Was mir ins Auge gesprungen ist:
rape seed -> rapeseed
need it to drive to back to -> need it to drive back to
safety devices as crush zones -> safety devices such as crush zones

amount of accidents -> number of accidents
car producers did never just follow -> never just followed

In meiner langjährigen Erfahrung mit dem Übersetzen kfz-technischer Texte sind mir die Knautschzonen eher als crumple zone untergekommen, und das würde für mich auch unter safety features fallen (nicht: devices).

Außerdem:
was meinst Du mit "modern pace maker" und "cushioned seats" (eventuell "seat cushions" oder padded seats )?

Sonst ist mir nichts aufgefallen, aber ich habe den Text auch nur auf Terminologie überflogen.

final velocity -> top speed
technological lacks -> the lack of the necessary technology
did never just follow -> never simply followed

Other comments:
You tend towards US English. e.g. tires, booby hatch (I have never heard this in my life!) so you should be aware of the possible confusion with the word gas which you use for an alternative fuel but is the normal US term (=gasoline) for petrol.

oh ja, das hätte mir auffallen müssen - final velocity geht hier gar nicht

Some additional points:

towards a modern car >>> towards the modern car would be better IMO.
pace maker >>> I don't understand what this means here
Combustion of fossil fuels >>> The combustion ...
like hydrogen, solar power >>> such as would be better style.
cars driving >>> cars on the road (people drive, cars are driven)
because of a techonological lack >>> clumsy: say e.g. because the technology was lacking, because the technology simply did not exist.

One more small thing: a colon in English is never followed by a capital letter.

because the technology was lacking: anti-lock brakes or electronic stability

was the state of the art >>> was state of the art (remove the first 'the')

environmental protection > environmental impact
safety devices as > safety devices such as

automobile fair instead of automobile show but I'm not 100% sure

“environmental protection” >>> is OK IMO, but protecting the environment might be better.

BTW “cushioned seats” (cf. #3) is fine with me.

Han, It's auto/car show in the US: http://www.naias.com/

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=car+...

Re #7: a colon in English is never followed by a capital letter.

I agree with you for British English. It's different in US English though, isn't it...?

KinkyAfro, Nope, same thing for AE :-)

#13, #14
Apparently KinkyAfro is right, althouth capitalization doesn't seem to be universally accepted.

Some modern American style guides, including those published by the Associated Press and the Modern Language Association, prescribe capitalization where the colon is followed by an independent clause (i.e. a complete sentence). However, The Chicago Manual of Style requires capitalization only when the colon introduces two or more complete sentences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_(punctuation)

Thanks Carly and Steve :-)

I've also just found this in the archive:

Siehe auch: colon + capital in English?

I should have qualified "unless a complete sentence follows," but am not sure whether I always follow that particular "rule," either :-)

Thank you very much for your helpful comments. Some of my mistakes were mere typos, others uncertainties that sounded awkward to me, too, but there were some things I just did not know. So in the end you helped a whole bunch of students to learn better English ;-)

Just to explain "modern pace maker": I was searching for a synonym for "engine" with an additional meaning of "to promote", "to move forward", comparable with the German "Motor" in a sentence such as (!) "Die Abwrackprämie war ein Motor für die Autobilwirtschaft."

Mal abseits der sprachlichen Ebene:
Otto hat einen (und nicht einmal den ersten) Verbrennungmotor erfunden.
Diesel hat einen anderen Verbrennungsmotor erfunden, aber den Ottomotor nicht weiterentwickelt.

@Sector 7G:

Inhaltlich habe ich das grob http://www.verbrennungsmotor.de/hp/Geschichte... entnommen. Wie ich es dort verstehe, hat Daimler den Verbrennungsmotor ins KFZ gebracht. Mir reicht hier das grobe Bild, die Feinheiten sind sicher sehr viel komplexer.

Nun poste ich noch den korrigierten Text, falls ihn jemand verwenden möchte:

From Ford’s Tin Lizzy towards the modern car –
recent developments in the car industry

When Henry Ford brought his Model T to mass production, the guidelines for a car were quite clear. Firstly, a car had to move people or goods from A to B. Secondly, it had to be affordable. And thirdly, it had to be easy to repair.

The technology was clearly defined. Otto’s combustion engine had evolved into a modern, useable engine in the hands of Diesel and Daimler. Nobody cared about fuel consumption or protecting the environment. The combustion of fossil fuels was state of the art in those days. If you had told people that it might be possible to drive a car with alternative fuels such as hydrogen, solar power, methane or rape seed, they would have rolled on the floor laughing: “You want to run an engine with water, the sun, gas, or even flowers? Do you need it to drive back to the booby hatch?”

Padded seats and pneumatic tires were the only comfort features that customers were able to imagine. A navigation system, for example, was not imaginable – and not only for technical reasons. It simply was not necessary: the few roads that existed could easily be found on a simple road map. Speed limits did not have to be set on these roads because cars were slow both in acceleration and in top speed. Accordingly, there was no need for an invention like cruise control.

As there were not a lot of cars on the road, the number of accidents was much lower than nowadays, too. Consequently, safety devices such as crush zones, side impact protection or even safety belts were not in demand. Some developments were impossible because certain technology was lacking: anti-lock brakes or electronic stability control required significant steps in the field of electronics.

However, car producers never just followed the demands and the possibilities of the current market – they created demand and they created dreams. At automobile shows they presented futuristic concept cars which often were neither ready nor intended for mass production. These prototypes were built to test customers’ reactions, to prepare the ground for future steps, to make people dream and to construct a myth of freedom and boundlessness.(375 words)

Three thoughts:

- don't we call it an internal combustion engine, rather than a combustion engine? (“combustion” is simply when stuff explodes, whether it's in or out of a cylinder);
- run an engine on water, the power of the sun, gas ... (I think);
- like Spike, I have never heard the expression “booby hatch” before. I have no idea what it could mean.

But after all the corrections isn't it nice to see a German teaching English with his own text and not something copied from a book as most of then tend to do? Well done packman.

I thought of "booby trap," but that doesn't really make much sense in the context given.

A quick read-through and a few changes...might have missed something though.

From Ford’s Tin Lizzy to the modern car –
recent developments in the car industry

When Henry Ford brought his Model T to mass production, the guidelines for a car were quite clear. Firstly, a car had to move people or goods from A to B. Secondly, it had to be affordable. And thirdly, it had to be easy to repair.

The technology was clearly defined. In the hands of Diesel and Daimler, Otto’s internal combustion engine had evolved into a modern, serviceable engine. Nobody cared about fuel consumption or protecting the environment. The use of fossil fuels was state of the art in those days. If you had told people that it might, someday, be possible to run a car on alternative fuels such as hydrogen, solar power, methane or rapeseed, they would have rolled on the floor laughing: “You want to run an engine on water, the sun, gas, or even flowers? Do want us to drive you back to the funny farm?”

Padded seats and pneumatic tires were the only comfort features that customers were able to imagine. A navigation system, for example, was not imaginable – and not only for technical reasons. It simply was not necessary: the few roads that existed could easily be followed on a simple road map. Speed limits did not have to be set on those roads because cars were slow both in acceleration and top speed. Accordingly, there was no need for an invention like cruise control.

As there were not a lot of cars on the road, the number of accidents was much lower than nowadays, too. Consequently, safety devices such as crumple zones, side impact protection or even safety belts were not in demand. Some developments were impossible because the technology was lacking: anti-lock brakes or electronic stability control required significant steps in the field of electronics.

However, car producers never just followed the demands and the possibilities of the current market – they created demand and they created dreams. At automobile shows they presented futuristic concept cars which often were neither ready nor intended for mass production. These prototypes were built to test customers’ reactions, to prepare the ground for future developments, to make people dream and to construct a myth of freedom and unlimited mobility.

From Ford’s Tin Lizzy to the modern car – recent developments in the car industry.

When Henry Ford brought his Model T into mass production, the guidelines for a car were quite clear. A car had to move people or goods from A to B. It had to be affordable. And it had to be easy to repair.
The technology was clearly defined. The combustion engine that had been invented by Nikolaus Otto evolved into a modern pace maker in the hands of Rudolf Diesel and Gottlieb Daimler. Nobody cared about fuel consumption or environmental protection. Combustion of fossil fuels was state of the art in those days. If you had told people that it might be possible to drive a car with alternative fuels like hydrogen, solar power, methane or rape seed, they would have rolled on the floor laughing: “You want to run an engine with water, the sun, gas, or even flowers? Do you need it to drive to back to the booby hatch?”
Cushioned seats and pneumatic tires were the only comfort features that customers were able to imagine. A navigation system was not imaginable – and not only for technical reasons. It simply was not necessary: The few roads that existed could easily be found on a simple road map. Speed limits did not have to be set on these roads because cars were slow both in acceleration and in final velocity. Likewise, there was no need for an invention like cruise control.
As there weren't many cars on the roads, the number of accidents was much lower than nowadays. Consequently, safety devices such as crush zones, side impact protection or even safety belts were not in demand. Some developments were not possible because of lack of technology: Anti-lock brakes or electronic stability control would require significant steps in the field of technology.
However, car producers never just followed the demands and the possibilities of the current market – they created them. At automobile shows they presented futuristic concept cars, which were often not ready for mass production. These prototypes were built to test customers’ reactions, to prepare the ground for future steps, to make people dream and to construct a myth of freedom and life without limits.

Thanks again, especially to walker who added some useful changes.

Steve and others: You can find "booby hatch" at Siehe Wörterbuch: klapsmühle. Obviously it is not very common, so I used funny farm now.

compare "rape seed" Siehe Wörterbuch: rape seed vs "rapeseed" Siehe Wörterbuch: rapeseed : According to leo there's a difference.

Mike: Thank you, that's nice. The truth is that I will use a text from a book in my next exam. So I needed to write this text (teachers call that "parallel text") to introduce some of the vocabulary in advance.
For the same reason I have to stick to "crush zone" instead of "crumple zones" and to "safety devices" instead of "safety features". And it is why I was forced to use a few words, "accelaration" e.g., even if they are not really relevant in my text.