The parts count reduction is probably the least sexy but actually the most important part of this concept. Getting rid of the IP altogether is a bold statement. However, a center console that looks like a giant hairdryer is perhaps a little too metrosexual even for a French car.

Still, systematically reducing both the weight and the cost of the vehicle body and interior is essential for making a sophisticated, high-MPG drivetrain affordable. The diesel might be an inline three with compensation shaft and a single-scroll turbo. Diesel injectors are expensive.

I'm not convinced a relatively heavy diesel engine is the ideal choice, though. For less money, you can get a smooth-running 1.0L inline four Miller-cycle homogenous GDI engine with the smallest available twin-scroll turbo and far lower emissions. Since the power is capped at just 70hp, you could even forgo the water cooling jacket usually required for turbos on gasoline engines. The ECU simply wouldn't give you access to the areas of the engine map that require special measures to protect exhaust system components. More to the point, the cost savings on the engine would permit a wonderful dual-clutch transmission instead of the crappy single-clutch manumatic envisaged in this parallel hybrid concept.

Diesels are great for large, heavy vehicles. For something this small and equipped with an electric hybrid to boot, a spark ignition engine just makes more sense IMHO.

Did a giant step on a MINI?

Exhaust emissioms have been proven over and over again to be cancerous,but europe continues to embrace them because of fuel costs in their lovely socialistic society

The vast majority of commercial surface and waterborne transport in the United States runs on diesel, as does much of the offroad use. Does that make us a "lovely socialistic society" as well?

Unlike Europe, we use catalytic systems, and will do so with the upcoming 50 state diesels.

So, yes, we are very much looking forward to high-mileage clean diesels (hybrid or not) in all our vehicles, small and large, here in the U.S.

The best diesel hybrid would have a two-cylinder, opposed, two-cycle, air-cooled diesel.

1.1 KWh NiMH battery? My e-bicycle is close to that and its lithium.

Figures - these people are utter socialistic losers. This is 5 years old technology and then they call it a "concept car"? For the French it must be.

I dread the future with such engineers around.

All the other stuff they claim is utterly uninteresting and redundant. 6 speed transmission when it could have been a serial hybrid with 0 speeds and 0 weight of transmission? What is so "cost reducing" and interesting about that?

And then a 107 hp diesel limited to 70 hp when you could get away with 30 hp diesel in a serial?

Gimmie a break!

...the most important think on this car is the speed limit set to 150Km/h. So, the company could optimize the power pack. This limit should be mandatory for all car companies. There should also be a limit for accelaration. Almost everythink in a car is set by law. Unfortunately not these two very important aspects.

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone in Europe understands that we here in the U.S. have always emphasized emissions over mileage.

This will continue with the upcoming 50 state diesels, which will have substantially fewer emissions than anything sold in Europe.

The biggest question is how much will the new emission control systems de-rate the mileage.

And everybody does understand the U.S. switched to ultra-low sulfur diesel (15 ppm) a year ago for on-road diesel?

@ JD -

the nature of the hybrid drivetrain is explained in the link to the earlier post. Please make more of an effort to track back the information before lambasting Mike Millikin who manages this blog. He provides a free and IMHO very valuable service.

European manufacturers are indeed behind the curve on hybrid technology relative to the Japanese, mostly because wrt fuel economy it's no better than a diesel. It's only now that the EU is insisting on extremely low fleet average CO2 emissions that car makers are beginning to accept that they also need to develop hybrid expertise. There is also a different emphasis here than in the US: the climate is considered a common asset and reducing CO2 emissions a *collective* responsibility. Ergo, everyone is expected to chip in, not just the green fringe. In that sense, a super-duper fuel economy concept such as this one is already well beyond what most people would be prepared to pay a premium for.

Btw: serial hybrid architectures, such as the GM E-Flex and the Subaru SSHEV before it, generally deliver fairly poor fuel economy once the optional grid charge is depleted. Electric-only drivetrains with battery buffering are very exoensive and feature aggregate transmission efficiencies of just 55-65%. Compare that to 95%+ for a modern purely mechanical drivetrain. The very efficient operating point of a small genset does compensate the electric drivetrain losses to some extent, especially in stop-and-go traffic, but the overall result is still worse.

@ michel -

limiting acceleration by law is difficult because it is hard to measure externally. You'd need surveillance points equipped with Doppler radar or something similar. A crude but simple approximation is to base vehicle license fees on engine horsepower, as some European countries do. However, if improved fleet average fuel economy is the goal, nothing beats higher fuel taxes.

Note also that greater acceleration is one of the visceral/emotional aspects that entice people to trade their old clunker in for a new model, which is important if you care about keeping people employed in your automotive industry. Politicians in Germany, France, Italy, Sweden and a few other European countries most certainly do!

Bill, the largest difference between CA and EU diesel emissions regulations is that over here we are relatively stringent when it comes down to small passenger vehicles and lenient with larger passenger vehicles (specifically MDPVs at nearly a g/mile of NOx) and HDVs. In the EU, larger commercial vehicles (N1, Class III >1760 kg) are allowed at most .15g/km, while over here we allow big pickup trucks (HDLTs) nearly four times that amount.

From the perspective of AQ, I imagine that CARB and to a lesser extent the EPA, has to crack down on LDV diesel emissions before going after HDV emissions so that vehicle manufacturers/the HDV lobby can't claim the LDV is the source. The EU seems to be a bit more reasonable wrt emissions from different sources. For instance, LDV diesels are allowed greater NOx and PM emissions, while LDV petrol vehicles are allowed greater CO and HC emissions. They don't have the same holes for large passenger vehicles and HDVs that we have over here.

Hmmm... The 3L Lupo is around 81g/km so that's likely a typo unless it's plug-in.

Rafael, good point about labour force and consumer interests.

But the thing is that auto-industry is not only answering the demand of people for mobility and prestige but also stimulating new demands and altering the reception of prestige. If a induvidual has a certain desire, ok: his/her problem. But there is my induvidual desire too. It is clean fresh air. Consuming this air does not harm anyone. But burning dirty fuels like patrol and diesel does harm for selfish base motives of the otheres. This is not very nice. To find a compromise between my/others supply needs of clean air and others for prestige, we have to compromise. That means, we do not ban induvidual transport and certain concepts of living (Suburbia) but arrogate clean state of the art and beyond transport devices. People, who are ready to pay money for induvidual transport have to pay for clean technology. There is no harm for the auto-industry as their lobby is eagerly to claim. This is no problem for people loving cars. It´s just a minor contribution that easly can be turned in a advantage for all of them. Unfortunately, auto-industries and their beloved and trusted customers belive something else. The very point seems to be a lack in education and potential of education. It took Liberals quite a while to convince the town dwellers of the 19th century to invest in municipal waste water system and to use it.
Still, we are trying to convince people to invest in technologies that should enable us to breath crisp fresh air. And that clean air is a remarkeble thing attests by everyone who spent some days in the country side, the mountians or the sea side. (Oh yes, it seems to be a reason why people like to dwell in Suburbia).
Maybe, this French design is a educated and responsible contribution to my and other needs (depends on the exhaust gas after treatment, noise levels).