person than in the company’s very poor website.
It is actually a very short car, and all the pictures are oddly from the angle of a very short person.
As for cheapness of build, the quality did look better in person (it was moderately lit at night) with decent looking welds & a good quality interior. It certainly is a much simpler car than that from any major manufacturer, it has the feel of a well build kit car.
I would be interested in this car for two reasons -
1 - I tend towards eco-geekiness and would like the odd looks of the car to attract attention to alternatives
2 - I like the simplicity of design. I don’t need most of the complexity on modern cars.
However, I wouldn’t buy this car for many more reasons. The biggest one is that all of their numbers, 70 mpg, 0-60 in 5 secs, etc are all computer generated. That’s right, they claim they’ll begin production in Oct 2006, and they haven’t gotten any real on the road data.
Next, I wouldn’t trust any of their information w/o a review from an independent third party, it feels too much like a low production value scam.
Lastly, they don’t tell you that they are using newly manufactured ’70’s design VW Bug engines. While I appreciate the simplicity & being able to work on a car myself, I just don’t trust all the engine components that aren’t up to modern manufacturing & reliability standards.
The Foo said: @ 1:06 am
September 5th, 2006
Greg: interesting view point. I kind of suspected it would be computer generated as the “facts” in the website were very inconclusive. With statements like “The designer says it would be…” instead of “The car will perform at…”
Like you mentioned, I would also like to see an independent 3rd party evaluation to support all their “claims”. I didn’t know about the 70s VW engines, where did you find that out from?
Greg said: @ 2:00 am
September 5th, 2006
When I saw the car at the state fair, they had the rear hatch open, allowing you to see the engine & the CNG tank. Id never heard of the car before then and the first thing I noticed was the air cooled flat four engine with electrical components that could have come straight off my last ‘71 VW bug.
This makes plenty of sense. If you were going to design a rear engine, rear wheel drive car as cheaply as possible, what would you use? Who else has made an inexpensive rear engine/drive combo in the last 30 years?
Use an old VW engine & the design is done for you. Cheap parts with a vibrant custom market? Done. Drivetrain? Done. All they need to do is focus on the CNG conversion part.
Angela D. said: @ 1:50 pm
September 5th, 2006
I’d totally never drive this thing. It reminds me of the Sparrow, I saw one here on my way to work. I’ll keep driving my 06 VW TDI, averaging 39 mpg with the AC on full blast. I have hauled 4 adults–3 male, all around 6′0 and me (slightly smaller at 5′3) and lots of luggage on trips and all I can say is LOBBIEST FOR ALTERNATIVE STUFF, QUIT MESSING WITH MY DIESEL!!! It requires much less refining, better mpg, and when your flimsy alternative engines die at 180,000 miles, my diesel engine will go for 400 or 500,000.
Scott Johnson said: @ 8:51 pm
September 5th, 2006
I think this Steven Parkton guy has a vested interest in this company. Looks like he had a bad investment to me and he is trying to justify it. This company does look more like a garage experiment trying to make it big than a real company. Greg may have nailed it on the head calling it a “low production value scam”.
Brent McCulloch said: @ 11:04 pm
September 6th, 2006
Well this is an interesting dialog on the American Roadster by EcoFueler. First of all to let you know I am associated with the company but am only speaking for myself and my comments should not be construed as comments from the company. First of all for you Foo to start a blog about a product based on YOUR Perception is to say the least underhanded and dispecable. If you are not thouroughly educated on a product or do not know first hand about a product then you should keep your comments to your self as it could lead bigger problems the word slander rings a bell. Any way to answer some of your concerns. This is the Road that was followed to get to The American Roadster™.
John S. Green, chief designer of the American Roadster™, is a man of numerous talents. He is trained in Physics and Engineering, but is also a long-standing successful real estate developer and promoter. He has been active in his local community politics, and over the years has successfully developed and patented a variety of ideas and turned them into successful business ventures.
Eco-Fueler is the end of an alternative fuel road that Mr. Green has followed since early 1973 when he sold conversion that allowed gasoline powered vehicles to be converted to clean burning Compressed Natural Gas. He was extremely successful at his first attempt, selling over $750,000 (1973 Dollars) in conversions in one 3 session seminar presentations. Unfortunately, within months the compressors used to compress the natural gas began to fail and on his own he offered to and did refund 3/4 of the money he received in this sales campaign.
About 9 years ago Mr. Green again became interested in what progress had been made in compressor technology. He learned that absolutely no advances had been made. At that point, he began the long road to our Roadster. He had ideas, but did not want to spend a lot of time experimenting with them by going to machine shops and having them produce all of the ideas that might not work. So, he went to a machine shop and worked with the owner and learned the trade, bought computers, lathes and related equipment, and began experimenting in earnest. He added others and developed a team of engineers that worked with him for a period of time.
Then engineers left, and Mr. Green proceeded on his own to complete and patent the ideas and know-how that became known as a three stage hydraulic compressor. A \”Method\” Patent was issued in 1996, and you can view that document on the History of Development page.
This brought him right back to where he started in 1973. However, in the meantime regulations on auto conversions had become so convoluted that the only way natural gas could be used as fuel would be to create a \”car\” that ran on compressed natural gas. Since it is broadly stated that to get a \”car\” qualified to operate in the United States it takes about $3 Billion Dollars in development and testing before approval. EXCEPT. Harley-Davidson Motorcycles had carved an exception for themselves and their motorcycles that exempted them from all safety and emissions testing. The Roadster concept was born, and here we are with a \”Vehicle\” that is classified as a \”Motorcycle\” because it is light weight and has no more than 3 wheels. It is now practical to accomplish a Dream: Create a company that is \”Made in the United States of America\”, that produces and \”vehicle\” unfettered by regulation, and that runs on fuel that is produced in the United States of America.
Compressed Natural Gas is a natural byproduct of drilling for oil, and is normally just burned off. There is abundant natural gas available in the United States that is produced in the United States.
As far as your concerns about the vehicle tipping over it has a 72 inch rear wheel base and from front to rear is nearly 10 feet so stability is not a problem. As your speed increases the wind will push down on the flairs and press the body closer to the road thus creating better traction, know of any other car that will do that? Similiar to a race car with the wind foil on the rear. In the case of a head on collision most vehicles will not fare well but with the Roadster if it hits at an angle it will deflect better versus taking major damage. Air bags are not in the vehicle but could be an option in the future. Basically what we are doing if offering people an option to drive for less. If the like it fine if not continue to pay $3 or more per gallon of fuel and its only going higher. You can drive 15K miles for less thatn $500 vs $3500 or more in your current car. The following site will show you what i mean http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/savemoney.shtml
If you have any further comments and i am sure you will that is your choice after all this is America and freedom of choice is yours. If you want to drive one then that is your choice if you want to bad mouth it then that is also your choice but just be careful of your choices!! You can click on my name and a different web site about the vehicle will come up with more information for your education. Again I want to remind you that these are my comments and not representative of the company. Thanks
Greg said: @ 11:49 pm
September 6th, 2006
Wow Brent!
While I understand that you don’t represent the company, you might want to brush up on your PR skills :)
I find it extremely informative that you don’t mention my statement that the Roadster uses a VW engine. Again, a slick PR person would try to use all sorts of FUD, and you just ignore it.
You might want to read up about the availability of natural gas. The US keeps inporting more & more each year. Some folks think there might be a crisis coming up - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....gas_crisis
Personally, I am amazed that a vehicle that is unfettered by safety regulations would claim to be “the safest car on the US Highways”. That’s straight from your website.
Really, I’d like to pulling for your company. You’re local to me, you’re coming up with an alternative energy vehicle and clearly thinking outside the box. However, you also set off every light and buzzer in my “scam-dar” early warning system.
Once you produce a car that meets your claims and let people test drive it, who knows…maybe I’ll buy one.
David Josephs said: @ 11:54 pm
September 6th, 2006
I guess I might drive something like this if I could fill up from my home natural gas lines for 92 cents per gallon. Guess that might save me a couple grand a year.
Angela D. said: @ 12:43 am
September 7th, 2006
Again, if we reverse the wheel assembly on this puppy, you get a non-electric Sparrow.
http://www.hightechscience.org/sparrow.htm
Out here in Carolina, we say things like “y’aint gon’ git me in dat dere thing, I dunwanna die”. It’s southern for “I don’t want to die in that car, no matter how purportedly safe it is.”
I agree with Greg. I’m alarmed by the safety,the idea of using natural gas (and the feasability). Trust me, I am all about trying to find ways to use water or trash for fuel..That’s truly alternative you know, use excess consumption for practical purposes!
The Foo said: @ 1:12 am
September 7th, 2006
Mr. McCulloch,
My detailed specification on the vehicle (that I listed on the post) are facts. I am however, entitled to my questions, opinion and perception on the car around those facts where I see it as no means \”slander\”. I appreciate the history breakdown but like I have said before, I am not questioning the concept of a 450 mile per gallon car. I am stating my opinion on how the perception that I get from your company, how it looks like to me and questioning whether it would be safe enough or tip as there really aren\’t any information on that part - hence my open ended statement on that part (in my opening response to Mr. Steve Parkton).
Yes I appreciate your breakdown and further specs on the vehicle and you have answered me - thank you for that. I would also like to see, in addition to your claims on safety, some crash test ratings from a third party with unbiased results i.e. like it is normally done with other commercial cars and comparisons to them. I think we as consumers have the right to expect things like that before we buy a vehicle. That way, consumers and potential buyers, are appeased. I think that if I am asking those sort of questions, then there are others that will too!
I would also be curious on whether you have responses on some statements from an earlier commenter i.e. 1) that all numbers are simulated and have not been tested in reality and you don\’t have any actual road data. 2) that a VW engine is used.
Style wise, the body does look cheap (especially when compared to the more futuristic looking 3 or 4 wheel commercial/ concept vehicles on the market). I am not just saying that to create controversy - I am saying that from a consumer\’s point of view. Perception and projecting the right image I believe is an important thing in the world of consumerism and you guys should take it as \”constructive criticism\”. Like I have said before, consumers tend to be very superficial and have very short attention spans, so \”first impressions lasts\” - to put something out to \”grab\” their attention, you would have to produce a very appealing looking product not just concentrating on functionality. If that was the way it was designed to accommodate/compensate for the rest of the concept, then so be it. But it still doesn\’t take away the non-aesthetic style and look. With the general market being crazed with safety and the common car (regardless of size) has a least 2 frontal airbags, isn\’t it a good idea to include that as a standard rather than offer it later?
Website wise, the unprofessional website (with spelling mistakes) I was referring to is http://www.eco-fueler.com , the website address that you gave me is one looks distinctly different (i.e. http://www.eco-fueler.net/bm1011 . I must admit that the one you gave me is of a much better quality and nicer looking than the one above - so I will direct my opinion of the non-aesthetic website to http://www.eco-fueler.com . If you have a business website that has spelling mistakes and has a low quality look - it just does not project a very good image or credibility to me. If you guys were to own two domain names, eco-fueler.com and eco-fueler.net, then it should generally point to the same looking website - not one that looks nice and one that does not. Unless of-course, you do not own the eco-fueler.com domain name.
I would like to end this by restating that this blog post is based on my unbiased point of view/ perception where all actual specifications to the car are factual (based on your website) - and I am entitled to do that. I do not see where stating opinions like I have is \”underhanded and despicable\” in nature. If people choose to read it, believe it, and make their own judgments - then let it be as it is beyond my power. I find it very hard to believe that you guys are really concerned at one person\’s point of view and a post on a relatively insignificant blog like mine.
Greg said: @ 1:36 am
September 7th, 2006
The answers to Foo\’s two questions are found on one page of the \”new\” website - http://www.eco-fueler.net/intro.php?id=bm1011
1) that all numbers are simulated and have not been tested in reality and you don’t have any actual road data.
We find this right at the bottom of the page - * \”Estimates and projections are based upon a computer simulation of the operational characteristics of our Roadster. Actual range and mileage may be greater or lesser when road testing is performed.\”
2) that a VW engine is used.
\”Engine : The Roadster™ is currently being configured to accept an air-cooled VW engine.\”
Also, the registrant of eco-fueler.com is the same as eco-fueler.net, though the \”whois\” provides different administrative & technical contacts.
Looks like the more professional looking .net domain is much more interested in actually selling to sales reps & dealers than to customers.
All they\’ve every produced is one prototype that hasn\’t been road tested and two shells, one yellow, one black - http://www.eco-fueler.com/CurrentNews.htm
I say it is time to move along. Nothing to see here.
Brent McCulloch said: @ 8:47 am
September 7th, 2006
Mr. Foo,
I apologize if I sounded harsh but I was just trying to make a point. First of all to answer Greg’s statement about my PR capabilities I am not the PR person for the company but this is a forum so I just let er go. At least I spelled all my words correctly lol. About the engine, I am not ignoring your statement as I do not have all the information on it so there fore I would or could be making untrue statements thus miss-leading those who read this forum. What we are shooting for is a horizontally opposed 4 cylinder engine air cooled producing 125 HP. The block will be similar to the basic VW block and we are looking at some other blocks also. Last I heard is that we might be going with the Subaru company but that is not for sure I will post when I know for sure. We did have public open house in Mid July two weekends in a row and people were able to test drive them. All were pleased with the handling of the vehicle even though it did not have the final engine in it there were no negative comments from what I gather. As far as availability of Natural Gas, the article I read stated we have enough to last us until 2085 which is long past the current use of oil and probably past our time also but enough to produce this vehicle which by the way we are also looking into possibly making this a dual fuel vehicle so with methane, hydrogen and other forms of energy this should not be an issue. As far as safety look at it this way it is safer than a motor cycle!! We have not conducted any crash tests on it and by law are not required to using the same principle as motor cycle manufactures. Basically it comes down to having a mode of transportation that will get you from point A to point B and all other stops in between and not having to pay an arm and a leg for fuel plus you have the option of doing it in all types of weather staying dry or open air its up to you. If you are concerned about safety and do not believe this vehicle will protect you that is your opinion but it does have all steel tubular frame along the same style as Indy race cars and a heavy gauge aluminum box around the passenger compartment, 3 layers of fiberglass. So that is fairly sturdy and good enough for me, heck you can get injured walking up a set of stairs when it’s your time it’s your time! I do not know at this time if any crash tests will be done but when and if they are I will let you all know. Basically it all comes down to either you want one or you do not the public will decide and I for one have no problems with my teenage boys driving one. If you teach them how to drive defensively then no matter how many safety features you have built in they still could be injured. Air bags are very expensive but we are looking into putting them in. The current testing we have done is computer generated but did you also know that all testing done on airplanes that you currently fly in commercially are also computer generated?? The flights that are done are to just verify those results and we use the same type of program, its less expensive and very accurate! If you are a slave to fashion and need to drive around in a BMW or Mercedes then this is not for you so if it looks ugly to you that is your perception and that is fine. I was at the LA car show in Jan of this year and we had the prototype there. The majority of people who seen it liked it and then of course there were some who said they did not and that’s OK. CNG is safe it is compressed into a tank and the tank we use exceeds the safety rules for tanks that scuba divers use. Basically you would have to drive over this tank with a real Army tank to crack it and if you have gotten to that point you are in the wrong place at the wrong time! And Greg we have more than the three you stated we have. We actually have three being driven at the factory now and bodies are being produced every day as are frames and engines. I will keep you all up to date on the progress and if you want it quicker go to my site and register your name to keep you posted at www.eco-fueler.net/bm1011 Thanks
doe acres said: @ 4:33 pm
December 19th, 2006
i think it looks trick.
i would drive one