GenVibe - Community for Pontiac Vibe Enthusiasts

The MDI OneCATs “Eco”OneCAT will be manufactured into two models: A basic and cheaper version: 3 seats, no back seats, no hard top. A more complete version: 6 seats, with a hard top, windows, etc... Technical Specs:For anybody who cares to do the math,that's approximately 1254 mpg (U.S.) using bi-fuel (a hybrid gas-air engine) @ around 70mphair only cars built on this same technology are already being sold in Europe, with new countries signing on.Some bigger cities are using them as taxis...And the miniCAT...Both feature:Maximum speed: 110 kmh Mileage: 200 - 300 km Maximum load: 270 Kg Recharging time: 4 hours (household current) Recarga: 3 minutes (Air station) And, what may be my personal fave, the prototype city-CAT...Prices starting at under 15k (Euros, I guess)

Why in gods name would you want to drive that? (removed)...

Quote, originally posted by tangerine »Why in gods name would you want to drive that? (removed)...I think this sums it up:Quote, originally posted by TJinPgh »that's approximately 1254 mpg (U.S.) using bi-fuel (a hybrid gas-air engine) @ around 70mphAssuming it's safe enough to use as a commuter vehicle...

Quote, originally posted by TJinPgh »that's approximately 1254 mpg (U.S.) using bi-fuel (a hybrid gas-air engine) @ around 70mph can you imagine how unsafe those are at 70. LOL those are as bad as those Daewoos GM wants to sell.

Quote, originally posted by TJinPgh »TAnd, what may be my personal fave, the prototype city-CAT...that one is backwards, 90/110 m/h is 56/69 mph. There are a lot of people here who wouldn't want to be limited to those speeds

Attached files

Quote, originally posted by scherry2 » can you imagine how unsafe those are at 70. LOL those are as bad as those Daewoos GM wants to sell. Quote, originally posted by jwalcik »I think this sums it up:Assuming it's safe enough to use as a commuter vehicle...The aesthetics of the car are pretty much irrelavent. I've seen some pretty ugly cars on the American roads. With all due respect to those who own and/or make them, you couldn't get me to own an Aztek or a xB with a blindfold and a shotgun.It's the overall design concept and technology I was considering. Our impression of "safety" is, quite frankly, overblown and misguided.The Smart Cars are viewed as unsafe by the general populous. Yet, they beat a full size Mercedes in a collision tests. And that was before we "improved" it to American standards that cost us over 10 mpg.It's all in how the frame is designed.The mini-cat, ugly as it may be, has airbags and ABS. More than likely, they're as safe, if not safer, than the typical economy car on the road today. The frame design isn't much different on that particular model than the Smart Cars.This is, like it or not, where the rest of the world is heading.

I'd buy on those ugly things. I drive 100 miles a day on my commute to work. Think of the money I'd save on gas.

Quote, originally posted by TJinPgh »The aesthetics of the car are pretty much irrelavent. I've seen some pretty ugly cars on the American roads. With all due respect to those who own and/or make them, you couldn't get me to own an Aztek or a xB with a blindfold and a shotgun.It's the overall design concept and technology I was considering. Our impression of "safety" is, quite frankly, overblown and misguided.The Smart Cars are viewed as unsafe by the general populous. Yet, they beat a full size Mercedes in a collision tests. And that was before we "improved" it to American standards that cost us over 10 mpg.It's all in how the frame is designed.The mini-cat, ugly as it may be, has airbags and ABS. More than likely, they're as safe, if not safer, than the typical economy car on the road today. The frame design isn't much different on that particular model than the Smart Cars.This is, like it or not, where the rest of the world is heading. I agree, plenty of ugly cars make it onto the American roads. My statement about safety wasn't based on the appearance of any of the models, it was based on ignorance of the manufacturer and of the model. Are there any published safety test results for any of the models in production?

i just threw up in my mouth a lil bit

Quote, originally posted by K-NINE »I'd buy on those ugly things. I drive 100 miles a day on my commute to work. Think of the money I'd save on gas. Assuming you mean 50 miles each way, you could opt for the "mono-fuel" models (air only). Supposedly they get about 68 miles on a fill up. So, if you can park somewhere near an outlet at work (and are there for at least 3-4 hours) you can recharge it while you work and have a full tank of air to get home with (all on the boss's dime, hehe).Heck, that could be a new employee perk. Big companies could put in their own air stations (which are really nothing more than high powered air compressors and storage tanks). Smaller ones could simply wire their parking lots with outlets. If an employee lives within 30 miles of work and used the car for nothing other than work, they could travel too and from work every day for free.Otherwise, the bi-fuel models get almost 500 miles on 1.5L of gasoline. Even if gas were to hit $4/gal you'd still only be spending about $1.60 to fill it up. Not sure if the bi-fuel models still need to be refilled with air or if they fill themselves through the use of gasoline. I suspect it would have to be the latter.Quote, originally posted by jwalcik »My statement about safety wasn't based on the appearance of any of the models, it was based on ignorance of the manufacturer and of the model. Are there any published safety test results for any of the models in production?No specific test results that I've seen yet. The info on the websites I've seen all seems to be a bit outdated (around 2005). But, new countries ARE still signing on to these (Mexico, fo example) so they must still be producing them.The only thing they've said is that they all use a tubular frame construction and are designed to meet all European test requirements. They admit in their faq that they'd need to be adapted to meet American standards, but suggest that could easily be accomplished.Our safety standard are easily among the most stict in the world (and, among the most riddiculous. PA can fail a car's safety inspection if there's a tear in the seat). I suspect the reasons behind that are multiple. More drivers. More money. And millions of people on the roads who really shouldn't be.Quote, originally posted by MRCN RCE »i just threw up in my mouth a lil bitYou could have simply said you don't like it.They're not THAT bad.The 3 & 6 seat versions of the oneCAT models (the 2nd and 3rd pics) aren't that bad looking at all.The taxi/family version currently in use in France is no worse than a LOT of mini-vans out on the market today. I could see soccer-moms going for those.The miniCAT? Yup, it's kinda ugly. But, like I said, not really any worse than the Smart Car. And, if those weren't so expensive, people would be buying every one of them they could make.

Quote, originally posted by TJinPgh »You could have simply said you don't like it.it's the intrawebs. such comments are to be expected. I thought it was funny So one model runs on compressed air, and other(s) run on either compressed air or electric, or do some use petrol? are these things real, or just artist's renderings?Quote, originally posted by TJinPgh »Otherwise, the bi-fuel models get almost 500 miles on 1.5L of gasoline. I find it really hard to believe that there is enough energy in 1.5 litres of petrol to move a car with passengers 500 miles.

If I lived in town or something a little more, I would concider it, for that kinda mileage, but since I have about 10 miles on the highway... I don't know. I would want to test drive to make sure you could still pull out in traffic ok, and get it up to ~60 without a problem....I guess it just all depends. over all though, it would NEVER be my normal car, no matter how expensive gas was, it would just be my commuter car kinda thing.It is ugly... lol, but I drove some pretty bad looking cars in my day.... I.E. The Dodge Omni

I can think of one HUGE reason not to drive one of these:the distracted HUMMER driver talking on her cellphone while she blows through a stop sign...

Quote, originally posted by joatmon »So one model runs on compressed air, and other(s) run on either compressed air or electric, or do some use petrol?Some models run strictly on compressed air. Those get about 68 miles (110 km) on a full tank of compressed air (actually, the car has 3 tanks, but anyway). They refer to these as "mono-fuel" models. They can be refilled at an air station in 2-3 minutes. Or, you can plug a built in compresser into an electrical outlet and refill it in 3-4 hours.They are currently working on a hybrid engine ("bi-fuel") that, as near as I can tell, still runs on compessed air, but uses fuel to run a compressor to refill the tanks on the fly, so you can get 800 km (about 498 miles) on 1.5 L of gasoline. I'm not entirely certain how these engines work, I guess they're still in the prototype stage.Quote »are these things real, or just artist's renderings?From what I understand, there are a few models actually in production in France. The Taxi model...... is where most of their focus seems to be at the moment. The miniCAT, I think, is pretty much a lock to be produced in a couple of countries this year. The oneCAT models (the artist renditions above) are hopeful within the next year or two, I guess.If you want to see these being driven, there was a show in England (?) that did a feature on them in 2005. The video is available on youtube...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4

Quote, originally posted by TJinPgh »You could have simply said you don't like it.They're not THAT bad. lol, actually they really are aweful looking. If gas prices get to the point where one would have to drive something like that...I'm driving this bad boy.

im will be right behind tanderine on a bar stool racer. honestly i live and breath cars, and i will not drive something that hideous. i would rather eat cat poop with a knitting needle.... if gas really gets that bad, i will its bicycle time for me.