A new tiny car designed by Gordon Murray, the man behind the 240-mph McClaren F1 supercar may top out at one third the speed (80 mph), but it can ride two to a lane, suggesting a new way to reduce congestion on city streets.
The T.25, revealed today, runs on regular gasoline and will cost about $9,000, CNN-UK reports. Its fuel efficiency is about 74 miles per gallon, partly because it's a lightweight 1,200 pounds.
It has an electric cousin called the T.27, which will reach about 80-100 miles per gallon and cost $18,000.
Like the iconic F1 racer, the T.25 has a central driving position, allowing motorists to feel like they're in a miniaturized Gran Prix.
Murray's design team had been secretive about the T.25's details until Monday, when the car made its first public appearance. It showed up at the Smith School's World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment in Oxford.
It's smaller than the Smart car, at less than 8 feet long and about 4 feet wide. That narrow size would make it possible for two cars to ride in a UK highway lane, and for three cars to fit in a typical parallel parking space, Murray's Web site says.
The car's manufacturing process is also unique -- Murray claims his "iStream" process will revolutionize the assembly line. It allows all major components to be fitted directly on to the chassis prior to the body panels, which are pre-painted and recyclable.
The car has a modular interior that allows for six different configurations, which can be easily changed to fit passengers or cargo. Murray's team is planning T.25 versions of a van, pickup truck, taxi, police car, convertible and even a minivan, according to Green Car Reports.
Where is a full electric version?? Gas or Hybrids are so 'old fashioned'. What about a fuel cell version?
Can you say death-trap? I dont know about anyone else but I didnt spend all that time working and going to school just so I could one day afford to drive a roller-skate. Give me a 1964 T-Bird with a big block and a lot of horses. If you are worried about the environment? Dont, anyone who claims to be into science should know that just because it is politically correct to be "eco-crazy" doesnt mean that there is anything scientifically viable in manmade global warming. Volcanoes put out more carbon than we could ever hope to emit. Besides if we were nearly as efficient at warming a planet as we are told we are by the Left, then we would have been terraforming Mars years ago. Unfortunately the kind of heat needed to change an entire planets relative temp is beyond what humanity and its level of tech can manage. Buy a car you like, dont waste, and stop worrying about the environment because some liberal news caster wants tells the world is ending. We have enough problems to worry about without make up new ones.
Friedguy.... this car is probably not that safe. In that regard, you are correct. But this is Popsci... not Foxnews. Many readers here are intelligent and have an actual understanding of anthropegenic climate change. Soooo... you should probably actually research that volcano statement you made, and will probably continue to make, before you say it again. And no... research =/= listening to Rush and searching "global warming hoax" on youtube.
Also.. the logistics of terraforming a planet in our solar system goes well behind man's ability to warm it up.
Futhermore... that "liberal" news caster you mentioned? I think you meant to say the vast majority of climate scientists.
Although your arguements are stupid and filled with logical fallacies friedguy I wouldnt buy this car. It looks quite stupid.
Hey fried guy.....please get a clue.
and Qumulus.....thanks for saying it much more intelligently than I could have.
Yes, it does look stupid, but if it can do well at the crash tests, isn't terribly expensive on upkeep, and be configured to hold two people (as the article states), then I'll buy one.
Looking stupid is less important to me as having something that can get me to work and back, and this little guy would do that just fine.
Im calling Poe's Law on this guy !
What a waste, we can't get the 55mpg diesel scirocco in the US. Who would want to drive around in this death trap?
fried guy is right if you knew anything last year the government scientists said that the earths temp. had been below average the last 12 years
Qumulus just to you know al gore created global warming
Volcanoes actually cool down earths temperature.
Volcano eruption that took place in Iceland cooled down earhts temperature by half a degree
You need to wake up. China is building 20% more cars every year than they had the year before. India just introduced the Nano and, at $2500, they're going to be selling a LOT of them. I don't care what you think of the environment. Anyone with half a brain can see that the price of gas will be over $5 a gallon in a very short time. So buy your '64 T-Bird... and have fun trying to sell it when gas is $6 a gallon... Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
If I can add a minor point to the discussion:
I'm not too sure about that cockpit-style door that swings completely upwards and forwards. Looks cool as all heck and makes it easier for the passengers to get on and off, but I'm just trying to imagine opening that thing up in the middle of a tropical monsoon downpour, where you can get several inches of rain in an hour. Where I live, just opening a regular car door a crack during one of these rainstorms gets that whole side of the car drenched.
I'm also wondering how safe are those doors if the car should turn turtle.
That being said, it's a neat little car, I wouldn't mind driving one (as long as it wasn't raining too hard).
I'm sick of hearing death trap. Do any of you morons know how much a motorcycle weighs. At least this car can protect you a little better and it gets better gas mileage than most motorcycles and you can drive it in the rain without getting wet and it costs less. get a clue
For this kind of vehicle to take off in the US market, all the other cars will need to downsize as well, otherwise people won't feel too secure on the roads as the comments above suggest. From a physical standpoint, the car doesn't seem quite safe when you think about how little it weighs and how much momentum could damage such a car. Until people abandon their larger vehicles, I don't think minimobiles will take off anytime soon.
yep, safer than a motorcycle.
I agree that purely by size and form this car is safer than a motorcycle, but it's not really a fair comparison. The majority of motorcycle riders are at a much higher level of awareness than car drivers because of the inherent danger of riding an engine, while the environment of a car typically lulls you into a false sense of confidence about your safety.
I'm not so sure about the door/hood/roof opening idea, it is very cool to look at but if you have ever tried to get into a car with lambo doors it is a bit of a hassle.
The modular capabilities are neat, I just hope they don't run into the issue of 'jack of all trades master of none'.
80 mph top speed isn't bad for a car like this, but I would really like to know the 0-60 or in this case 0-40 time.
If you visit the website, the you get a glimpse of the front, which is ugly as hell... frankly a deal changer for me, but to each his own.
Overall opinion: Close but no cigar, 2nd or 3rd iteration should be pretty good though.
I'd like to know what you lot are basing the deathtrap comments on. All cars in Europe are required to go through the NCAP tests and the expectations are that this will achieve four stars - hardly a death trap and a lot higher than a 1960s T-bird would achieve. Most cars of this sort are used for city driving anyway, where speeds rarely exceed 40 mph, or as a second vehicle for commuting.
In addition, apart from fuel consumption etc the manufacturing process has been turned on its head, meaning the total footprint will be way less than a conventionally built motor.
But hey, what does Gordon Murray know eh? He's only a complete genius when it comes to car design.
I hope that these dont ever get on the interstate. You go 80 almost constantly. It might just burn right out.
I would rather be t-boned on the driver side in a car like this where a driver sits in the middle versus a SUV were I'm sitting right next to the door.
This is my next car.
That is all.
I 'd just like to see what happens on a rainy day, when you attempt to open this car's doors-ceiling... Instant bathtub.
Alright, Im no sky'in'tist, but i know a few things about the human body and physics or at least enough to know that those cars are not safe by any means.
When the smart car came out and everyone was all like, " oh, i want one, and they say they are safe, they showed video and at 70mph its frame held together."
O.k. yeah, its steel, your not, so you dead. Actually it only takes about what?, the equivalent of 70mph impact head on to explode your internal organs.
So if your in a smart car or other tiny car, and you hit a pole or other none moving object that causes your tiny car to go from 70 miles per hour to zero flat, yeah, the car will probably maintain its relative shape enough to allow the EMS and Fire department to remove your corps with ease.
Becaus your internal injuries will kill.
Now imagine that you hit a larger vehicle with more Mass and enertia for instance, your smartass car hits a mustang or some 4 door sedan, head on. If your doing 35 an dthey are doing 35 and you hit head on, not only would your body come to a complete stop at 35mph, but would most likely be slammed back in the opposite direction on top of that. The G-forces would explode your intestins.
So this whole theory of how safe a car is, is all subjective to its mass and inertia to whatever your hitting. Yeah the airbags and other safetey features limit other injuries, but its the inertial dampening thats important
Now imagine if its a light truck or hummer or jeep, even a UPS truck.
Have you ever seen an accident where a truck hits a tiny car, the car an dits passengers are all messed up, the truck has little damage compared to it. Thats what I mean.
Unless everyone is driving cars with similar mass, your bassically going to end up with major issues if you get in any type of accident thats with a larger vehicle.
If a dedicated lane could be set up for vehicles like this, it could stand a chance of success. I wouldn't want to drive it around a fleet of full-sized trucks/SUV's, however.
This just in! McLaren just sold it's first official contract for a dozen of these cars. Bonzo the head clown at Barnum and Bailey's Three Ring Circus is excited for the state of the art car and he and his 12 closest friends are raving about comfort of the seats and ceiling.
"It has an electric cousin called the T.27, which will reach about 80-100 miles per gallon and cost $18,000" how does an electric car go 80-100 miles on a gallon of gasoline?
I have to say its still safer than a motorcycle, and would provide far greater utility.
Anyone heard of german VW "1 liter car" wich performs about 250 mpg... 5 years ago ?
I so want to see all metro police forces in these! It is ridiculous and wastefull for them to be driving a full size SUV in a major city without partner.
They should all be in these things!
$9,000? That beats $60,000 on a ford excursion.
I mean why on earth would you put someone thats in their cars most of the day in a giant gas guzzler?
This is a GREAT idea. If they are a little shy of the idea, just tell them its a mini McLarren F1, put 200+ strobe lights on it, paint it black with chrome stickers and name it "the eliminator".
These cars are becoming not much more than a luxury golf cart. Soon we will be able to purchase electric cars or "carts" for running around town. Just need them to do 0-60mph in under 10 seconds.