Green Car Congress: MDI Shows New Compressed Air Vehicle at NYIAS; Plans Larger Vehicle for US Market in 2010

« Toyota to Build New Engine Plant for Subcompacts | Main | Mitsubishi i MiEV To Undergo US Testing This Fall »

MDI Shows New Compressed Air Vehicle at NYIAS; Plans Larger Vehicle for US Market in 2010

21 March 2008

The new MDI economy/utility car at the New York show.

MDI (Moteur Developpment International) Group, the French developer of compressed air vehicles, and Zero Pollution Motors (ZPM), MDI’s North American representative, is showcasing MDI’s newest compressed air vehicle—an economy/utility car—at this year’s New York International Auto Show (NYIAS). The vehicle made its debut at the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE (AXP) (earlier post) booth at the show. ZPM and MDI have entered a team to compete for the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE.

The new MDI economy/utility car is powered by the Compressed Air Engine (CAE) invented by Guy Negre, CEO and founder of MDI, and is one in a series of vehicles to be developed by MDI for production in various markets throughout the world. In 2007, MDI signed an agreement with Tata Motors for the application of CAE technology in India. (Earlier post.)

ZPM plans to introduce a 6-seat, 4-door family-size version of the compressed air vehicle to the US market in 2010. The ZPM model will achieve more than 100 MPGe and more than 90 mph, have zero to low C0₂ emissions and cost around $18,000.

MDI and ZPM will enter two vehicles in the Progressive Automotive X Prize competition: the US production 6-seat, 4-door family-size model will compete in the Mainstream Class; and the 2-door, 3-seat economy/utility model on display at NYIAS will compete in the Alternative Class. The economy/utility model will be produced by MDI for sale in France and elsewhere in 2009 at a price of beginning at around $5,000-$6,000 for the basic model.

The core of MDI’s work is a piston engine powered by the expansion of electronically injected compressed air. MDI has developed two versions: a single fuel engine that relies solely upon compressed air, designed for urban areas only; and a dual-fuel version that uses compressed air and a combustible fuel (petroleum-based or biofuel). When running under 35 mph, the engine runs solely on compressed air. At speeds greater than 35mph, the engine uses small amounts of fuel to heat air inside a heating chamber called the Compressed Air Multiplier (CAM) as it enters the engine.

The MDI Engines consist of an active chamber and are made up of modules of two opposing cylinders. A proprietary connection rod allows the retention of the piston at top dead center during 70° of crankshaft rotation—providing enough time to establish the required pressure in the cylinder. These modules can be coupled to make groups of 4 or 6 cylinders for a range of uses from 4 to 75 hp.

The 6-passenger car targeted for the US—formerly known as the CityCat—will use a six-cylinder version of the Compressed Air Engine that is Compressed Air Multiplier (CAM) enabled and will deliver an estimated 75 hp (56 kW). MDI projects that the vehicle will have a top speed of 96 mph, and offer fuel consumption of 106 mpg US (2.2L/100km) when driving at speeds above 35 mph. This will result in greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 40 gCO₂/km. With an 8 gallon fuel tank, the car will have a range of 848 miles, according to MDI.

A tank holds 3,200 ft³ of compressed air at 4,500 psi (310 bar). An on-board plug-in compressor generates 812 ft³ per hour.

March 21, 2008 in Compressed Air Engines | Permalink | Comments (45) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/27330240

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference MDI Shows New Compressed Air Vehicle at NYIAS; Plans Larger Vehicle for US Market in 2010:

Comments

So...below 35 mph it's an electric car which takes 4 hours to recharge...with how much all-electric (all compressed air) range?

The French version they showed on YouTube a year ago was hardly more than a kit car...very stripped down structure with no indication of safety structures.

Even in range extender mode, it still seems as though it needs the compressed air, so refill time is a concern. Are they proposing compressed air quickfill stations that would have large tanks of prepressurized air at the ready? Say, I remember seeing a kid at the gas station inflate his bicycle tires so much that they popped...oh well...they have worked hard at this, and addressed many concerns to date. I wonder what the well-to-wheels efficiency is of compressed air (storing electric power)?

Posted by: Healthy Breaze | Mar 21, 2008 1:37:25 PM

If it works, even less efficiently than todays EVs, its still a better choice in my opinion, since there's no chemical batteries needed and the tank will probably last longer than the batteries. The rest of the car I don't know.

Posted by: Viktor | Mar 21, 2008 1:49:34 PM

It seems that the transmission is a CVT.
I think the NuVinci CVT would be good for the light versions of these vehicles, as it looks that the NuVinci transmissions are efficient.

Posted by: Jorge | Mar 21, 2008 1:58:05 PM

The one thing I am concerned about is traffic safety. A pressure vessel is not something to screw around with. Sure, gas burns, batteries have caustic chemicals, hydrogen burns...

Have any of you seen a pressure vessel catastrophically fail?

That being said, if it passes NHTSA safety tests, sign me up for one of the first models...

Posted by: The Scoot | Mar 21, 2008 3:59:10 PM

Are they proposing compressed air quickfill stations that would have large tanks of prepressurized air at the ready?

Yes, I believe so.

Posted by: Paul F. Dietz | Mar 21, 2008 4:03:17 PM

So those MPGe values are not including the energy taken to compress the air? That's what I'm most interested in. There's an 8-gallon tank for hydrocarbon fuel, but how big is the air tank? 3200 ft^3 at 310 bar comes out to 77 gallons, which is big. Maybe they meant 320 ft^3 ?

320 ft^3 at that pressure seems to have about 2.5 MJ of energy. A gallon of gasoline is typically quoted as 121 or 131 MJ. Of course, considering that a gasoline engine is only running around 25% efficiency, we can say that there's effectively only 30-33 MJ per gallon of gasoline. So on one "gallon", you'd only expect to go 1/12th the distance for a similar vehicle.

Now I get to the wild inconsistency that the ZPM website says the vehicle's weight is 1874 lbs, while the MDI site says 320 kg (705 lbs). Well, anyway, a Honda Insight is around 1880 lbs and gets around 60 mpg. A similar air car might do about 4.75 miles per compressed gallon, or around 38 miles on an 8-gallon tank. I can't say what would happen when you cut the weight in half or more. It'd certainly be better. How much is hard to say.

Wired had an article about MDI in 2003 where they mentioned the only known road test of the vehicle ended at 4.5 miles.

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2003/09/60427

Posted by: mulad | Mar 21, 2008 4:05:14 PM

Er, sheesh, ~8 compressed gallons has an energy of 2.5 MJ. So, yeah, you can double the size of the tank and maybe go 10 miles, but it looks like that's about as far as this technology is going to get.

Posted by: mulad | Mar 21, 2008 4:40:36 PM

The scoot:

What would be the (security) weighted difference between (Air), (CNG) or (Hydrogen), compressed at about the same pressure level.

Compressed air seems to be as clean an energy source as one can get, next to 'clean' electricity stored in capacitors (without the chemical batteries). Wonder how noisy is the on-board air compressor.. neigbours.. or yourself if this is parked in your garage? Getting a very quick charge from a large high pressure tank nearby may be a better idea.

This technology may offer an worthwhile alternative to PHEVs. It would be interesting to see an in-depth comparision.

Tata is supposed to have a few versions on the road by 2010.

Posted by: Harvey D | Mar 21, 2008 4:54:07 PM

Have you ever used an air tool (grinder for example), they are very sensitive to pressure falls and have an extremely low efficiency when compared with electric tools.
I think that the numbers from MDI aren´t realistics.

Posted by: Mario | Mar 21, 2008 8:16:58 PM

Air tools don't use sophisticated air motors. They are designed for a world where compressed air is "free". You can't compare them to this vehicle.

Posted by: George | Mar 21, 2008 10:26:14 PM

So what's the deal here? Is this vehicle capable of 106mpg or not?

Posted by: Mick | Mar 21, 2008 10:50:05 PM

There's an 8-gallon tank for hydrocarbon fuel, but how big is the air tank? 3200 ft^3 at 310 bar comes out to 77 gallons, which is big. Maybe they meant 320 ft^3 ?

320 ft^3 at that pressure seems to have about 2.5 MJ of energy.

The Tesla Motors Roadster has a battery capacity of about 50 kWh or 180 MJ. And an electric motor is still more efficient than a pneumatic motor...

Posted by: globi | Mar 22, 2008 3:47:37 AM

This is an updated version of the steam engine, with compressed air for steam.
A nice feature in the planning stage was using the frame as a storage tank for air.

I have not seen convincing evidence of higher fuel efficiency, or sufficient range, but it could be recharged with commercially available nitrogen in a pinch. ...

... and it is mostly pollution free...

Posted by: John Taylor | Mar 22, 2008 5:04:18 AM

This will never be a success as a car. You cannot store enough energy in compressed air. They might have a chance using them for material handling. For instance in-doors and/or in places with explosion risks.

Posted by: Gerben | Mar 22, 2008 11:29:02 AM

3200 cubic feet !!!!!

That's the size of a shipping container! (10ft x 10ft x 32ft = 3200 Ft^3)

Does anyone know what they really ment?

Posted by: shane | Mar 22, 2008 6:55:03 PM

Maybe 32 ft^3? 3ft x 3ft x 3.55ft=32 ft^3. Still not sure there is anywhere on a small vehicle to locate even that. 3.2 ft^3 would be about 1.5ft x 1.5ft x 1.4ft. Of course it wouldn't necbe square - but just trying to get an idea what the real number is.

Posted by: shane | Mar 22, 2008 7:02:35 PM

I saw a story on this car and it had several compressed air tanks under the body inside the frame well protected. The story got carried away and mentioned the air powered generator and air compressor that they make. It implied that you could use compressed air to generate electricity to make compressed air on board, which implied free fuel which is non sense. I was amazed that the editor let that one pass on a supposedly scientific program.

Posted by: sjc | Mar 22, 2008 8:13:27 PM

The air tanks are carbon fiber they won't blow up like a mental tank, instead just rip or split open if there is a failure.

Posted by: what2do | Mar 22, 2008 11:58:45 PM

Earlier articles mentioned that the onboard compressor is used only when your refill at home.

Service stations would have larger compressors and storage tanks, so they can refill your car in a couple of minutes. The station pre-compresses air in its own tank, then it transfers compressed air to the tank of the vehicle.
So refill time is not really an issue after the service stations gear up which shouldn't be very costly (compressor technology is very old).

All in all this is a pretty good temporary solution until batteries reach real maturity and low cost. I hope it succeeds.

Posted by: sola | Mar 23, 2008 2:02:48 AM

shane, I think they mean 3200 cubic feet before compression... that's about 300 liters tank volume.

Posted by: françois | Mar 23, 2008 2:30:45 AM

Thanks Francois,

So, if I did the conversions right, a 300 liter tank, is 10.6 ft^3. This might be approx. 2 ft x 2 ft x 2.8ft. I can imagine such a volume fitting on that car. Still, the obvious question is what is it's "air only" range? x miles at a sustained 30 mph would be nice to know.

Posted by: shane | Mar 23, 2008 8:48:07 AM

They use a quasi isotherme expansion to get better mileage, in fact there is 3 stage of expansion with reheating (at ambient) in bewteen to improve the efficiency, in fact you kind of extract enegy from the ambant air that you have lost during the compression. In theory isotherme compression / expansion is 100% efficient but in practice you can't be perfectly isotherm. I think they are about 50% efficient in this car. The problem is that the energy stored is quite limited even using 100Gallons of compressed air at 500bars so the car is extremly lightweight, the engine is very noisy and amplified by the light sheet that forms the outershell of the car. They have been working almost 20 years on this and still no car on the road...

Posted by: Treehugger | Mar 23, 2008 4:31:55 PM

For an equivalent volume and pressure, compressed Hydrogen contains 20x the energy of compressed air. And car makers are struggling to get enough range out of Hydrogen car while still having enough internal space for passenger and luggage. So, for the Honda FCX Clarity (Hydrogen FCV) with a range of 270 miles at 60% tank-to-wheel efficiency, if compressed air is used at 70% efficiency, will have but a 14-mile range between fill-up of compressed air. Probably a lot less, since the FCX Clarity has an H2 adsorbent matrix in its H2 fuel tank in order to pack a lot more H2 molecules at 350 bars of pressure, than an air tank having the same size and pressure.

Good Luck, AirCAr, and Tata motor.
TTFN! (ta ta for now!)

Posted by: Roger Pham | Mar 23, 2008 5:06:20 PM

CNG seems to a relatively new concept in the US, whereas in India it is a well-entrenched concept. Most taxis where i live, run on CNG or LPG. The quality of air in Delhi has been considerable enhanced in the past some years by buses and auto-rickshaws turning to CNG. Electric vehicles are also being main streamed here in a big way.

Posted by: NiraliSherni | Mar 24, 2008 6:09:36 AM

I'm trying to keep an open mind on the MDI, but....

It seems to use similar tankage as with hydrogen/CNG, but a lot more of them. The video had two huge cylindrical tanks in the frame. I can't believe they aren't really expensive, because they are carbon fiber. On the other hand, they are only holding about 4000 psi instead of 10,000 psi for hydrogen. (The 10,000 psi tanks are ridiculously expensive...)

I also noticed they are also very loud when running, though maybe that could be improved over time.

4 hr recharge time is really not too bad, but faster recharge requires significant infrastructure.

I still see a plug-in hybrid concept as a better overall solution, as the gasoline option provides range, rapid refuel, and extant infrastructure.

Posted by: Jim | Mar 24, 2008 6:52:12 AM

sombody mention that they propably using CVT. I do not belive that the case. The engine (similar to steam) propably gave sufficient torque to run with out transmission and clutch

Posted by: imk | Mar 24, 2008 8:22:48 AM

For an equivalent volume and pressure, compressed Hydrogen contains 20x the energy of compressed air.

This is about right at 310 bar, but 20x is obviously not the right number for vastly lower or higher pressures.

Posted by: doggydogworld | Mar 24, 2008 11:55:01 AM

If people can make a 10,000 psi hydrogen tank, why not make use of the chemical energy as well as the kinetic energy of super compressed hydrogen as well?

compressed hydrogen -> expand(energy) -> combust(more energy)

So according to the dude who say 20x compressed air = 1x hydrogen, we will get like.... 5% more energy recovered, duh.

Posted by: rexis | Mar 24, 2008 6:14:25 PM

rexis,
It takes 9% the chemical energy of H2 to compress it to 350 bars, but you cannot recover all of this input energy, due to the friction loss and heat loss during the compression process.

5% of chemical energy is a good number for the recoverable mechanical energy inherent in compressed H2, or any gases for that matter, that is compressed to the same pressure, assuming close adherent to ideal gas law. This is assuming quasi-isothermal expansion via multi-stage reheating wherein some environmental heat is used to improve the expansion process.

If you use direct H2 injection in an H2-ICE (H2-combustion engine) at TDC similar to a Diesel cycle, the compressed energy of H2 (5%) is directly recovered as additional energy to help moving the piston downward. An Atkinson-cycle engine will be needed to incorporate this extra expansion energy.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Mar 25, 2008 9:52:06 AM

One other problem with compressed air powered vehicles is that they bleed more energy in cold weather. MDI's vehicle hopes to gain some additional energy from a pre-heating expansion vestibule between the tanks and the motor, but this assumes there is ambient energy to harness. If it's 90 degrees F outside, ok. If it's London or NYC in February, no dice.

Posted by: Healthy Breaze | Mar 25, 2008 11:32:32 AM

The air must expand by near 300x while in the engine for this to become even near efficient.
So far, I don't see this as being a reality.

Posted by: John Taylor | Mar 25, 2008 7:01:36 PM

John, I believe they use multiple stage expansion, with ambient heat recovery between stages to improve efficiency. Three stages need less than 7:1 expansion ratio per stage for 310 bar. That said, the concept has many flaws which is why they're always 1-2 years from product launch.

Posted by: doggydogworld | Mar 26, 2008 2:16:29 PM

Hi !
We are very happy to propose to you a new idea to consum the car.
We need to integreat our environment and to be carefull to not dispend oil and reserve it for importants things.

You have the chance to have marvelous personality like A. Shwarzeneger in California to develop Hydrogene's cars.

We need to continue on all the side to find the most of clean solutions.

Posted by: blog Ecolo Trader | Mar 27, 2008 10:18:21 AM

Hello Everyone,

This is a great discusion.
I'm no expert on compressed fluids and all, but I applaud those people working at improving the air quality for the planet, while keeping us in our comfort zone. It's great to read all those comments. Personally, I woud like to be part of improving the environment, while saving all that money at the pump. All new inventions, even gasoline engine, went through the process of improvement.

Posted by: EricdeSeattle | Apr 6, 2008 10:05:47 AM

if the current gas station infrastructure was converted to hold a lot of highly compressed air recharge times could be like someone said <5min. basically like filling up your car with gas. if tanks could hold 10,000 psi range would go up significantly. this could be done in many ways as pressure and temperature are basically the same thing. so you'd be storing hotter gas that would expand much more, if you used pure oxygen, you could combust it by itself.

once the pneumatic engine technologies improve total efficiency could go up further.

this is an insanely efficient way to store energy guys.. no batteries, no volatile liquid that evaporates at ambient temperatures, the tanks would last a life time especially if made of carbon fiber. and carbon fiber is the best way to go here. we are talking 10x the strength of steel. current SCBA and SCUBA tanks are stainless steel or aluminum and handle 3500 psi and 3000 psi respectively.

furthermore, a tank that holds 10,000 psi will only lose some of its capacity with rises in ambient temperature (which affects both batteries and gasoline as well).

one of the biggest problems with electric cars currently is that batteries are extremely expensive and have to be replaced at intervals depending on which type they are. lead acids need to be replaced every 3-5 years in an automotive application. Lithium ion batteries (and all others)lose a percentage of their capacity every time they are discharged and recharged. so every 10 years you need to drop about 20 grand on your tesla roadster Li Ion pack. this adds the majority to the cost per mile to drive.

hydrogen fuel cell technology finds its main downfall when you realize that it has to be stored at -320 to remain a liquid.

now if you want to talk about dangers.. imagine having equally sized tanks, one storing 6000 psi of atmospheric air (25% oxygen 74% nitrogen (ish)) or one storing 4000 psi of pure hydrogen gas. lol.

beyond that, the fuel cell stacks that are used in these H cars consist of about 200 small fuel cells. hmm, sounds delicate as hell to me.

id rather have 2 tanks holding 10,000 psi of compressed air and just a tube that goes to a pneumatic motor even if range were only 100 miles. virtually no part of such a system would ever have to be replaced.

Posted by: jeremymcvey | Apr 6, 2008 2:00:41 PM

Yeah! And by the year 2000 we were supposed to all have cars that flew like George Jetson!
I will believe it when I can actually BUY ONE for less than $100,000.00 and not have my own government stop me from driving it on the city streets and highways!

Posted by: Roger | Apr 7, 2008 7:44:13 PM

wow, talk about a downer bro, youre on the wrong thread go play bingo.

based on tanks never needing replacement and the efficiency of its storage (doesnt drain like batteries over time, doesn't lose storage capacity, can be used to drive multiple types of engines, doesn't create electromagnetic interference or magnetic fields that extend beyond the wires or motors themselves, and its relatively efficient in terms of electrical imput to compress and output based on depcompression) and the further possibility of using pure oxygen which can combust with no required fuel, id be willing to bet this technology will win out over fuel cell technology, current battery technology, and current ICE's. what we may see is an air/electric hybrid or an I.C.E./air hybrid. this is a very good way to store energy, especially if we see the creation of very high pressure carbon fiber tanks (also lightweight) reducing the size of tanks or extending range. if gas stations became air holding stations with carbon fiber tanks encased in concrete they could hold a ton of air that would charge your tanks in minutes or seconds. the only thing that could beat this is an incredible battery technology, but what you need to realize is that this essentially is a battery technology in that it stores energy at close to 100% efficiency especially in terms of capacitance, maintainance and longevity.

anyawys, not all of us here on the internet are burnt out or have lost hope. this technology is in no way a solution to the ultimate problem of originating surplus energy, but it gets pollution off the streets and into more efficient and clean power plants, and it could reduce the size of transportation in the surplus margin of income for everyone. if you had compressed air in your car, imagine a bumper around your whole car that could inflate under extreme breaking or impact much like airbags do; we could eliminate a large portion of accident damage and such further reducing the cost of insurance and bringing people together, so they can spend their money with eachother, rather than getting to eachother.

Posted by: jeremymcvey | Apr 9, 2008 12:22:54 AM

If you are interested to invest in the MDI company, my wife and I are willing to sell some of our shares of MDI. We support financially MDI since 1992 and hold then so 1 % of the capital.
After 16 years we decide to realise a part of our investment !
Our selling price will be less (market oblige) as the last transfers made by M Nègre himself (he held 2/3 of the capital). If you have a serious interest please write us : martinmarschner(at)hotmail.com

Posted by: MARSCHNER | Apr 21, 2008 11:09:52 AM

Posted by: MARSCHNER | Apr 21, 2008 11:10:11 AM

Globi, I believe that you are right. This is closer to a steam engine driven by compressed air. Assuming a double acting 2 cylinder with a 12 in stroke by 1.15 in bore,a working air pressure in the cylinders of 120 psi, we get 60 ft/lb of torque, about the same as my Geo Metro. Also assuming a low rpm engine, say 960 rpm, direct drive on 155r12 tires producing 60 mph, it would use 37 gallons of air at 120 psi per mile. They claim tanks pressurized at roughly 4000 psi, or 190 atmospheres. I am not sure how that reduces down to 120 psi, but I think that it would be about 1/33. So 52 gallons of air at 4000 psi would be good for about 50 miles, and the 4 tanks shown would give a total range of about 200 miles. That's not quite what they are claiming, but then I am making a lot of assumptions and you know what they say about "assume"! And it wouldn't be the first time I messed up the math. A Stanley Steamer got about 200 miles from 24 gallons of water, which gave 38400 gallons of steam (atmospheric pressure volume), pressurized to to 600 psi, with 2 4x5 inch cylinders. (It burned 20 gallons of kerosene to boil that water)

Posted by: metrodriver | Apr 27, 2008 1:24:53 PM

OK, say it works great; but how durable is the compressor?
How durable is the rest of the vehicle? I'd hate to break
down right after I bought one. How long have they run this thing in tests before it breaks down?

Posted by: swen | Jun 8, 2008 1:57:54 PM

Spend some time checking the website of Tata Motors, on the site you will be very hard pressed to find even one mention of the air car. If you search around the site enough you will find one mention on Feb 5 of 2007, the mention is listed under "press releases" all it says it that they agree to "further refinement and development of the technology". There is no mention under "research and development" no "coming soon" articles. Tata Motors has no production dates scheduled contrary to what MDI claims. MDI loves to associate themselves with "respected" companies. They mention Airbus as a overseer of production of Carbon Fiber tanks. Meanwhile Airbus outsources its carbon fiber parts.
They had a picture of Negre shaking hands with a Toyota representative, someone made them take the photo down I guess, Toyota has nothing to do with Air car, but they sure implied they did.
They claimed they would start producing taxis for Mexico City in 2002, NEVER happened. They announced a factory in South Africa would open in 2003, Never did.
They are always finding some media to give them free publicity to stir up interest, the problem is the "BIG MONEY" knows better.
Their plan for all of these factories is absurd also, making only a few thousand cars per year at each factory is a terrible waste of capital resources.
They make fantastic claims, with nothing to back them up, all we know is they can go at least 4.5 miles, very noisy, I guess a muffler would create back pressure and decrease range.
They have a history of unfulfilled promises, I think those are called "lies", how many times must we hear "next year"?
They love "Photo Ops" to put them on their site, but words and pictures does not make a vehicle a viable means of transportation.
They deeper you dig for information on these guys, the more it stinks.
The tank does not hold enough compressed air (energy) to move a car the distance claimed, if it did I am sure they would have been VERY PROUD to show the world, they have not driven any substantial distance.
Why does anyone believe unproven claims of men who are after investment money?
If you believe in the car, send them a check, at the very least you will get an education for your money.

Posted by: MR Avagadro | Jun 26, 2008 6:40:08 PM

I will not get excited until i see a road test on one of those air cars..

i keep looking for someone that has driven one.. and can tell me the speed and range of such a vehicle..

it would be a godsend for us all if such a vehicle would work..

not only would we look at investing, but also purchase such a vehicle..

Posted by: Carl Pinkston | Jul 12, 2008 6:35:04 PM

Marschner, can you give us more information about your investments? Why are you willing to sell now? What have you seen as progress over the years? What's your opinion on whether cars will actually be sold to the public in the next 3 years?

It is interesting and exciting to see and think about a car that would allow a person to spend 2 1/2 times less on car fuel/petrol and spend a few more dollars a month on electricity. But the fact is that companies like ZPM (the U.S. partner with MDI in France) say things like this on their website... "MDI recently completed a 20 million euros agreement (US$27m) with #1 Indian car manufacturer, Tata Group, which purchased licensing rights for India. This significant infusion of capital will allow MDI to finalize its technology and its Air Car for the public. " When, is the question? When will the technology be finalized? Answer? "ZPM will begin taking reservations in mid-2009 for US deliveries of our compressed air vehicle in 2010. To stay informed, subscribe to our Air Vehicle Update." Yes, I typed in my e-mail address and clicked the "Join" button. But of course I expect to hear sometime in 2009 how for various reasons, the plan changes to 2010 that reservations can be made. It's the usual "2 years out" thing with companies like this. Gives them time to think of the next reason why things are delayed, and then they never really deliver anything.

I'll continue to stay realistic but optimistic. :o)

Posted by: JeffKan1 | Jul 16, 2008 1:22:06 PM

'i keep looking for someone that has driven one.. and can tell me the speed and range of such a vehicle..'
See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4w6aJMNXSk&feature=related
This is a CNN report....although one from 2004....and it's still not available yet.
There are a few more videos at
http://www.youtube.com/user/CATvolution
I'm not a techie at all and was so excited by the various reports I've seen of this aircar, but that has been dampened quite a bit by the above discussion. However, I'm still hopeful. I've seen how long it takes to get a good idea out into the market place.....see www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au for a revolutionary solar collector...still not quite ready for me to buy.

Posted by: Kiya | Aug 6, 2008 3:31:11 PM