I remember reading about a vehicle made in Europe that was completely drive-by-wire with no mechanical linkages whatsoever. Of course, some vehicles had glitches, and when they did, there was nothing to do but hope the wreck didn't kill you.

You know how many criminal organizations would love to be able to use an assist motor to jam a steering wheel at will? With how interconnected vehicles are, it might just take a bluetooth hole to get on the CANBus, then go from there.

I wouldn't blame Ford specifically, but I do worry about things like GM's OnStar being a prime target for hackers. Get control of that, disable all GM cars, tout the accomplishment, and win immense street cred. Same with getting motor-assisted steering to start jerking the wheel at random to cause crashes, it would put an organization on the map and give them respect worldwide.

Car makers have been good, but in general, most companies feel that security has no ROI, so don't do much than lip service, and coupled with all the crap that can take over a vehicle's ECM [1], it can be concerning.

[1]: I was reading about a "tattle" device by one insurance company which apparently something over the OBD 2 connector, so if the device was removed, the vehicle wouldn't start. Is this real? Doubtful, but it is concerning.

In Canada most places use lined glasses. The bartender is almost never going to actually look at the line, so you always get a bit extra. The point is that you know you're going to get a minimum amount of beer. Crappy bartender who pours a giant amount of head? No problem.

Fuel economy is the same thing. You can't tell if the inflated numbers for one car are more or less inflated than the numbers for another car. Not to mention you can't actually do any planning based on them.

Except the Yanks have smaller gallons 3.78 litres vs 4,54litres.

While a UK and Yank litre is the same 1000ml/cc

You're referring to an exceedingly small number of cases here. If you look at fuelly's numbers, only 55 out of 1879 Corollas tracked average more than 40 MPG (2.9%), while only 178 out of all 2930 Prii tracked get *less than* 40 MPG (6%). In the overwhelming majority of cases, the Prius gets better fuel efficiency than Corollas.

That, and the Prius' chief advantage is in city driving, which taxis operate in virtually exclusively. Since you're claiming Corollas beat them in their home environment, I call bullshit on your argument.

Whilst you highlight some of the advantages of electric over diesel, I don't buy that that's the whole reason for diesel electric trains. I suggest the advantages include efficiency, just as with hybrid cars.

Why? Because the first diesel electric locomotives were shunters, and they don't power up the bogies or a train, they just push or pull. So your explanation wouldn't cover it.

It's the charging time that's the problem. I make a 550 mile trip on a regular basis (work). I fly sometimes, and take the motorcycle sometimes, depending on weather and other factors. The bike has perhaps 200 miles capacity, so the Tesla already beats me on range. But the bike's refueling time is perhaps four minutes if I don't take a potty break. The tesla is what, six hours? That's turning a one day trip into two, both ways, unless I want to drive through the night.

Electric cars don't just need to get longer range. They also need to get significantly faster refueling times. For trips beyond the single charge range, there may never be a practical solution. (Yes, I've heard of the battery swap idea. I don't expect that to become widespread for a number of reasons.)

2. I've got to push some dash start button, which seems to have some kind of timer control. It's not a temporary switch to the starter motor. You can just tap it and it will engage thee stater. I worry what happens when my fuel pump or battery is a few years older and it takes a little longer to start.

This is just the way things are headed, even for key ignitions. My car has a key, but you don't have to hold it in the start position to start the engine. You just turn it quickly and then let it go and the engine cranks by itself.

This. My wife's car is completely keyless. She has to have the fob to open the doors or turn it on. This past winter she came out of work and couldn't get into her car let alone turn it on because the battery in her fob died. Fortunately it was at work and she had a warm place to go back to and call me to bring her the spare fob. If she had been somewhere without such recourse when it was -15 wind chill she very well could have died.

My Chevy Volt has keyless entry, remote start, and a keyless start option, but it still has a physical key. If the battery in the Fob dies I can still get in it. My old Chevy Impala I kept a spare key in my wallet. It wouldn't start it, but would open the door or trunk in case I locked the keys in the car or I could get to the emergency supplies I kept in the trunk.

Q: How do you give a prolonged crank, if the car fails to start (e.g. poor fuel, or cold weather)?
A: You have to let the computer attempt 3 failed starts. After that, the behaviour of the start/stop sequence changes. After the 3rd attempt, a momentary push of the button, will make the computer crank the engine for up to 30 seconds, for as long as the brake pedal remains depressed.

SURE you can buy the key for under $25, but it's going to cost you $75 to have the dealer program the ECU or that key will not be able to start your car.

That might work if the battery at least had enough juice to power the accessories. If it was really dead, it most likely wouldn't recognize your button pushes, so it wouldn't know it was in position 2.

There's no transmitter in my key. You're thinking of the RFID keys, which are pretty good security: coupled with a decent quality alarm with multiple immobilizers it makes a car pretty much unstealable unless you have a flatbed.

But there's no reason you can't simply put the RFID into the alarm keyfob instead of the key. In fact, most of the pushbutton starters I've seen in recent years work exactly like that -- there's an RFID in your keyfob, and if you don't have the keyfob in your pocket (or within a few feet of the car), the car simply won't start. If the car gets out of range of the keyfob, it'll trip the fuel line immobilizer.

With a key, you switch it to 1 and can run accessories. You switch it to 2 and the ignition computer is powered. Switch and hold it to 3 and you crank. You decide exactly how to start your engine.

With the newer systems, you just push the button and it decides what to do. You lose the control. What if you want to crank for a while because it won't start? What if you want to switch it to position 2 and push-start a manual transmission car? You can't.

I like the standard keys. And really, just because one manufacturer happened to use a defective part, we lose them? Key switches have been around for decade and are reliable. Just fix the reliability issue in that one model and that's it.