Minivans are not hot. They are not hep, hip, cool, phat, sick, or whatever slang today's teenagers are employing to express personal enthusiasm for—and bestow social acceptance upon—a person, place, or thing. The closest to cool that a minivan has ever gotten is the Volkswagen Microbus, and then only within granola-munching, Birkenstock-shod, Grateful Dead-listening, surfboard-toting circles. Minivans are appliances, transitional lifestyle vehicles that serve a specific purpose and are disposed of just as quickly as is practical.

Given this enticing description, it should come as no surprise that fewer people are choosing a minivan after settling down, buying the four-bed-three-bath, two-car and starting a family. This year's sales figures illustrate the slide in the North American market.General Motors and Ford Motor Company have ceded the segment to Chrysler, Honda, Nissan ,Toyota , Hyundai and Kia.

Image is the problem. Men feel that a minivan emasculates them. Face it, that smoking hot college girl won't even glance in your direction if you're rolling in a beige Toyota Sienna, but swap that out for a black Chevy Tachoe maybe even equipped with a burbling Borla exhaust system, and it's possible she might look your way. For women, a minivan screams Mommymobile. It symbolizes the trade of a successful career for kids and suburbia. It embodies fading hopes and lost dreams. At least when piloting a Honda Pilot with dark tinted windows, observers can't tell if you're heading for a corner office or a soccer field.

Back in 1983, when Chrysler Corporation debuted the Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager, the minivan became an overnight sensation. Finally, there was a vehicle to replace the ubiquitous station wagon in American driveways (which had the same emasculating effect and Mommymobile image that minivans do today). Here was a family conveyance with the utility and tall driving height of a full-size van combined with the fuel economy and driveability of a passenger car. People loved the minivan, and Chrysler was the only game in town for a long time.

A decade later, consumer preferences shifted again. The SUV, with its all-weather capability and rugged image, captured the favor of moms and dads across the country during the 1990s. Gas was cheap, automakers could make big profits on the truck-based SUVs, and it was party time for companies that eagerly fed consumers' insatiable need for "active lifestyle" sport-utes. Minivan sales leveled off as the SUV market exploded, thanks to families choosing the larger, heavier, and less efficient vehicles in increasing numbers.

But word got out that these top-heavy SUVs were more likely to roll over in an accident or during a loss of control because of their higher center of gravity and generally less responsive handling in emergency maneuvers. Then fuel prices doubled in the space of two years. Finally, photographs of polar bears stranded in melting ice floes started landing on magazine covers and consumers began looking for alternatives to their beloved trucks.

The so-called crossover—a vehicle that blends the attributes of a car and an SUV—was the answer and is now the star in the family car market. Today, former perennially popular SUVs like the Ford Explorer sit unsold while Honda CR-Vs and Toyota Highlanders fly off dealer lots. Ten years after the first crossovers debuted, it's clear this segment is just reaching its stride and is here to stay. Despite the fact that they are nothing more than tall-riding station wagons (occasionally equipped with all-wheel drive), crossovers are hot.

That's fine by me, with the exception of two design flaws inherent in most crossovers. First, those with third-row seats designed to carry children rather than adults typically do not offer sufficient crush space to ease a concerned parent's mind. True, they meet whatever Federal standards exist, but if your kid's head is just inches from the rear glass and some drunk hasn't noticed that you've stopped at a red light, don't you want as much space as possible between Junior's head and the grille of the following vehicle?

Second, crossovers have conventionally hinged rear doors. When you have young children who must ride in a child safety seat, conventionally hinged rear doors can contribute to a parent's back pain and muscle strain. Think this over for a moment. You've parked your spiffy new Hyundai Veracruz at the local mall, maybe in one of the spots irrelevantly marked "Compact." Now its time to unload the kid. You're squeezed between the door, which is mashed up against the car next to yours, and the child seat. You're unfastening the straps, lifting your 25-lb. bundle of joy out of the seat, then twisting, pulling, and shifting the weight as you back out from between the densely parked machines, banging your door into the adjacent vehicle and creating scratches on your paint and dings in the other car. After the shopping excursion, the process is repeated, in reverse.

Sliding side doors would add extra wiggle room when loading and unloading the kids while saving strain on the parent's lower back. They also eliminate the potential for damaging other people's vehicles in parking lots. Couple that with a larger cargo area that allows for a greater crush zone behind the third row seat and lets me carry more stuff on family vacations when the third-row seat is folded into the floor, and that—on top of 7-passenger seating, a commanding driving position, car-like handling reflexes, and decent fuel economy—would make my crossover vehicle the perfect family car. Then give me a lower floor and lower center of gravity for easier entry and exit; more responsive handling and greater stability in emergency maneuvers; second-row seats that I can take out to create truly huge cargo toting capacity—and then I'd have the ultimate family vehicle, dontcha think? Might even look a little like a minivan.

09:51 | Permalink | Comments (3)

In the early 1960s, the United States witnessed the growth of a new automotive genre: the Muscle Car. The formula was simple: take an ordinary sedan, remove the engine, and replace it with the largest engine that could be stuffed into the engine bay. This recipe produced some of the most revered automotive names of all time: Charger, Challenger, Chevelle, Camaro,Trans Am, Cobra 428, as well as Road Runner, Barracuda, and Duster—a 340-cubic-inch version of which was owned by a friend of mine who enjoyed impressing the motoring public with his car's ability to generate massive clouds of smoke at every green light.

Muscle cars were fun and they were fast, but not as fast as people think. According to Wikepedia, Car Life Magazine tested a 1965 GTO with Tri-Power, a close-ratio 4-speed manual, power steering, limited slip differential, and other performance-enhancing options. They recorded a 0-60 mph time of 5.8 seconds—nearlyon par with a 2008 Honda Accord coupe. By the early 1970s, a variety of factors, including the safety lobby, the insurance industry, environmental activists, and the 1973 OPEC embargo led to the gradual demise of the performance-car market.

Today, many cars are substantially faster that the 1960s Muscle Cars. Advances in automotive design and manufacturing have enabled manufacturers to build very fast cars that are also reliable. At the top of the pyramid are supercars like the Bugatti Veyron (a price of more than $1,000,000; 1001 hp; and 0-60 mph in less than 2.5 seconds) and the forthcoming Caparo T1 (an estimated cost of about $260,000, 500 hp, 1,100 lbs. curb weight, 0-60 mph in 2.5 seconds, and estimated lateral acceleration of 3.0g!) One rung below those super-supercars are the exotics that we all know and love, the cars featured on posters in the bedrooms of nearly every 14-year-old boy in the world: the Ferrari Enzo, F430, F40, and F50; the Porsche, 959, Carerra GT, 911 Turbo, GT2, and GT3, and various permutations of Lamborghinis.

Thanks mainly to German manufacturers—who have the home court advantage that includes the Autobahn wiithout speed limits and the 73 twists and turns of the hometown Nuerburging racetrack—we are witnessing a resurgence of the Muscle Car. Well, sort of. Unlike the Muscle Cars of the 1960s, today's cars have talents that extend beyond straight-line speed to include agility, handling, cornering prowess, and significant braking ability. Let's call them "everyday" supercars.

If you're an enthusiast, you're probably aware of the 500-hp M5 and M6; the multitude of 500- and 600-plus-horsepower AMG offerings from Mercedes; and the RS-badged high-hp Audi models. And if that weren't enough, Audi plans to release a 572-hp, twin-turbo V10 RS6 in Europe (but not in the U.S.). Apparently, BMW, views this as a challenge. As a result, it's preparing its own riposte.

Here's BMW's formula: take the already-potent M5 with its 500-hp V-10 engine and add a brace of turbos that could easily increase output to 580 horses. What would an M5 with nearly 600 hp be like? At a recent ride-and-drive sponsored by BMW, I drove the M6, which features the same engine as the M5. Although we were restricted to a relatively low-speed course marked with yellow cones, we had ample opportunity to "floor it" on the straights. My overall impression was that the M6 is not that fast. Fast yes, but not as fast as you might expect. Call me crazy, or maybe it's the turbine-like smoothness of the engine, but it didn't feel fast.

It was fast, as the 0-60 time of 4.2 seconds indicates. What kind of acceleration might a 580 horsepower M5 be able to generate? With a curb weight of 4012 lbs., the online 0-60 calculator estimates a 0 to 60 time of 3.56 seconds, which is in supercar territory. Imagine that: A 4-door sedan with all the luxury accoutrements that can get to 60 in about three and one-half seconds. Call it technology, progress, or supercar-like performance. Whatever you call it, I want one.

09:50 | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm excited about two changes in management at two American car companies: Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, now a U.S. company mainly owned by private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management. Two men named Jim have moved from Toyota to these two U.S. automakers. Both have been hired to act as catalysts of change in product development and new-vehicle marketing and advertising. Why are the appointments so interesting?

The two Jims left big jobs at Toyota in California and New York, respectively, to move to Ford and Chrysler headquarters near Detroit—in the middle of the Rust Belt. Jim Lentz, executive vice president of Toyota Motor Sales USA, said the move indicates "how highly the industry prizes the talent, knowledge and experience" of Toyota executives. It also shows that top automotive industry talent at Toyota is willing to move from a great car company to two once-great companies that need a boost.

Neither of the Jims left Toyota out of the goodness of his heart. Nor did the Jims leave their jobs because they missed working for American companies that make American cars and trucks. Both men, I'm sure, have been offered large salaries and stock options. Both have been given responsibility to help remold the images of Ford and Chrysler—and to create enthusiasm for Ford's Lincoln, Mercury,Ford, Land Rover, Volvo and Jaguar brands and for Chrysler's Jeep, Dodge and Chrysler nameplates.

Jim Press, 60, became co-president and vice chairman of Chrysler about a month ago. The more senior of the two Jims is nearly a legend in the automotive world. He's always been a car guy. Press built his first go-cart at age seven, owned his first car at 12 and began washing cars at his family's auto dealership in Kansas when he was 13. What's more amazing, according to media blogs, is that he worked for Toyota for 37 years and never owned a Toyota or Lexus model—although he says he owns a Yamaha motorcycle. (I'm sure that as a Toyota official, he has driven many Toyota and Lexus vehicles). Press is known for having led Toyota to its prominent place in the U.S. market and for bringing Lexus to the forefront of luxury brands in terms of initial and long-term quality, customer satisfaction and sales in the U.S. This savvy marketer most recently was president of Toyota North America operations in New York, and was the only American on Toyota's board of directors.

Jim Farley, 45, is known for spearheading Scion, Toyota's entry-level youth brand, which he made attractive to younger buyers by offering custom options and advertising it on the Internet. His career at Toyota spans 17 years. Most recently, Farley was general manager of Lexus. He will become Ford's vice president of marketing and communications in mid-November. He'll report directly to Ford's chief, Alan Mulally, who previously was a senior executive at Boeing. Farley's first car was a 1966 Mustang, which he rebuilt when he was 15 and drove from California to Michigan.

So what are the benefits of each Jim to their new employers?

Press' Benefits: Chrysler can learn a lot from Jim Press. Toyota and Lexus dealers say that Press is a great listener and always made sure their input was followed up with a visit from Toyota engineers from Japan to find out what customers wanted in their cars. Press, who shares the presidency of Chrysler with Tom LaSorda, recently said he "welcomes participating in the resurgence of a true American icon here and around the world." In a recent interview with a Detroit daily, Press hinted at some changes by using Jeep as an example of where the company is headed. Jeep's rugged, off-road image needs to be maintained even as it moves into new segments, Press said, noting, "If you want a crossover SUV that's really an SUV, it's going to be a Jeep." He reports to Chrysler's new CEO Robert Nardelli, former head of The Home Depot, who also calls himself a car guy and claims that his first car was a Dodge Dart.

Farley's Benefits: Jim Farley helped create Scion, which he once called an "Urban Brand." Farley's advertising strategies have helped lower the average age of Toyota buyers overall, according to J.D. Power and Associates research. As the most recent leader of Lexus in the U.S., Farley also put marketing punch behind the brand's hybrid flagship LS 600h L sedan, which is loaded with Toyota's top technology. He drove a tC while at Scion, and connects well with younger people. At Ford, he will work to connect more closely with customers through marketing, advertising, digital communications, and brand development. Also, he has been assigned to work with the global product development team to help create future cars and trucks that people want and value, according to Ford's CEO.

What can we expect from the two Jims right away? Since each of the Jims reports directly to the CEO of each automaker, it's likely that there will be quicker changes and quicker results. Even at this juncture, new ideas will be put in place faster to sell and promote new cars and trucks—so the best advertising out there won't be just about BMWs, Hondas or Toyotas. In the long-term, it also means future products from Ford and Chrysler will be geared to what younger consumers and car enthusiasts want. In other words, we'll see more hot models!

16:01 | Permalink | Comments (0)

"I will never have to pay for diesel ever again," I told myself as I turned the handle of a barrel pump during what had become a weekly routine. I was transferring used cooking oil from a grimy container behind Casa De Carlos, a local Mexican restaurant, to a 55-gallon drum mounted in my 1982 Datsun diesel pickup truck. This was my filling station.

In the past few years, while most of the nation went through periods of uproar about our dependence on foreign oil, a small group of people across the country rediscovered a simple fact: diesel engines can run on vegetable oil. As a matter of fact, the first diesel engine demonstrated in 1900 by Rudolf Diesel was designed to operate on peanut oil. Since that time, petroleum-based diesel fuel nearly eliminated the use of biofuels in diesel engines because of lower costs and wider availability.

However, as the cost of diesel fuel climbed past $3 per gallon during the past few years, people started to look for alternatives.

I first became aware of biofuels through a book by Joshua Tickell entitled "From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank." He described in the book how he converted his RV to run on waste vegetable oil (WVO) and drove across the country basically for free—stopping along the way to share his experiences with anyone who would listen.

It turned out that even modern diesel engines could potentially run on veggie oil! According to Tickell, the main difference between diesel and vegetable oil in an engine is viscosity, or the thickness of the two fluids. While petroleum diesel is much thinner than everyday cooking oil, there are several ways to overcome this problem.

The simplest method to reduce the viscosity of oil, or anything else for that matter, is to heat it. Most diesel vehicle owners who run WVO or SVO (waste or straight vegetable oil) install two fuel tanks in their cars: one for diesel and one for vegetable oil. Using this twin-tank system, owners start their vehicle with regular diesel, and wait for the engine coolant to get hot enough to transfer some of heat to the oil, which thins it to a point where it can flow through the fuel injectors.

Unfortunately, this solution has some drawbacks. It's bulky, and it requires operator intervention during start-up and shutdown (i.e. the motorist needs to switch back to regular diesel fuel for a few minutes before stopping the engine). While many vehicles have been successfully converted to run on WVO or SVO, I decided to pursue a slightly different path to energy independence. Because I had two diesel vehicles at the time, and a few of my friends had them as well, it was more efficient to process vegetable oil into Biodiesel, and minimize the alterations to our fleet of vehicles.

Transesterification. Sounds complicated doesn't it? In reality, it is a simple process of combining vegetable oil, alcohol, such as methanol or ethanol, and a catalyst such as KaOH, or NaOH (household lye). The reaction of combining these three ingredients literally breaks apart the long molecule chains normally found in vegetable oil into shorter strands, which yields a thinner fluid. The end result (after some careful filtering) can be poured into the fuel tank of any diesel vehicle, as long as it does not have natural rubber fuel lines or gaskets, since those tend to disintegrate when exposed to biodiesel. It's helpful to know that there are plenty of synthetic rubber substitutes available, which makes the conversion relatively inexpensive.

Unfortunately, the use of biodiesel is still not prevalent, mostly because of a few practical reasons. First of all, since the fuel is not widely available, most drivers who insist on using biodiesel make it themselves, which is a very messy hobby, believe me. Second, most of us do not drive diesel vehicles, nor are there many choices for those who want to get one. Lastly, for those who are environmentally conscious, it's easier to get a Toyota hybrid gasoline/electric Prius, which minimizes both pollution and visits to the gas station, than to run a dedicated biodiesel workshop in your garage and set up a repair facility to keep the alternative fuel vehicle on the road. Still, although it might not be the most practical use of your time, you might get a sense of satisfaction from knowing that you can make fuel for your vehicle that is more sustainable and less polluting than petroleum- based diesel fuel, even if it does not eliminate the use of petroleum products completely.

15:28 | Permalink | Comments (1)

I visit car dealerships quite often. I've gone to several dealerships in the past year to test drive the latest vehicles, to help friends and family in selecting a vehicle, or to purchase a new car for myself. In my countless visits to various domestic and import dealerships I have observed many a salesperson's reaction toward me based on my appearance. I look young for my age, and I am often mistaken for a high school senior or college freshman.

When I enter a dealership casually dressed (baseball cap, t-shirt, and jeans) I rarely get approached by a salesperson. I usually have to chase someone down to get some attention. After I have tracked down a salesperson, I get asked the question, "Buy or Lease?" Immediately following is, "Do you have Credit?" Apparently my looks do not give the appearance of a "serious buyer" so consequently the salesperson tries with all his might just to run my credit score and place me into whatever base-trim entry level model they have on the lot. Often during my conversation with the salesperson we are interrupted by the ringing of a cell phone—and it's deemed an important call that must be taken that very moment. Once my patience is exhausted I come up with a lame excuse so that we can part ways and I can try my hand at the next dealership.

Sometimes I go dealership-hopping with my uncle, who is 20 years my senior. As soon as we enter the lot we are greeted a by a salesperson who tells us his name and offers a hearty handshake. Of course all attention is direct towards my uncle. We are taken to our model of choice and giving a test-drive without asking. There is no haggle for credit score and job history information. I tend to garner a similar respect when I am in a suit or "business casual" dress.

I find this process pretty annoying. It would be great to go on to a dealer lot and not worry about how if I am going to be taken seriously based on appearances. In the mean time I'll carry a spare suit in the trunk of my car just in case I am in the mood to test-drive the latest car.

09:51 | Permalink | Comments (2)

When I awoke at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of October 17, 1982, I was ecstatic. Not only was it my sixteenth birthday, but it was also the day I would relinquish my driver's permit for a full-fledged, no-supervision-required driver's license. Months of driving with my parents at my side (and their comments about my lack of driving skill/experience) were about to end.

My driving exam was scheduled for 10:45 a.m. As the morning progressed, I was flooded with a complex string of emotions. I felt happy, excited, tense, nervous, and giddy—all at the same time. During the prior six months, I had logged thousands of miles in anticipation of this very moment. I was prepared and confident and had no reason to worry, but I did.

When I arrived at the Department of Motor Vehicles, my emotions turned to fear and anxiety. My imagination was running wild and I had no way to stop it. My mouth went dry and my hands became clammy. My heart was beating so fast I thought it might pop out of my chest and into the instructor's lap. The week before, one of my friends had failed his driving test. Would I suffer the same fate?

All my worrying, for nothing. Within a span of 15 minutes, I'd passed the exam. Now that I had the wherewithal to travel anywhere I pleased, I did so at every opportunity. I left for school a half-hour early each morning, just so I could drive around the neighborhood. On weekends, I stayed up late to drive around on traffic-free freeways. It didn't matter where I was going. Most of the time I was going no particular place without any particular reason. I drove solely to enjoy the pleasure and freedom of the open road.

License in hand, my next priority was to beg, plead, persuade, convince, and occasionally annoy my parents—to buy me a car. Although a new car was out of the question, I was successful in convincing my parents to give me my mother’s slightly-used 1977 Pontiac Astre—a close relative of the infamous and unreliable Chevrolet Vega but with a more reliable 2.5-liter Iron Duke engine. While this car might have been unappealing and undesirable to others, to me it represented independence.

Weighing 2280 pounds—less than a current-generation Mazda Miata, which weighs about 2500 pounds—this two-door, four-seat coupe was unencumbered by modern safety and convenience features like air bags, anti-lock brakes, power windows, multi-speaker stereo system, and other mod cons. Because of its relatively light curb weight, it didn't need much power to push it down the road. With 95 horsepower and 123 lb.-ft. of torque, it could be made to move fairly quickly—especially at freeway speeds.

One of my lasting memories about this car involved a day trip with friends to a local beach. Somehow we took a wrong turn, got lost, and got into an argument.
I wanted to go one direction and my friend in the passenger seat wanted to go another. At one point, the debate got really heated and everyone in the car was yelling.

All of a sudden, my friend's impulses got the better of him. As we were traveling about 40 mph down a back road lined by huge dirt mounds and numerous trees, he reached over and grabbed the steering wheel, trying to force the car in the direction he wanted to go. I couldn't believe it! He tugged the wheel hard and I resisted. When he let go, the wheel went in the opposite direction, causing the car to head straight into the dirt embankment.

We got out of the car to assess the damage. While this self-inflicted "accident" wasn't as bad as we might have expected at that speed, it wasn't good. The huge chrome-plated bumper was pushed 6 inches to the left and more than that amount into the front end, destroying sheet metal and a variety of plastic parts, including the headlight assemblies.

The car appeared to still be drivable, so we nodded to each other to indicate that we were still friends and we continued on to the beach. At the time, repairing friendships was more important than repairing my car. The explanation to my parents and a trip to the body shop would have to wait for another day.

09:51 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today, for a short time, I stepped into the future. I'm not talking about time travel and Back to the Future; I'm talking about something real and tangible that might become commonplace on U.S. roads in the near-future—say 15 to 20 years. BMW recently took 100 of their 760i luxury sedans straight off the assembly line in Germany and modified them to run on two fuels: gasoline and hydrogen. The luxury automaker's goal is to generate "buzz" by lending these cars to celebrities and other "influencers" worldwide for a few weeks to show them how transparent the technology really is.

In stock form, this V-12-powered model produces a stout 438 hp, but because the engine is compromised as a result of its ability to run on both fuels, power output in the hydrogen model is lower: 260 hp and 290 lb.-ft. of torque in our example. BMW representatives told me that if an engine were optimized to run solely on hydrogen, power, output could easily eclipse the gasoline-powered version. In addition, hydrogen-powered engines respond very well to technologies such as turbocharging and supercharging, so contrary to popular opinion, the future looks bright for auto enthusiasts.

As you may know, the 7 Series is a large, heavy luxury car, weighing in at close to 5,000 pounds in its gasoline-powered iteration. The extra equipment required to adapt the car to run on hydrogen includes a large fuel tank that occupies most of the trunk and an additional battery in addition to assorted mechanical and electronic components under the trunk floor that control the hydrogen equipment. In total, these items add about 700 pounds to the curb weight, bringing the car I drove to 5,423 lbs. While the gasoline-powered version is a rocketship that can move from 0-60 in 5.8 seconds, the hydrogen version is slightly slower, taking 9.2 seconds to reach 60 mph.

The BMW expert referred to our car as a "carrier" for hydrogen technology.In other words, if BMW could optimize a powerplant to run solely on hydrogen, it could generate considerably more than 260 hp. And, if BMW chose to install that engine in a lighter car, such as the 5 Series, by using the latest materials and weight-reduction technology, that would be interesting. Can you imagine going to a BMW dealer in 2027 and ordering a hydrogen-powered, turbocharged and supercharged 5 Series that might put out more than 500 hp and zero emissions? This horsepower is just my educated guess, of course. No promises from BMW.

There's only one problem. In the entire U.S., there are currently only three filling stations for liquid hydrogen: two in California (in Oxnard and Sacramento), and one in Washington, DC. So clearly, refueling is an issue. BMW hopes to convince decision-makers in Washington of the need for a hydrogen infrastructure. The other difficulty is that liquid hydrogen must be kept at -420 degrees Fahrenheit, so the tank has a self-cooling mechanism that uses some of the fuel to keep the rest cool. This is an issue because if you park the car for a few weeks, you may come back to find that you are nearly out of hydrogen. Engineers are working on this factor and have made a great deal of progress in finding a solution.

The hydrogen version of the 7 Series has some quirks compared to the conventional gasoline-powered 7 Series. Upon starting, the fuel injectors make more noise because they're injecting hydrogen into the engine. However, from inside the car, this noise is not noticeable. There's also a longer starting cycle. Each time the engine is started, the default fuel is hydrogen, which means the starter cranks longer than is normal. There's also a button on the steering wheel that allows the driver to switch from gasoline to hydrogen When this switch is pressed, a clicking noise can be heard from the trunk, where most of the equipment resides.

Aside from those minor differences, driving this future car was remarkably similar to driving any other car from this luxury automaker. It was comfortable, held the road securely given its large size, and was quiet and luxurious inside. BMW has a car—the Hydrogen 7—for those who want to minimize their impact on the environment—if hydrogen stations ever become a reality across the U.S.

11:55 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Who makes the most models that are good for our environment? Easy. Toyota and Honda produce a larger number of vehicles that are better for the environment and create less air pollution or smog emissions. This year, both companies received top "Green" rankings from the Union of Concerned Scientists for using clean technology across their lineups, and both have the most models that earned our firm's '07 Green Efficiency Ratings.

For many years, Toyota and Honda have made it a top priority to produce efficient, smaller, cleaner vehicles. Together, these two automakers produce 12 of the top 30 models on the J.D. Power and Associates 2007 Automotive Environmental Index (AEI) list. Eight are made by Toyota and four are produced by Honda. Ford, Nissan and General Motors also have a number of environmentally-friendly models.

If you are looking for green models, you're most likely to find them in California, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine, because these states have adopted tougher auto emissions standards. The best-selling brands in California are Toyota and Honda, and California sells more hybrids than any other state, according to J.D. Power and Associates research.

Hybrids are one of the major green options. These models may be more expensive than conventional gasoline-powered models—they carry a price premium of $4,000 to $6,000, according to our firm's third quarter U.S. Hybrid Electric Vehicle Forecast, but you may be able to offset the premium with tax incentives. You can check the Energy Department's fueleconomy.gov Web site for current federal allowances, and there may be state incentives available as well. Another perk: some hybrid owners in California regions can use Carpool lanes—without passengers.

If your budget is tight, you may be able to find a used hybrid too, because hybrids have been sold in the U.S. since 2000. Generally, they qualify as SULEVs (Super-Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicles), which are at least 70% cleaner than the average new vehicle. Honda's Insight two-seater, no longer available, was the first gasoline/electric hybrid to be sold in the U.S., and one version was a SULEV—it averaged a combined 51 mpg, according to fueleconomy.gov, and produced fewer emissions than most gasoline-powered vehicles.

The SULEV rating was created by California's Air Resources Board to identify whether a vehicle adheres to strict emissions standards, which protect our environment. Ratings include: ULEV (Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle, which is 50% cleaner than the average new vehicle), SULEV, or PZEV (Partial Zero Emission Vehicle), a rating that some hybrids have earned. ZEV (Zero Emission Vehicle) is the cleanest rating and GM EV1s qualified as ZEVs. Some 800 GM battery-powered electric vehicles were leased mainly in California between 1996 and 2001—the last lease for an EV1 ended in 2004—but new ZEVs are on the way. The Chevrolet Volt, to be built in 2010, may be one of the first.

Some options to consider:

• The popular Toyota Prius gasoline/electric hybrid has been on the market since 2001. It qualifies as a SULEV. If you are interested in a luxury hybrid, Toyota's high-end Lexus LS 600h L sedan also earns a SULEV rating. The Prius recently sold for an average of less than $25,000 in September, according to data from the Power Information Network (PIN), while the Lexus flagship hybrid sold for an average transaction price of $117,000.

The Camy Hybrid is another option.
• Honda's Civic Hybrid fits the SULEV parameters and has been on the market since 2003. The Accord Hybrid also is available, but will be discontinued for 2008. In addition, many of Honda's 2006 and 2007 conventional gasoline-powered models qualify as SULEVs.


• In 2005, Ford introduced the first hybrid compact SUV, the Escape Hybrid. A 2WD model with an automatic variable transmission was rated at 30 mpg in city/28 mpg highway. Prius and Escape hybrid models both have been rated among the highest, in terms of air pollution scores, by state and federal agencies.


• Chevrolet and Saturn have added hybrid versions of the Malibu and Aura that offer better fuel economy and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.


• Ford, Nissan and other automakers also are producing more models with hybrid powertrains that fit these higher green standards, according to our firm's studies. In 2008, Ford will introduce a hybrid version of the Fusion, for example.


• Chevrolet and GMC have offered bimodal hybrid pickups for slightly better fuel efficiency since the 2004 model year. However, these vehicles do not fare much better in terms of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.


• During the fourth quarter of '07, GM will introduce newer two-mode hybrid Chevy Tahoe and GMC Yukon utility models that will be more efficient In 2008, BMW and Daimler (formerly DaimlerChrysler), GM's hybrid alliance partners, also will begin selling two-mode hybrids, according to the firm's latest U.S. Hybrid-Electric Vehicle Forecast.

In addition to hybrids, other vehicles with alternative powertrains produce fewer pollutants and greenhouse gases. Vehicles powered by natural gas and propane are good choices. Vehicles that can operate on E85 (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline mix) are offered by General Motors, Chrysler, Nissan and Ford. Also, there are diesel vehicles that can be powered by biodiesel fuel (vegetable oils and animal fats), and new clean-diesel models that rely on ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel.

Hybrids currently account for 2.3% of total car and light-truck sales in the U.S. As automakers offer a wider variety of hybrids that include luxury vehicles and minivans, the number of hybrids is expected to grow to more than 1 million units by 2012, according to the most recent J.D. Power and Associates U.S. Hybrid-Electric Vehicle Forecast. As the sales numbers rise and automakers achieve economies of scale, suppliers will lower their production costs and eventually hybrid price premiums should drop, which will make buying hybrids more reasonable. However, even now hybrids are available in many price ranges, and cars and light trucks still account for 25% of the nation's global warming pollution and 20% of the country's smog-forming pollution, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. So it might be argued that even at today's higher prices, purchasing a hybrid or an alternative fuel-powered vehicle might be a way to help the environment.

10:57 | Permalink | Comments (2)

Domestic automakers have recently launched several new products that resonate with U.S. consumers. These include the Jeep Wrangler 4-Door, the Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia, Saturn Outlook, Ford Edge and Lincoln MKX, among others. These models have received positive media coverage, achieved competitive sales volumes in their first months on the market and are moving off dealer lots quickly. The Buick Enclave's current retail turn rate (the average number of days it sits on the dealer's lot before selling) is among the lowest in the industry, based on data collected by the Power Information Network (PIN), a division of J.D. Power and Associates.

These recent successes for the domestics are welcome, in part because they've been so long in coming, but by themselves they'll do little in the long run. To improve their U.S. market shares, domestic automakers must replace their products with updated, redesigned versions—regularly and frequently.

In the past, domestic products generally have had longer product life cycles than those of leading Asian brands, such as Toyota, Honda and Nissan. These Asian automakers have replaced their brands' products regularly, regardless of how they well or poorly they performed at retail. For example, Honda replaces the Accord and Civic and Toyota replaces the Camry and Corolla, every 5 to 6 years even though these models are consistently among the best sellers in their respective segments and in the overall new light-vehicle industry.

Domestic manufacturers cannot rest on their laurels after introducing successful products. Rather, they need to immediately plan for replacement and bring successor models to market at similar intervals.

10:47 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Every time I see my friend Peter, he asks me what kind of car he should buy for himself. When he says this, I know what he means; he's making a distinction between cars that he currently owns—which are used by other family members—and a car that would be reserved for his exclusive use. Peter eagerly anticipates a time when his children are grown and he can reward himself with an expensive sports car or a luxurious convertible.

Vehicles in Peter's current stable include a 2005 Honda Passport, a 2006 Volkswagen New Beetle, and a 2004 Ford Ranger. The Passport is the sole transport of the family nanny, while the Beetle is driven primarily by his 16-year-old daughter who has a tendency to hit curbs. He uses the Ford Ranger to drive to and from work.

Peter longs for the freedom to pack an overnight bag on a moment's notice, get into a clean and shiny new car, and disappear for the weekend. Unfortunately, his current lifestyle—kids, a family business, and numerous other responsibilities—prohibits this kind of behavior. Our conversations about cars usually start with something like: "I'm thinking about buying a sports car for myself. What do you think about Porsche?"

My response always includes the same facts, but often in a different order to make it appear that today's answer is different from yesterday's. Our discussions always follow the same pattern. First we discuss Porsche, which is the brand I think he would own if price were not a consideration. Then we talk about BMW, which is his number-two favorite; then Mercedes; then Audi .

"Porsche makes great cars," I tell him. "You could always consider a 911; it has a great reputation as a pure sports car. If that's too expensive, consider a certified used 911. Or, consider the Cayman—it's one of the most nimble and agile sports cars available aside from the Lotus Elise, which is track-ready but impractical." I mention that Porsche has a great reputation for quality. In the J.D. Power and Associates 2007 Initial Quality Study, Porsche ranks number one among all nameplates, and the Boxster ranks highest in its segment. Similarly, in the J.D. Power and Associates 2007 APEAL Study, Porsche ranks first among all brands, and the Cayman ranks highest in its segment for consumer appeal.

Peter takes it all in, pauses for effect, and comes back with a considered response: "Yes, I'm sure Porsche cars are wonderful and perform beautifully, but what if I want to take two friends and some luggage with me on a road trip? Is it really worth spending that much for a two-seater with limited space?" I explain that each model has its own set of tradeoffs. For those who want seating for five, ample luggage space, and traditional Porsche virtues like speed and handling, there's the Porsche Cayenne or Cayenne Turbo. For drivers addicted to track days or driving on twisty mountain roads, there's no substitute for a 911 or a Cayman—depending upon your price range.

"What about a 3 Series convertible? Are those any good?" he asks.
"I hear the new 335i is very nice." He knows I'm a car enthusiast, that I favor BMWs over nearly all other brands, and that my wife and I both drive BMWs, but he asks the question anyway. "BMWs are great", I explain. "I'm on my second one and my wife has owned six. They're fun to drive, they handle the road well, and they're well-built. If you enjoy feeling every little nuance in the road, they're a lot of fun. Just don't expect the ride quality of a Lexus, Cadillac , or Mercedes."

I add that the 2006 J.D. Power Initial Quality Study revealed that BMW, along with Toyota, Porsche, Lexus, Chrysler, and Hyundai had the fewest defects and malfunctions according to owners. Also, in the 2007 APEAL study, BMW 6 Series, X5, and 3 Series rank highest in their respective segments for consumer appeal. His response: "I'm sure BMWs are nice, but I hear that some models ride rough. Also, I need more room, and some BMWs are too small."

With regard to Mercedes, it's always the same story. He tells me about his sister, who loves her 2006 C-Class. He asks me which Mercedes I would recommend, and he asks about pricing and quality. I recommend the E-Class or the S-Class: both smooth-riding luxury cars that feature all the latest safety and convenience technologies. "I like the E-Class," Peter says, "how much does it cost?" I tell him the E Class starts in the $50,000 range and the S-Class is around $80,000.

Peter tells me the S-Class is "too rich for his blood," but I wonder: Does that mean it's too expensive or too ostentatious? He then asks if Mercedes offers a convertible E-Class model, which unfortunately they don't. I also explain that Mercedes quality is on the rise and the brand aims to recapture the lead in quality and dependability that it enjoyed in the 1990s. He says he'd buy an E-Class convertible today if Mercedes made one.

With regard to Audi, Peter usually asks which models I recommend. I tell him about Audi's strengths in styling and design—especially with regard to interior design. Audi interiors have long been considered the industry benchmark. I tell him that the A8, the automaker's range-topping model, was recently ranked highest in its segment in the J.D. Power 2007 Initial Quality Study. "Too expensive," he responds, so I recommend the A4 convertible, but he wants a larger car, like the A6, which isn't offered in a convertible version.

Porsche: too small. BMW: too small. Mercedes: no E-Class convertible. Audi: no A6 convertible. Each automaker—Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, and Audi—offers a variety of cars for those who appreciate fine engineering and the art of automotive design. Porsche is for sporting enthusiasts who want to experience the ultimate in handling and control in a pure sports car. BMW is for driving enthusiasts who enjoy the feel of the road but still want to maintain some semblance of a luxury ride. Mercedes represents the ultimate in luxury, comfort, and integration of leading-edge technology. Audi is for those who want rapid transport with class, style, comfort, and power—all in equal doses.

As I always end up telling my friend Peter, it's a matter of personal preference. Drive some of each brand's models and see which of them you prefer. And if you find one that you like but can't afford, consider a factory-approved certified used vehicle.

15:50 | Permalink | Comments (0)

My buddy Chuck recently introduced me to a fun Web site—hotornot.com. For those of you under the age of 23, you're probably familiar with it, and probably over it. For those who've never heard of it, here's a breakdown: people post pictures of themselves on the site, and you rate them on a scale of 1-10. That's it in a nut shell. I've certainly oversimplified it; there's a social networking component a la Facebook and other sites, but for the purpose of this blog, you get the gist. It's a lot of fun; you literally can spend hours rating pictures of different people.

So, while having a few beers with some buddies after work, I posed the following question to my crew (hey, if Hollywood stars have entourages and rock stars have groupies, why can't I have a car crew? We'll call them "Coop's Car Crew"— it's fun, it's got a good beat, and you can dance to it): 2008 new-vehicle launches and redesigns—which ones are hot, which are not?

First, I need to assert some standard legal jargon: These views do not reflect the views of J.D. Power and Associates. In addition, this isn't a statistically representative sample nor do any of these choices adhere to any of our research best practices.

Also, this is an "at first glance" evaluation—none of the crew have actually been inside any of these cars—of course, if the exterior designs aren't any good, why would someone be motivated to get inside one in the first place?

That said, we discussed two distinct categories: "Sleek and Unique" cars and "Super Sporty" cars, and I asked for first impressions. Then, I expanded the crew beyond the guys sitting and having beers, and emailed a bunch of other friends—primarily enthusiasts, some in the industry. Here's what they had to say:

The "Sleek and Unique" group included more niche cars—out of reach for most of the U.S. population, or really polarizing, love-it or hate-it designs:

• Audi R8



• Dodge Challenger



• Maserati Gran Turismo



• Mini Cooper Clubman



• Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe



• Smart ForTwo

The overwhelming favorites were the Maserati GranTurismo and the Audi R8. Hey, if you've got $100K burning a hole in your pocket, check 'em out! In fact, there's a kit you can buy to make your Audi TT look like an R8 for about half the price. So, if you've got champagne tastes but are on a beer budget (well, at least a Sam Adams budget, not a Natural Light budget), that might be the way to go.

But what about something more in reach, such as the Audi R8 or Mini Cooper Clubman.

Smart ForTwo? First, FOCB (that's "Friend of Coop's Blog") Rob wants to know, "Who comes up with these names?" Yeah, good question. Is "Clubman" a Euro thing?

The trend setters in the crew (read: those who bought the iPhone the first day it was available) all seem to agree that the Smart ForTwo should be a big hit with those who are looking for something unique, fun to drive, and fuel efficient. Personally, I'm not convinced. I don't think the Smart has as much personality as the Mini did when it hit the market. But what do I know, I don't own an iPhone.

I also like the Challenger, as I'm a fan of the retro revolution (see "Bring Back the Trans Am" blog), but not many of my mates agreed with me. So, according to the crew, the R8, Maserati GranTurismo and Smart ForTwo are hot. Mini, Rolls (what's a Drophead, anyway?) and Challenger are not.

So, what about the "Super Sporty" group? Definitely much more realistic purchase opportunities here:

• Audi A5


• Audi TT


• BMW M3


• Cadillac CTS


• Infiniti G37 Coupe


• Mercedes-Benz C-Class


• Mitsubishi Lancer Evo


• Audi R8


• Nissan Altima Coupe


• Pontiac G8


• Subaru Impreza WRX

Not hot, according to the crew? The new Nissan Altima Coupe. "Poor man's G37" says Rob, after taking a swig of his stout. Couldn't agree more; I watch that car drive by and think, "would I rather drive the Altima Coupe, or give up cable and drive the G37? Hmm...I can always go to Rob's house and watch the season finale of 'Burn Notice'."

Big yawns for the Audi TT (best comment: "Um, are you sure they actually redesigned this?") and the Mitsu Lancer Evo (my tuner buddies preferred the WRX over the Evo).

Lots of "Wouldn't make my top three, but close" votes for the Pontiac G8 and Cadillac CTS. I'm going to go out on a limb and say these are two solid shots at Detroit success stories (if I had to bet the house, I'd go Caddy over G8).

So, the big winners, according to the crew? The BMW M3 and Audi A5, with some love for the new C-Class. "S-Class design on Average Joe's budget" was how FOCB Will described the car. Not a bad call.

If the crew is right, 2008 should be a breakout year for Audi (A5 and R8); the new M3 is going to be a big hit; and Mercedes (C-Class and Smart) should walk away feeling pretty good.

So—what do you think? Are you a fan of the M3? Maybe the CTS? How about the Altima Coupe? Give us your opinion by taking our Hot or Not Poll.

I'll be rooting for the Challenger.

10:42 | Permalink | Comments (2)

In every human endeavor, there are people who strive to push limits and explore boundaries. A professional mountain climber wakes with a chill in his bones after dreaming of reaching the summit of Everest. An avid runner envisions himself as the first to cross the finish line of the annual Boston Marathon. A driving enthusiast incurs the expense of a trip to Germany solely to experience the infamous Nurburgring Nordchleife. A small team of automotive engineers wants to build a rolling tribute to modern technology, so they build a supercar—the ultimate expression of automotive passion, innovation and creativity—to demonstrate what's possible.

With the ability to design and test engines on a computer before any parts are built, big hp and everyday reliability are no longer opposing forces. Today, engines with 500 and 600 hp are not uncommon. Audi, BMW, Porsche, and Mercedes-Benz all offer models with around 500 hp or more. The Porsche Cayenne and the Mercedes-Benz ML63 AMG—two 5,000+ pound SUVs—both sport more than 500 hp.

Mercedes is simply hp obsessed. Thanks to its AMG in-house tuning division, the luxury automaker offers 13 models with at least 500 hp and four models with 600 hp. With the addition of turbochargers and superchargers—sometimes using both technologies on the same engine—these outputs are expected to climb in the coming years. In this country, the Dodge Viper leads the power race with 600 hp, while the Chevrolet Corvette Z06 sports 505 hp. But the balance of power is about to change in Chevy's favor.

Recently, one of my colleagues left a Road & Track article on my desk with the latest rumors of a 650-bhp Corvette. How fast could a Blue Devil, SS, Sting Ray, or Z07—all potential names for this hyper Corvette—travel from, say, 0 to 60 mph? According to Chevrolet, the Z06 can get to 60 in 4.2 seconds. What times could a Z07 with about 150 more horse pressure achieve? I consulted the '0-60 mph calculator for cars' www.060calculator.com to find an answer.

To check for accuracy, I entered the stats for my car into the calculator: 255 bhp and a curb weight of 3,410 lbs. It estimated a 0-60 time of 5.8 seconds, which sounds about right. For the Z07, I entered 650 hp and 3,200 lbs (to account for a larger engine, heavy-duty suspension, as well as larger brakes, wheels and tires). The calculator projected a 0-60 time of 2.76 seconds. It sounds unbelievable, but with the Z07, it seems that Chevy is aiming to beat many brand-name supercars at their own game.

Here's a short list of the cars that the Z07 might be able to beat:

• In 1986, Porsche produced the 959—an all-wheel-drive, 450-hp machine that was the first to achieve 60 mph in less than 4 seconds (3.9). Featuring one of the most sophisticated all-wheel-drive systems ever conceived, the 959 could be driven at ludicrous speeds—even in inclement weather. With a curb weight of 3,197 lbs, it could get to 100 mph in 8.6 seconds and to 124 mph in 14.3 seconds.


• In 1987, Ferrari introduced the F50—one of the most fascinating supercars ever built. With a curb weight of 2,425 lbs—about the same as a Mazda Miata—and 478 hp, the F40 delivered stunning performance: 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds; 0-100 mph in 7.8 seconds; and 0-124 mph in 11.2 seconds. Whereas the Porsche 959 represented the ultimate in technology, the F40 embodied the emotional side of driving: raw, unfiltered speed and aggression. The F40 was the first car to break the mystical 200-mph barrier, achieving 201 mph.








• In 1994, McLaren, in conjunction with BMW, introduced the F1—a 627-hp, three-seat car that could achieve 242.14 mph! The F1 jumped from 0-60 mph in 3.2 seconds, to 100 in 6.3 seconds, and through the quarter mile in 11.1 seconds. For more than a decade, the F1 was the fastest production car available. In 2005, it was upstaged by the Bugatti Veyron.


• In 2002, Ferrari introduced the Enzo with 660 hp, a 0-60 time of 3.3 seconds, and a 0-100 time of 6.7 seconds. Shortly thereafter, Porsche released the Carerra GT with more than 600 hp and a top speed of 205 mph. It could scoot to 60 in 3.6 seconds, to 100 in 7.1, and through the quarter mile in 11.2 seconds. Some say it is like driving a 600-hp Boxster.


• In 2004, Porsche introduced the 612-hp Porsche Carrera GT—a follow-on to the earlier 959 and created in response to criticisms that Porsche was losing its core audience by building vehicles such as the Cayenne. It could scoot to 60 mph in 3.7 seconds.


• In 2005, Mercedes and McLaren released the 626-hp Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren. It traveled to 60 mph in 3.8 seconds and through the quarter mile in 11.6 seconds.



With the exception of the Bugatti Veyron, there is only one car available that might be able to challenge the Z07. According to the company's Web site, the 750-bhp Saleen S7 can get to 60 mph in 2.8 seconds and to 100 in 5.9 seconds. And even if the Z07 can out-accelerate the Saleen, it won’t be able to beat the forthcoming Caparo T1, which is essentially a street-legal F1 racecar.

The T1 is expected to jump to 60 mph in 2.5 seconds and to 100 in less than 5 seconds. Part of the reason for this spectacular performance is due to low weight (1,100 lbs, which is about one-fourth the weight of the Veyron) and the use of wings and other aerodynamic appendages to generate downforce, which uses the air to create a weight on the rear of the car that "pushes" it into the road. The only other street-legal road car that uses downforce is a version of the Lotus Elise.

While the Veyron may be able to match the T1's performance in a straight line, the Caparo will have no equals among road cars when the road or track turns. Through a combination of aerodynamics and downforce, the car is expected to deliver lateral acceleration readings of 3.0g—a level reached only by true race cars. But while the T1 and its ilk may cost in excess of $500,000, I'm guessing that the Z07 will cost less than $150,000. If that's the case, sign me up!

Source: supercarworld.com and wikipedia.com


11:43 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Several weeks ago, monthly new car and light-truck sales totals for August were released and General Motors surprised with an increase of 6% over the previous year. Not surprisingly, GM's talking heads sunned themselves in this unexpected light, chalking up the sales bump to a slew of breakthrough new products and to the fact that consumers were finally getting the message that GM was back. Whoa there...let's not get ahead of ourselves.

First, I will be (and have been) among the first to give GM credit for some really promising new products. GM in particular (and Ford to a degree) has launched what look like genuine "base hits" this year. Unfortunately for them, I think they are in the same pickle that the captain of the Titanic encountered about 15 minutes after hitting the iceberg. If you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about. The ship had just brushed the iceberg and damage reports were coming in from the lower decks. On the surface, everything looked okay. Sure, the ship had just hit a Rhode-Island-sized speed bump, but it wasn't sinking and seemed to have recovered. Then, more reports from below deck came in and suddenly it was clear—the seeds of a disaster were sown and nothing could change the outcome. The Titanic was going to sink and all anyone could do was watch it happen.

I'm afraid the situation with the traditional Big Three is similar. Oh, I don't actually think they will sink (read: go out of business). But I do think that there are plenty of hard times ahead, regardless of what they do.

Think about it. The domestics, well, they sowed some pretty bad seeds for years. Often, when I talk with people in their 30s and 40s and tell them about today's crop of new and exciting products from GM, Ford or Chrysler, they look at me like I'm from another planet. They simply don't believe. They are part of a lost generation for the Big Three.

When I talk to these Generation X consumers, I'm afraid for the Big 3. I'm afraid that, like the Titanic, the seeds of misfortune have already been sown and the Detroit automakers are powerless to stop them from sprouting.

Look beyond the August sales numbers and you'll see the evidence:

• GM's sales are down 7% for the year, and they've lost another point of share


• Ford's sales are down 12% for the year, and they've lost almost 2 points of share


• Chrysler's sales are down 3%, but they haven't lost any market share

I spent four years living in Detroit and I've had my share of classic American cars (my first car was a 1967 Camaro, and I've even owned two different Corvairs), and I want the domestic automakers to move ahead. I'm just afraid they have a long row to hoe before they can succeed.

13:47 | Permalink | Comments (0)

The European auto industry is putting heavy horsepower on the back burner and moving forward with an environmental conscience—at least for now. Fuel efficiency was a theme at the recent international auto show in Frankfurt, Germany. Automakers showed clean diesels, hybrid-diesel engines, plug-in electric concept cars, as well as compact gas misers.

A major reason for the green move in Europe is because the European Union, Europe's governing body, is requiring cars on the continent and in the U.K. to reduce carbon emissions from autos to 120 grams per kilometer by 2012 (based on targets set in the Kyoto Accord), according to one of our firm's consultants, Charlie Vogelheim, vice president of automotive development, who attended the show. He says the goal for 2008 is 140 grams per kilometer.

At the show, many automakers exhibited vehicles or concepts that adhere to these strict changes, such as the BMW X6 Concept ActiveHyrbid Crossover Coupe; Mercedes-Benz F 700 that relies on a low-emission gasoline engine with the consumption benefits of a diesel drive; Opel Flexstreme Concept developed by GM's German Opel unit and Segway, the scooter maker; and the Volvo ReCharge Plug-in Hybrid Concept that combines wheel-mounted electric motors with power from lithium-ion batteries.

Reducing CO² is the major goal in Europe, Vogelheim told me, pointing out that, "While the U.S. has traditionally looked at controlling ozone producing emissions, the Europeans are focusing on greenhouse gases," and he adds that "fuel efficiency is the quickest way to reduce CO²." Vogelheim said that the U.S. has focused on ozone-producing particulates with systems removing hydrocarbon (CO and nitrogen oxide) emissions. But these systems can create more CO² in the process. CO² is a colorless, odorless gas that has been linked to global warming.

So how do the Europeans fare in the green debate? Vogelheim suggests that the Europeans already are more fuel efficient than U.S. automakers due to the use of diesel engines. "The Europeans utilize smaller engines and turbo- and superchargers combined with diesel fuel for a more efficient combustion engine." Currently, diesel is less expensive than gasoline in Europe as a result of tax subsidies.

Vogelheim also says that the European automakers are investing in all-new technologies, but points out that most of these hybrids are still two years away. Diesel is a given in Europe, with close to a 50% share of the car market, according to J.D. Power and Associates. However, time will tell if new hybrids and plug-in electric models take off in the European market. Hybrids account for just 2.3% of industry sales in the U.S., according to our firm's research. Vogelheim says that the long-term hope for German automakers is the hydrogen fuel cell.

09:15 | Permalink | Comments (0)