Archive | July, 2007

Can’t Have It All

By on July 18, 2007 in Features

By Bruce McCulloch

07.18.2007

After a recent slew of magazines journalists downplaying the newly released, 4th generation BMW M3 for being ‘soft’, ‘smooth’ and ‘matured’, I can do nothing but shake my head. Not because I disagree with their assertions, but rather because I see our society has killed yet another legend.

This unfortunate news is deeply saddening to not only BMW enthusiasts, but to enthusiasts around the world who once viewed the iconic ‘M’ badge as a symbol for race-inspired, pure built road-going race cars. Those who are old enough to remember the glory days of the lightweight, compact, 4 cylinder rocket of the late 80’s/early 90’s, the E30 M3, will be sorely disappointed to hear that the special genes which once made an ‘M car’ are slowly fading away.

Mind you (and for those really paying attention), this discussion is not new to the world of BMW. Truth is, each and new coming generation of BMW M3 has undergone such criticism. That being said, it’s clear that for the longest of time the M3 has been evolving into a something less compact, more luxurious and comfortable, while ultimately becoming more powerful.

Frankly, automotive enthusiasts worldwide are not open to the thought that the M3 could soon become a luxury car and while I cannot hide my disappointment with the thought, I feel the majority of enthusiasts are acting obtuse about the whole thing – viewing the whole picture through a key hole. Many are muttering the words, “has BMW gone mad”, “how could they let this happen”?

But who’s really to blame? BMW or our ever growing needs as consumers to have everything? I think it’s only fair to say a little of both.

Evolution:

Obviously, evolution is not a new concept and BMW is most certainly not the only automotive company ‘going with the flow’. For instance, such criticism has followed the current generation of 911’s (codename: 997) which when first released was constantly bombarded with complaints from Porsche enthusiasts for being tamer, more refined and easier to driver than the previous generations. Furthermore, people were saying the exact same thing about the 996 911 when compared to the 993 911.

Problem is, evolution is somewhat of a necessity as a means of trying to please a growing body of potential buyers. Unfortunately with each coming decade our once “four-wheel transportation” continues to morph into a digital office. I suppose the real question is when is too far, ‘too far’? We consumers ask far too much and then complain about it. Hell, if you want a sports car, buy a Lotus Elise; if you want a luxury sedan, buy a Lexus LS.

There are those companies would have us believe you can have it all but few truly deliver. Case in point, BMW M5 – with a flick of a button you turn an ‘underpowered’ 400 horsepower civilized sedan into a so called 500 horsepower ‘snarling beast’. Please… I don’t deny that the M5 is a great car, but this rubbish has gone all too far.

Now, you might be gathering the impression that I feel there are absolutely no upsides to our ever-growing consumerism – however, that is incorrect. If there is any upside to this I believe it to be in the world of exotic metal which has surely benefited as these gas sucking, face-pulling, wallet-crushing autos are no longer the back-breaking, dangerous beasts they once were. On the other hand, one could argue that today’s Ferrari Enzo is nowhere as entertaining as Ferrari’s 40th anniversary supercar simply because it is tamer and more sophisticated.

It’s a debate which will gather a different opinion from different enthusiasts, but make no mistake; in the opinion of this automotive enthusiast it is us who are ruining the car industry. Our constant need for unnecessary items such as IPOD connectivity and MP3 adaptors are leading us further down a road which is forcing manufacturers to struggle to find the perfect threshold between the two ideals of luxury and performance.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 2 }

OK, but if they go any higher, THEN we’ll cut back…

By on July 18, 2007 in Editorials

By Chris Haak

07.18.2007

A Reuters/Zogby poll released today concluded that 40% of Americans would curb their driving habits if gas reached $3.50 per gallon. Somehow, I do not believe this. It’s not that I am disputing the poll or its methodology; I dispute that Americans know what they are talking about with gas prices and how they will behave.

Gas prices in late May were already at an average of $3.23 per gallon nationwide. Assuming 22.5 miles per gallon combined economy and 15,000 miles driven per year, the annual cost difference between $3.23 and $3.50 per gallon is $180.09. That means a monthly difference of $15 or a weekly difference of $3.46.

Believe me, I complain about high gas prices as much as the next guy. We own two V6-powered vehicles (though one is a 5000-pound midsize body on frame SUV) and our “fleet average” is pretty close to 20 or 21 miles per gallon (the car a little above that, and it’s driven more; the SUV a little below that, and it’s driven less). I just don’t find it terribly credible for people to say that they will cut back on their driving if gas goes up another 27 cents per gallon from its late-May highs. Instead, I think that the steady climb of gas prices, particularly since early 2005, has almost conditioned the American public to accept them. I actually caught myself calling $2.74 per gallon “cheap” last weekend (and it was, relative to the prevailing $2.90 per gallon everywhere else near me). Meanwhile, US petroleum consumption – in spite of high prices – is actually increasing year over year. The fact is, most people have already cut out extraneous travel from their driving and are combining trips and using

I won’t talk much about advocating a gas tax at this time, but ironically, the one period when US petroleum consumption slowed or even declined in the past few years was immediately following Hurricane Katrina, when gas prices suddenly jumped $0.50 or more per gallon. It was a shock to consumers, rather than the Chinese water torture of steadily increasing prices has been for the past two years. Something sudden – like a tax – would likely have the same result.

The overall poll results about how gas prices would affect consumer behavior are:

  • 40% would curb their driving habits at $3.50 per gallon
  • 19% would curb their driving habits at $4.00 per gallon
  • 9% would curb their driving habits at $4.50 per gallon
  • 7% would curb their driving habits at $5.00 per gallon
  • 19% could not curb their driving habits regardless of price

The total above is 94%. Therefore, the implication is that in spite of gas prices being near all-time records in inflation-adjusted dollars, only 6% of drivers have curbed their driving habits.

A spokesperson for AAA, Geoff Sundstrom, probably said it best when he said, “It’s so hard to read what consumer behavior is going to be at higher price pionts – be that $3.50 per gallon or $4.00 per gallon – because we’re all in uncharted territory.”

However, given past history of the way Americans have complained, but basically shrugged off high gas prices, I expect more of the same as prices continue to rise in the coming years.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 9 }

Chrysler Cancels the Imperial

By on July 18, 2007 in News

By Brendan Moore

07.18.2007

In what promises to be the first of many similar public cancellations by the auto companies, Chrysler has axed production of the Imperial luxury sedan due to the impending increases in fuel economy requirements.

The Chrysler Imperial sedan would have been based on the Chrysler 300 platform, but would have been longer, much heavier, and taller. And, of course, it would have needed a more powerful means of motivation. All of that together would have probably returned fuel economy in the teens at best, and the proposed fuel economy requirements call for a 35 mpg average by 2020 across every auto manufacturer’s product line. Recent increases in the retail price of gasoline did not help the business case for the Imperial, either.

The Imperial concept was first shown at the 2006 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, and garnered strong reactions, both pro and con. In the interest of full disclosure, I have to tell you I was in the camp that didn’t like the Imperial. I still don’t like it – I think it looks fat and bulbous. It’s always reminded me of an overweight executive in an expensive suit. Personally, I think this falls under the law of unintended positive consequences for Chrysler because I believe the Imperial would have royally flopped.

Canadian Auto Workers President Buzz Hargrove stated that initial production plans for the Imperial had called for a production run of 50,000 units. Hargrove said that Chrysler had committed to replacing the lost Imperial production with the transfer of 30,000 units from the Magna International plant in Austria, which currently is producing the Chrysler 300.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 2 }

Child Seat Heads-Up and Plea

By on July 17, 2007 in Editorials

By Chris Haak

07.17.2007

Please think twice before putting a baby in the front seat.

In the past month, I’ve had three conversations with parents or grandparents of young children (or, in one case, future parents of a young child) who spoke of putting their child in an infant carrier in the front seat of their vehicle. After having these conversations, I was almost dumbfounded, because I had no clue that there were still parents in 2007 that didn’t put their children in the back seat as all of the safety experts advised. I figured that if I couldn’t properly convince those people to use the back seat only for children, maybe I could save some other lives instead of their childrens’/grandchildrens’.

The belief that it’s “OK” or “not a big deal” to have a very young child in the front seat of a car is, in my opinion, foolish. The reason cars and trucks have frontal airbags is because most collisions are frontal; simple physics then tells us that the further away from the impact a passenger is, the less likely it is that they would be injured or killed. Just think about that one – the back seat in almost any car is probably four or five feet farther from the firewall than the front seat. According to safekids.org, crash statistics bear this common sense out; one study showed that children are 37% more likely to be killed if seated in the front seat rather than the rear seat. As a father, I am fully in favor of giving my child a 37% better chance of surviving a crash, as should any responsible parent.

Here’s another chilling statistic, from the NHTSA: “Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for the age group 3 to 14 years old (based on 2003 figures, which are the latest mortality data currently available from the National Center for Health Statistics).” The same report also states, “Research on the effectiveness of child safety seats has found them to reduce fatal injury by 71 percent for infants (less than 1 year old) and by 54 percent for toddlers (1-4 years old) in passenger cars.” So doesn’t it stand to reason that it’s important to properly restrain your young child?

Although I have personally buckled up since childhood, and have never driven a car without wearing one, I consider myself far from extreme in my child safety views. In fact, I believe that laws such as Pennsylvania’s that require a child of up to seven years old to be in a booster seat to be a little over-the-top, considering there is no weight exemption. If you have a Baby Huey-sized seven year old who weighs 110 pounds, it’s ridiculous to have him in a booster seat. I do support mandatory seatbelt laws, particularly for children 17 and under, however.

Here are some excuses I’ve heard for putting children in the front seat that carry ZERO weight with me, as well as my response to these statements.

“When I was raising my kids 30 years ago, we didn’t even have cars seats, and they turned out fine!”
Yes, but there are plenty of kids from our generation who didn’t turn out fine, because they were killed or maimed in traffic accidents. The overall fatality rate has basically been cut by more than half since 1975, from 3.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles of travel, to 1.47 in 2005 (link to recent data). So obviously we’re doing something better with regard to occupant protection today. Is it possible we know more now than we did then?

“It’s much easier to take care of an infant in the front seat, rather than unsafely reaching to the back seat while driving.”
While it is unsafe to reach to the back seat to take care of a baby, having a mirror on the seat so that you can see the baby without turning your head makes this situation safer (as long as the mirror is secured properly). I don’t think holding a baby bottle while driving is any safer than reaching to the back seat (we prefer to have a single child seat on the right side of the car so the reach is easier). It’s also prudent to just pull over for a minute to take care of the baby.

“If it’s going to be your time to be killed in a car accident, there’s nothing you can do to change that. You can’t improve your odds.”
Yes, you CAN improve your odds. If you KNEW for sure that you were going to be in a traffic accident tomorrow, and there was nothing you could do to stop it, would you wear a seatbelt at least for tomorrow? Of course you would. That’s called improving your odds. If you wouldn’t, (and I say this with all due respect), you’re an imbecile. I believe very strongly in God, but I don’t plan on tempting fate by leaving myself or anyone in my family unprotected in the car. I will also buy every airbag possible in any new vehicle I purchase.

“If you only have a two seat car, it’s legal to have the baby in the front passenger seat in Pennsylvania.”
Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s safe. I’ve already mentioned one area where Pennsylvania went overboard with the child restraint laws (no weight limit on the boosters); they have also ignored serious potential safety issues allowing small children in the front seat and allowing children to be unrestrained in a vehicle that has all of the other seating positions are occupied by restrained passengers. So the Baby Huey seven year old needs a booster seat, unless his parents own a five-passenger car and he’s the sixth passenger, in which case he can sit on his brother’s lap. If someone owns only a two-seat car or pickup, and there is no other way to transport a child, it’s still a bad idea, but at least be certain that the passenger airbag is deactivated for all small children, and it’s absolutely essential to do so with rear-facing seats.

I apologize for the preachy article, but please, think carefully about the way you are protecting your children in the car. It’s your job as a parent to make smart decisions for them.

Additional resources:
Child Seat FAQ
Child car seat safety at Edmunds

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 2 }

Women in the Industry

By on July 17, 2007 in Editorials

By Alex Ricciuti

07.17.2007

There have been some recent articles in the European press, most notably one that ran in Automotive News Europe a few weeks ago, that have noted the scarcity of female executives in the European auto industry. In this regard, the U.S. auto industry far outpaces the European car makers as there are numerous female auto executives in various positions at the Big 3. Not so in Europe.

Having covered the European auto industry for over 3 years, I know well about the dearth of female executives. The only female directors or executives that I have interviewed have been the ones that represent dealer groups or dealer councils in Europe. I don’t think I’ve interviewed a single female executive at an automaker in all of that time.

Sure, there are plenty of women in the press departments and who work as assistants to the executives but the industry really should make an effort to recruit more female engineers and find female business leaders to groom for executive positions.

There may be cultural factors that lead to women being less attracted by the motor industry than men. But automakers can and should overcome this by developing recruitment and education programs that specifically seek out and train women for a career in the automotive sector.

And one need not have to justify this by any other reasoning other than it is the right thing to do. Period. Maybe gender diversity in the top ranks and in the board rooms will lead automakers to champion a broader economic and social agenda and be better global corporate citizens. Maybe female consumers will be more likely to buy a brand headed by a female executive. Maybe, but the only other good reason besides the moral one of gender equality is the practical one of untapped talent that is out there.

A few years back Volvo got some press when a team of women engineers created a car ‘for women’. I don’t like this notion of women designing cars for female consumers. It seems patronizing. More women should just simply be designing cars, making cars, marketing cars and leading car companies. Do some models have more female drivers than male? Yes. And if an automaker thinks they can have a competitive advantage by having that model designed or marketed by a female staff, then great. But don’t segregate the process so readily.

There is a whole pool of untapped talent out there when so few women work in the industry. I believe the companies that get in there early and recruit those women will have a great advantage simply because they have greater access to talent than their competitors. Those new female executives will help provide better notions of what the market and individual consumers (both female and male) want, because the companies that hire them will naturally be more reflective of the market they seek to sell to.

Alex Ricciuti is a freelance writer and automotive journalist based in Zurich, Switzerland. He writes frequently for Automotive News Europe.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 1 }

Diesel Invasion

By on July 17, 2007 in News

By Chris Haak

07.17.2007

In the next few years, we’ll see more diesels offered in the US than probably at any time in history. Why? Higher corporate fuel economy standards are likely in coming years, and even the US petroleum industry said in a draft report today that world oil supplies from conventional sources are unlikely to keep up with demand over the next 25 years. The problem is a combination of rapidly increasing petroleum consumption in the developing world and slowing or declining oil production worldwide.

Diesels are one piece of the solution to the problem of reducing petroleum consumption. Others include gas-electric hybrids, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), electric vehicles, and alternate fuels such as ethanol or hydrogen. All things being equal, a diesel generally gets about 30% better fuel economy than a gasoline engine. Modern diesels are almost always paired with a turbocharger, which serves to make diesels have none of the sluggishness that their ancestors did. In fact, diesel engines usually have very robust low-end torque characteristics, which make them ideal for stop-and-go urban driving, although this comes at the expense of higher-RPM power.

One key advantage of diesel engines, other than the fuel economy and torque benefits previously described, is that the infrastructure is already in place in large part because auto manufacturers have been selling diesel-powered pickup trucks for years, not to mention all of the heavy- and medium-duty diesel trucks on the road. Unlike alternate fuels such as hydrogen and E85, which can be found in almost no and very few gas stations, respectively, diesel is available at 42% of the 169,000 service stations nationwide; E85 is available at less than 1% of them.

GM famously/infamously scared an entire generation of consumers away from diesel engines in the 1980s by underdeveloped, unreliable, noisy diesel engines that were converted from gasoline engines. While Europeans have had an auto fleet consisting of many diesels for the past several years, Americans have shied away from them, thanks in large part to the GM diesel issues of the 1980s and to the fact that gasoline was relatively inexpensive.

This is all changing, however. In the past few years, we have seen some interesting developments on the diesel front; Jeep offered a diesel Liberty and now is offering a sophisticated 3.0 liter diesel Grand Cherokee with an engine sourced from Mercedes-Benz. The real fun, however, comes in 2010.

Word on the street is that the reason Honda dropped the Accord Hybrid model after the 2007 model year (besides slow sales) is that a diesel model is on its way. I’ve heard a 52 mile per gallon figure cited for this car; if this is true, I’ll be very impressed. That’s more than double the mileage I get from my 2004 Accord V6, and I’m actually more or less satisfied with its mileage. A diesel will probably make it into the Honda Ridgeline pickup and Odyssey minivan as an optional engine choice, plus the Acura MDX crossover and likely some other models.

Honda is an engineering company first and foremost, and they are the only auto manufacturer so far that has not had to resort to urea injection to convert nitrous oxide into harmless nitrogen and water (this is a solution that Mercedes, BMW, VW, Audi, and GM, among others, have undertaken). The problem with urea injection is that there is as tank of it under the hood, and when the supply is exhausted, the exhaust is no longer treated; not a very elegant solution. Instead, Honda has devised a special catalytic converter for its diesel that requires no chemical additives (so is maintenance-free) and the catalysts convert some of the the NOx to ammonia in its first layer, and then a now-ammonia-rich second layer converts the remaining exhaust to harmless nitrogen and water. It reminds me very much of Honda’s ability to meet 1975 Clean Air Act standards using its new CVCC engine rather without a catalytic converter.

GM is also embracing diesels in a big way in the coming years. GM Vice Chairman of Global Product Development, Bob Lutz, recently on a video posted on the corporate FastLane blog that in the coming years, GM would introduce a V6 diesel engine for crossovers, passenger cars, and light duty trucks and an all-aluminum 4.5 liter V8 diesel engine for light duty sport utilities, etc. Word is that the Euro-centric Saturn lineup will be among the first passenger car applications of GM’s US diesel engines, and the V8 diesel will likely make it into half ton trucks and full-size SUVs (GM has said that anywhere a small block V8 fits, the new diesel will fit). In the same video, Mr. Lutz sought to downplay expectations of the diesel engine as a panacea for US fuel economy concerns, because he said the price premium to build an emissions-compliant diesel is about $4,500 on top of a comparable gas engine, and that as gas engines become more sophisticated (thanks to direct injection and homogeneous stratified charge) and diesels are choked by emission controls, he expected the 30% economy improvement to be reduced to near zero. Basically, he seems to implicitly support Ford’s approach of applying diesel-like technology to gasoline engines, while going kicking and screaming into diesels only because they think that the market will demand them.

Apparently at the same time Bob Lutz was recording the above-mentioned video (the first segment was posted June 29), GM was in negotiations to buy a stake in its partner for the upcoming Cadillac CTS’s diesel engine in Europe, VM Motori of Italy. Yesterday (July 16), GM announced that it had bought 50% of VM Motori. The press release contained none of the skepticism that Bob Lutz showed in the video clip. The move to buy a large stake in VM Motori sounds like a prudent move if GM wishes to ensure a steady supply of powerful, efficient diesel engines in the next few years.

Other potential future diesel applications include new diesels for the Toyota Tundra and Nissan Titan full size pickup trucks, and a diesel version of the next-generation Nissan Maxima sedan.

It’s good to see some alternatives in the pipeline for consumers who wish to improve their fuel economy. It’s a good time to love oil burners.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 6 }

Chevrolet, Super Saturated

By on July 17, 2007 in Editorials

By Patrick Hoey

07.17.2007
There are some topics you must speak of carefully. There are some places that you need to step lightly as to not leave a mark.
Within the Chevrolet community these topics are models like the Chevelle and the Camaro. And the places are both figurative and literal; a literal example is where an emblem exists and a figurative example is what that proclaims; and more importantly, means. In this case it is the “SS” badge. Some things need no introduction; Chevrolet’s Super Sport trim is one of them. When a Chevelle was so much more than a Chevelle, it was a Chevelle Super Sport. When a Camaro SS roars by as you’re sitting at a traffic light, you smile with SS delight, which, of course, is a bigger smile than simply Camaro delight.

It can be said that what the Super Sport was in it’s early years was simply a higher trim line to a model in the Chevrolet line up, and that would be true. But over the years, the significance of that single letter used twice has appreciated, perhaps become more significant than it was when the idea for the Super Sport was first created. While I do not wish to argue about whether the SS has been given more credit in our memories than it was due, as some people claim, the designation is undoubtedly special and means something greater than just a higher trim on a model. It proclaims, and delivers, high-performance.

Looking back through the years at Chevrolet’s Super Sports, there is a continuing pattern of, well, really cool cars….cars that make you think about a second mortgage, the high price of her engagement ring, and how much room you’ve got in your garage. Those two words, “Super” and “Sport,” can fix or solve any of your short-term problems with a quick blast down the highway. At least that’s how we justify both the extra expense and the possibly unhealthy emotional attachment, anyway.

Look at the history of the Super Sport during the golden decades of the Sixties, Seventies, and into the Eighties. All of the models are cars that almost any car guy would want, and some of those guys would tell you that it’s not a want, but a need.

But all is not well in the Super Sport universe. What’s the problem, you ask? I’ll tell you the problem, but first, let me present this scenario: I can take a ’69 Chevelle SS and give it to an auto enthusiast who would be just as thrilled to have it in his driveway as he would a ’99 Camaro SS; either way he will likely become my new best friend. Maybe he would prefer the Chevelle more than the Camaro, maybe the other way around, but either way, he is so very happy.

But, just as an example of where I’m going with this, if I gave this guy a ’05 Malibu Maxx SS and then gave his neighbor the ’99 Camaro SS, or, the ’69 Chevelle SS, would he feel that the distribution of Super Sport iron was an equitable one? Yes, of course this is a rhetorical question; I’m making a point. We all know the answer to the question I pose, and the answer is a resounding no.

Now, a Malibu Maxx SS may fit the definition of the SS by containing higher performance and styling enhancements compared to its base model, but does that really make it as much of a SS as a ‘69 Chevelle SS or a ’99 Camaro SS?

I feel as though the SS nomenclature should be like an expensive bottle of wine, a bottle that you use for special occasions. This wine has been saved for some part of your existence that has higher meaning and value as compared to the rest of your life; let’s say for your 20th wedding anniversary. But, to really make my point, let’s just suppose the night before the anniversary the couple’s boorish and insolent son swipes it from the basement, gets plastered, and spends the early morning hugging the toilet. So much for special meaning and value.

And that just about covers how I feel about the SS designation lately; it is being flushed down the toilet by an adolescent who does not realize the longer-term impact of his selfish actions, treating something precious with carelessness simply because he wasn’t the one who had to work for it. But hey, he had a good time. Yes, as a matter of fact, I am talking about the current marketing people at General Motors.

I am sure GM feels an SS badge slapped on every model will show them a good time with sales; everyone wants an SS. But does every model deserve an SS, no matter how ridiculous the end result is? Should someone in the market for an HHR be able to claim “I own a new HHR SS” with pride, as if it were somehow really not just a retro-inspired, 4-cylinder, high-roofed station wagon, but something actually desirable instead? If we were to take every single Chevrolet model that offered an SS trim, line them up, and watch the progression towards the lowest priced offering, the real performance value of the SS emblem would quickly diminish once you landed on the most recent FWD Impala and Monte Carlo, and it would totally bottom out at the current Malibu and the Cobalt. The improved performance may be there, the trying-too-hard styling may include all the SS flair, but if it doesn’t match up well with the collective past of the Super Sport line, frankly, it just doesn’t seem honest. When we look at a vehicle like the HHR SS, we see something that GM marketing hopes can get by in the segment on some styling cues, some small performance upgrades, and finally, the coveted SS designation. GM is conferring the status of a Super Sport, but doing it on the cheap. But, both you and I know that this is going to end badly. With the SS being slapped on so many models with so little high-performance potential, the dilution of the Super Sport brand makes owning an SS the opposite of special and rewarding.

Is redemption on the way? When GM delivers the new Camaro in the near future, and upon the subsequent release of an SS model, hopefully we will see what a worthy modern-day SS is. Until then, keep those faux Super Sport models away from me. I don’t want gold-plated, I want real gold.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved
Comments { 6 }

Plug it In: Enertia motorcycle is all electric

By on July 16, 2007 in Features
By Mike Mello
07.16.2007
I was simply checking email when the Enertia electric motorcycle featured at MSN Autos really caught my eye. Have you seen this bike? It has a great classic look but you won’t confuse it for a gasoline motorcycle. The single, circular headlight, brown-colored saddle, spoked wheels and carbon fork work together for a classic feel while the batteries are housed in a svelte enclosure where a traditional bike manufacturer would mount the engine.

Brammo Motorsports is building and taking orders for the Enertia now, of which two models will be available in 2008. The chassis is constructed of carbon fiber and the bike will travel about 45-50 miles before you’ll need to plug it into your household electrical outlet to recharge.
Just one thing – what about loud pipes saving lives? This expression refers to how car drivers might hear a gasoline motorcycle’s exhaust sound when the rider accelerates or cracks the throttle. Often times, you might be driving along and actually hear a motorcycle before you see it.
Just as the horses which pulled carriages had to get used to sharing the road with noisy, stinky automobiles which invaded their avenues, today’s motorists will have to get used to the near-silence of electric vehicles.
For a motorcycle rider’s perspective, see Paul Seredynski’s story about riding the Enertia at MSN Autos, (same link as above) where you’ll find video too.
COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved
Comments { 4 }

Ford – Volvo Could Be Sold

By on July 15, 2007 in News

Things get worse in Dearborn

By Brendan Moore

07.15.2007

According to sources within Ford, the company has reversed its corporate stance on Volvo and is now open to selling the Swedish car company in the near future.

Ford has been insisting for months that Volvo was not for sale, despite rumors to the contrary, and a recent news report that BMW had considered buying the company from Ford. Spokespeople at Ford had no comment today on today’s revelations, which have been reported by most major news outlets. The story is considered credible enough so that The Wall Street Journal is running it on their weekend online edition front page today.

We predicted in December 2006 (Is Ford Going to Make It?) that Aston Martin, Jaguar and Land Rover would probably be sold in 2007, and opined that Volvo stood an excellent chance of being sold in 2007 as well. Ford is in very bad shape financially, and the recent turnaround efforts are not going as well as Ford had predicted (although its pretty much tracking what we predicted), so it is not that surprising that Ford needs operating cash badly enough to sell Volvo. According to the industry analysts that price these sorts of things out, Ford could reasonably expect to realize around $8 billion USD from the sale of Volvo. Ford is literally in a fight for its very existence and the company is going to need every bit of cash they can lay their hands on in the next couple of years, so that $8 billion would be welcome indeed.

Unlike Jaguar and Land Rover, who so far have not attracted a lot of interest as a package deal from prospective buyers so far this year, Volvo by itself is expected to elicit desire among several possible purchasers. Ford should have no shortage of potential bidders for the Swedish company.

As fans of good automobiles, we hope that Volvo gets a good steward if/when they get sold, and let’s hope that Ford can put the money from this desperate sale to the best possible use. Stay with us for more updates as they unfold.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 4 }

Vacation S-Maximus

By on July 14, 2007 in Reviews

By Alex Ricciuti
07.14.2007

I was on holiday in Ticino [the Italian part of Switzerland] for the last two weeks. Yes, I know – tough duty all around.

So…upon my return I would like to offer a brief review of the Ford S-Max which Ford of Switzerland kindly provided to me for a test run.

First of all, this being our first holiday with the baby, now almost 4 months old, I thought I would need a car bigger than my ever-shrinking Peugeot 307. Only when you have them do you realize that kids actually require more luggage than adults. As they get older, you may find yourself one day hooking a trailer to your car just to haul their toys around.

Anyway, given my pathological fear of packing – I always forget at least one important thing and instead bring a bunch of crap I don’t need – and my chronic inability to gauge spatial configurations (I couldn’t pack a can of soup into a Hummer), I panicked and went out and got the biggest car I could – just throw everything in the back and drive.

Yes, the time has come for me to play ‘Familien Vater’ and I finally got myself into an MPV. As the infamous auto journalist Jeremy Clarkson once wrote, “I have never really understood the attraction of MPVs. To me they are the first sign that the driver has given up on life.”

After my little excursion with the S-Max, I will respectfully disagree. Clarkson himself picked the Mazda5 and the C-Max as two of the top five MPVs when he was absolutely forced to make a call. And I too I liked the C-Max and found the S-Max to be more than a larger version of it. It’s actually a great drive.

The 2.0 liter diesel engine was quite powerful and responsive and had lots of pull in the Alps where you need it even though the S-Max is larger than some mobile homes. At least, that’s how it feels on the inside. From the outside, it actually looks sleek and even, dare I say, sporty, with Ford’s new ‘kinetic’ design at its best here.

Ford developed this 2.0 liter diesel with PSA and the 6 speed transmission gets the most out it. It was amazingly economical, given the size of the S-Max and how it was carrying half of our personal belongings across one of the major mountain ranges in the world. I haven’t done the exact calculus but on 1/3 of a 60 liter tank it took us effortlessly from Zurich to Ascona which is about a 300 km drive.

I loved the leather interior and the 3 adult seats in the rear. There are an optional 2 extra seats in the trunk space but I reserved that for our baby carriage and luggage. I can’t say anything bad about the car except that driving around with a wife and baby in a packed minivan didn’t make me look the part of the really cool guy I truly am.

The car may seem pricey, and at 54,000 Swiss francs plus for this fully-optioned version, you are well into C-Class, A4 and 3 series territory. But, it’s worth it. Ford has made a great car here and with an excellent drive-train and chassis combination that is extremely practical and economical. This car really makes the case for what diesels can do that petrol engines can’t.

The only question this Canadian has for Ford is: Why can’t you, for the life of you, come even close to building a vehicle, or actually any car, this good, in North America?

That’s a question that the auto analyst in me can answer quite easily. Putting on my other hat as an automotive enthusiast, it is perplexing, to say the least. But that is the subject for a subsequent post so stay tuned…

Alex Ricciuti is a freelance writer and automotive journalist based in Zurich, Switzerland. He writes frequently for Automotive News Europe.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 5 }
← Older posts Newer posts →