By Brendan Moore

05.31.2007

As we reported (story here) on May 19, there is an alternative proposal to the potential new CAFE standards bill. That new CAFE standards bill is currently on its way to a vote in the Senate in the very near future.

The alternative proposal is being championed by Carl Levin, the senior senator from Michigan, and, as you might reasonably expect, an auto-industry advocate. Among the Levin proposal’s draft provisions are increases in average car fuel economy to 36 mpg by 2022 and increases in average truck fuel economy to 30 mpg by 2025. The Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers, an industry group that includes Toyota, the Big 3, and five other auto manufacturers, is considering getting behind the Levin proposal in an attempt to substitute the requirements of the Levin proposal for the stated terms of the new CAFE bill.

The new CAFE bill requires a fleet-wide average (both cars and trucks) of 35 mpg by 2020, and subsequent improvements of 4% a year thereafter until 2030. Just the mandate for calendar year 2020 means a whopping 40% increase in fuel efficiency from the current blended average will be required, since the average mpg for cars is currently 27.5 mpg and the average mpg for trucks is 22.2 mpg.

And that just satisfies the 2020 requirement. The annual 4% improvements required each year from the 2020 level until calendar year 2030 are the CAFE equivalent of compound interest being added to your credit card balance every month. It is impossible to achieve with current gasoline engine technology unless the federal government is also prepared to require a large percentage of consumers to purchase very small vehicles. If the federal government is not going to require citizens to buy a certain kind and size of car, then the standards in the new CAFE bill can only be met by technologies like plug-in hybrids, hydrogen-gas hybrid or all-hydrogen/all-electric vehicles.

There are “off-ramps” in the current bill that would allow the government to suspend the mpg requirements if the requirements are found to be too expensive or technologically unfeasible, but environmental advocates are working like mad behind the scenes to close those loopholes before the vote, since a suspension is viewed as a likely occurrence if the loophole exists. Another off-ramp is the one we commented on in the May 19 article, which allows a complete exemption from CAFE requirements from now until 2020 to any automaker that promises that all of their vehicles will be powered by alternative energy by 2020.

Auto industry executives view the increases in fuel mileage requirements mandated in the new CAFE bill as onerous, untenable and wildly unrealistic. Lawmakers, however, are in a take-no-prisoners mood regarding both fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and are not likely to go along with any attempts by the auto industry or their ever-decreasing friends in the House and the Senate to just make the bill go away. Hence the consideration of the substitute measure from Sen. Levin.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

2006 Tuscan S

There are many ways which TVR might approach such a situation where they must reduce their production costs, but in my opinion, this is the worst way. The best thing TVR can do at this moment is outsource. I realize that TVR doesn’t wish to do this; in fact, it is anathema to them. However, it is a necessity if they’re going to have a profitable business.

And, frankly, I think TVR is coming around to this realization as well. For instance, they recently changed tyre set up from “Dunlop SuperSports” to less a expensive, but just as effective” Goodyear Eagle F1 supercar” tyre, and in another outsourcing effort they went with a well established and trusted company “Bilstein” for a pair of sock absorbers when searching for new suspensions solutions on the “Tuscan”. Other recent additions included the use of “AP” brake calipers and “Sparco” seats. This not only gave customers a better perception of the company, since these are recognized performance brands, but as an added (and important) advantage it made the “Tuscan” feel like a proper car. Which leads us to the other problem with doing everything in-house.

The lack of outsourcing for the longest time has indeed given TVR a particular reputation, but not one that they wanted. In fact, one of the reasons why they are so poorly received could have something to do with the fact that they’ve already gained a reputation for building the least dependable and most unreliable cars on the market. Consistent breakdowns of press vehicles as well as customer cars needing engines rebuilds at 5,000 KM certainly aren’t adding to the allure of the TVR brand. With the company’s revamp and buy-out last year, the addition of a longer customer warranty was added – but hey, you can give something a bigger warranty, but if the product is not improved, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s junk.

2006 TVR Sagaris

To be honest, TVR’s have never really been great cars. In fact, it wasn’t until recently when they started being real sports cars. Up until late 2005 or so, TVR’s had been quite simply known as the bargain-cheap British supercar with no amenities, outrageous styling and blistering speed. Obviously such a reputation can’t carry them forever and with such, TVR had to start putting actual work into the car. Late-model vehicles are no longer known as “rough and tough” as chassis dynamics, ergonomics, handling, brakes, etc have all been improved. Although an overall improvement is apparent, let’s not kid ourselves – TVR’s are still vehicles made primarily for the mentally insane. You still get no anti-lock brakes, no limited slip differential, no airbags, and no power steering. Meanwhile, options such as air-conditioning and traction control are still optional.

With this being said, TVR would be mighty smart to make such options standard, as well as adding the ones currently not available at all (ABS, etc), again as standard. TVR’s present hairy-chested and minimalist approach might work for some car company somewhere, but it’s clearly not working for TVR anymore.

Mind you, TVR could also work on importing into the North America market as well, but before they do so, they must fix their reputation.

But is it too late? Yeah, I think it might be.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

By Chris Haak

05.24.2007

Today, I was thinking about, how, as new features are introduced and eventually make their way from luxury models to the more pedestrian ones, the expectations of the buying public increase.

Think about just the past 20 years. Back in 1987, what kinds of bells and whistles were offered? Power windows, power locks, power steering, power trunk release, air conditioning, cassette player, cloth seats, rear defroster, and a V6.

Ten years later, in 1997, many of the above features were standard, other than the V6. But ABS, dual airbags, traction control, leather seats, and CD players were also goodies that you could add to your new car.

Now, in 2007, most cars have everything from 1987 (except for the V6) standard, but now options are curtain and thorax airbags alongside the mandatory front airbags, stability control, satellite radio, CD changer, satellite navigation, a hybrid powertrain, Bluetooth cell phone interface, iPod integration, and more. Is it any surprise that cars now weigh more than they did in 1997, and far more than they did in 1987?

1975 Honda Civic – a passenger-side mirror was an option

In the car buying universe – and in life itself – it is difficult to “take a step backwards” into something less comfortable, less powerful, and of course, less prestigious. Few people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s want to move into a smaller house than their current one. Few want to trade in a Lexus for a Toyota. The fact is, as consumers get used to having features in their vehicle, there is a collective expectation that every car sold should have certain features. My wife used to drive a Saturn L200 that was pretty much bare-bones. It had an automatic and a four cylinder, but also had power windows and locks, an AM/FM radio, rear defroster…basically, this bare-bones 2004 model car was equipped similarly to the “loaded” Pontiac Grand Am I used to drive in high school in the early 1990s.

I’m not criticizing society or its car buyers in all of this – just making an observation. Those options are all great to have. In fact, I’ve been so spoiled by 8 or 10 years of leather seats, sunroofs, V6s, etc. that I don’t ever see myself buying another new car without at least those as a bare minimum. And in the four years since I bought a new Honda Accord, the bar has been raised even further. Now, I expect my next vehicle to have all of the previously mentioned equipment plus satellite radio, stability control, thorax and head curtain airbags, and a navigation system. Bluetooth cell phone integration would be nice, too. And, unless we decide to go with a hybrid for the next car, it sure would be nice to have more power from my V6. I mean, there have been times that the Honda V6’s 240-horsepower has not quite seemed like enough…

So what’s going to happen in 2017? How long will my (and the typical car buyer’s) “must have” list get? Self parking, ventilated/massaging seats, satellite video, wireless Internet access…who knows?

The lesson in all this for the auto industry is that people are going to want more and more features and amenities all the time, so it’s best to be prepared. It’s also prudent to not make the car buying process more confusing than it already is. There’s no need to have a ton of standalone options; Honda’s model works well. Just have different trim lines, and throw in everything (except maybe navigation) in the top one (big engine, leather, sunroof, nicer/larger wheels, XM, etc.), then one step down throw in a little less, then two steps down have the base model. For people like me, who want to get pretty much everything available, it is often times cheaper to get a model that’s automatically loaded with everything than having to check every option box. Manufacturers make a lot of money on standalone options – the markups are much larger than on the base-model vehicles – but by making their cars more standardized, they could probably save some of that same money by making production more efficient. And, on the dealership side, it would be easier to move inventory because there’s not going to be some oddball model that nobody wants – they’ll all be the same except for the color.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

By Brendan Moore
I’ve been a subscriber to Hot Rod for a very long time (my interest in cars is a rainbow of many colors, don’t you know) and I always enjoy taking a walk through the literary equivalent of Muscle Beach every month. Lots and lots of go-fast stuff.

05.24.2007

This month’s issue has an article titled “The $99 Paint Job” by Christopher Campbell. It is investigative journalism from a practical standpoint, and I’m not being facetious when I type that. In the article they attempt to replicate the claims that have been passed around for years that you can paint your car with a roller, yourself, and get a good-quality paint job using regular Rust-Oleum exterior enamel paint. Incredible as it may seem, that’s the story.

I’ve heard about this for years, and as the writer notes, it’s taken on the reputation of a kind of urban legend. Some guys on Moparts.com have actually posted the results of the paint jobs they did with enamel and a roller, and so Mr. Campbell decided to see if the legend was true. The article is excellent, with lots of accompanying photos and step-by-step delineation of the process, which is a bit more detailed than just rolling the paint on to the car. It is a labor-intensive job, but you can’t beat the price, that’s for sure.

The end result, according to Mr. Campbell, was astounding considering the materials and application method. It’s not a paint job you would want on any car worth real money, says Campbell, but was a better-quality job than most quickie paint job places give you. Its really amazing, to tell you the truth.

If you want the whole story, you’ll have to buy or borrow a print copy of the July issue of Hot Rod, because it’s not available online.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

By Brendan Moore

05.23.2007

United Auto Group (UAG), the sole distributor of the Smart car in the United States, has kicked off a national road tour of cities where Smart franchises are likely to be awarded. Smart “Fortwo”cars will be available for the public to look at, sit in and drive. Product consultants will be available at each stop to answer questions, and the average stop in each city is expected to last about five days. If a dealer franchise is awarded in a city before the tour makes its stop in that respective metro area, then the new Smart dealer will participate in that particular show. Smart has not announced any dealer selections at this time.

The tiny Smart will be a new experience for most American drivers – it is 106 inches long. This means the Smart Fortwo is three feet shorter than a Mini, which many Americans consider to be too small a car.

Three Smart tour crews are traversing the United States, but since the average stop will last about five days, and they may stop at as many as 70 cities nationwide, the Smart road show is not expected to end until November. Hopefully, there will also be tour jackets for the road show cast and crew, and who knows, maybe even a documentary later.

The Smart cars are scheduled to go on sale in the U.S. in January 2008. Prices for the three levels of the Smart Fortwo have not been announced, but UAG has stated the base level Fortwo, the Pure, will be priced at less then $12,000. UAG has taken over 13,000 refundable $99 reservation deposits on the Smart car so far. The reservation entitles the holder to the “right of first refusal” on one of the future Smart cars.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

By Brendan Moore

05.22.2007

For those of you that have been following the Proton saga, the latest is that the company is still looking for an investor/partner, the two leading candidates for this potential partnership are still GM and VW, and the current majority owner, the government of Malaysia, says no way to a government bailout.

Proton has sustained losses ever since Malaysia’s new-car market was opened up to outside competition, and the talks aimed at finding a partner have not gone well. The government’s official stance on the matter is almost nonchalant; they exude optimism that a partner for Proton will be found shortly. However, in their private discussions, it is believed that Proton’s ebbing fortunes and their cloudy future have the Malaysian government quite concerned. The government owns Proton through a state-investment firm named Khazanah Nasional Bhd.

Both GM and VW could use the manufacturing capacity and the market presence that Proton would give them in the part of the world Proton currently operates in, but so far the asking price has just been too high. It appears that both GM and VW are prepared to wait.

Proton, launched in 1985 under a previous government administration, has a large, very modern plant north of Kuala Lumpur that is currently under-utilized by approximately 60%. This plant would provide any new partner with instant low-cost production capacity in Southeast Asia, whose population is eager for car ownership, and is also, not incidentally, twice that of the United States at around 600 million people.

2006 Proton Savvy

Proton has a deserved reputation for making cars that are of mediocre quality, has models that are as old as 10 years old that have been virtually unchanged in those 10 years, has a poor service and parts network; and once the market was opened up, Malaysians voted with their wallets, snapping up Toyotas, Nissans and Kias. With their domestic market collapsing, and no real presence in any foreign markets, Proton is on shaky ground. If a sale doesn’t happen soon, there won’t be much value left in the company.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

By Chris Haak

05.21.2007

I just read a story on Autoblog about Hartley Enterprises’ new 2.8 liter 75 degree V8 engine. It’s a combination of two Suzuki Hayabusa four cylinder motorcycle engines. The Hayabusa (formal name GSX1300R) is considered by many to be the fastest production motorcycle in the world. Its 1299 cc (1.3 liter) engine is rated at 175 horsepower, and there are numerous performance upgrades available to improve these figures even further (such as turbo-charging). The V8 built by Hartley Enterprises weighs just 200 pounds, and pumps out 400 horsepower and 245 lb-ft of torque, and revs to 10,000 RPMs. The manufacturer claims that the engine will fit in applications designed for inline four cylinder engines.

Reading about this got me to think about the way engines are currently designed. I’ve always had a thing for small versions of engines that are generally bigger. Basically, the current paradigm in engine design is to alter the number of cylinders but to keep the piston size and stroke (displacement) more or less the same (I4s between 2.0 and 2.5 liters, V6s between 3.0 and 3.8 liters, and V8s between 4.0 and 5.0 liters would all have the same displacement per cylinder).

Instead, the Hartley V8 alters the piston size/stroke and keeps the number of cylinders the same. It gets the street credibility of a V8 (plus, apparently, its horsepower!) yet could potentially have similar economy to a V6 of similar displacement. Heck, it’s hard to find a new V6 less than 3.0 liters anyway, as the newest engines such as the Ford Duratec 3.5 liter, GM High Feature 3.6 liter, and Toyota’s 3.5 liter 2GR-FE are all larger.

Who says that, for example, a Chevy Cobalt shouldn’t be able to enjoy the inherent smoothness (and prestige) of a V8? A small V8 with the same displacement – but half of the per cylinder displacement of the current 2.4 liter Ecotec engines available in these cars – could be a marketing coup. The engine would not have to work as hard to move the cars, and in GM’s case, they cannot build four cylinders that are as efficient as they can V6s and V8s (witness the Corvette coupe’s 400 horsepower LS2 V8 rated at 28 mpg on the highway, while the Cobalt’s 148 horsepower Ecotec 2.2 liter four cylinder is rated at 32 mpg on the highway). Could the Cobalt do better with a V8? If fuel economy and cost concerns could be mitigated, then wouldn’t everyone want a V8?

1993 Mazda MX-3

I always thought the mini V6 that Mazda put into the MX-3 in the early 1990s was sweet. A 1.8 liter 24 valve V6 (though it only put out 108 horsepower, which was on par with contemporary four cylinders, it enjoyed a V6’s smoothness and the prestige of being the smallest production V6 sold in the US. Unfortunately, the market didn’t see it that way, and the engine option was dropped after just a couple of model years. By the way, the V6 MX-3 was rated at 27 mpg on the highway, and the I4 version was rated at 32 mpg.

Alas, cost is probably the one thing keeping automotive engineers from building small displacement V8s and powering their lineups with them. The built-to-order Hartley V8 costs “under $30,000” – in other words, a price at which you could buy two of the aforementioned four cylinder Cobalts. It’s a well-engineered little engine with some extremely high-tech hardware on it.

This is just an idea that I don’t want to give up. Why drive a four-banger when you “coulda had a V8?”

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved