Archive | February, 2008

President Bush Expected To Sign Automotive Child Safety Act

By on February 21, 2008 in News

By Chris Haak

02.21.2008

The US Senate has passed the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act, which will direct the NHTSA to develop rules that require automakers to equip vehicles with auto-reverse mechanisms on power windows (when obstructions are encountered), a brake-shift interlock that prevents the vehicle from being shifted out of park without the brake pedal being depressed, and technology (such as mirrors, sensors, or cameras) allowing drivers to see obstructions behind the vehicle when backing up.

President Bush is expected to sign the bill, which was passed by the House last year, into law. It is named for Cameron Gulbransen, who was a two year old accidentally killed by his father in 2002 when he backed the family SUV over the child.

More than 1,000 children have been killed in non-traffic, non-crash events. 46% of those deaths occurred when the children were backed over by a vehicle, while 24% were blamed on hypothermia, 13% from a child placing a vehicle in motion, and 3% from strangulation from a power accessory (such as a window).

Like many safety features, this law’s requirements will increase the price of most vehicles (unless they are already equipped with these features). It’s a shame that parents aren’t able to closely monitor where their children are when moving cars in the driveway; I know that in spite of being equipped with a backup camera, I refuse to move our van without checking behind it and knowing that our children – and the neighbors’ – are in my line of sight next to, or in front of, the vehicle I’m about to back up. But if this saves even some lives, it might be worth it. The problem is, drivers will still have the responsibility to check the display screen for obstructions. My guess is that more basic models will not have rearview cameras, but will employ small sonar sensors in the bumper instead. Our van also has those, but it beeps so loudly that my wife often turns it off, lest it wake a sleeping baby.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 2 }

Honda’s Struggling Acura Brand To Go More Upscale

By on February 21, 2008 in News

By Chris Haak

02.21.2008

In spite of being the original Japanese luxury brand, getting its start in the US way back in 1986 (years before Lexus or Infiniti launched), Acura has been the least successful Japanese luxury brand in the US for the past several years. Part of Acura’s problem is that it has never offered a rear wheel drive-based vehicle for sale (other than the limited production NSX sports car), while other luxury brands such as Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Infiniti, Cadillac, and Lexus all have lineups consisting primarily of rear- or all wheel-drive vehicles. Another issue is that Acura has never sold a vehicle with an engine larger than a V6, while its competitors all offer V8s (or larger, in some cases). Couple those issues with sharing most platform components with Hondas, as well as some recently questionable styling decisions (such as the MDX and the 2009 RL’s mid-cycle enhancement), and the resulting vehicle is a more expensive Honda with some nicer trim, and a higher price. Killing its popular volume model, the RSX sport hatch, and eliminating well-known model names such as Legend and Integra didn’t help either.

In 2007, Acura’s sales were at their lowest point since 2003. Acura’s overall sales for the past five years look like this:

2007: 180,104 (-10.5%)
2006: 201,223 (-4.0%)
2005: 209,610 (+5.4%)
2004: 198,919 (+16.4%)
2003: 170,918

The 2007 weakness occurred not because of the trucks (the RDX was up 154.9% because it had just been launched a year before, and the MDX was up 8.3%), but because every car model saw double digit declines. The TSX entry luxury sedan (pictured at left) and TL slightly-higher-than-entry luxury sedan will be replaced for the 2009 model year, and the RL sedan will be refreshed for the 2009 model year (though it’s a relatively mild update, and doesn’t address most of the car’s most fundamental problems: price, sharing a platform with the Accord, and the lack of a V8), but either there is a small timing issue with Acura, or a major product planning problem there.

On the heels of this bad news, Acura told dealers at the NADA convention to expect a “huge shift” in the next year that will “move the brand closer” to tier 1 luxury brands such as Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz. The news has dealers excited; in fact, they were told to expect one new vehicle per year (“new” is defined as refreshed existing models) for the next several years. The detailed product plan will be revealed to dealers at their meeting in New Orleans in April.

This all sounds like good news, but I’m still not convinced that Acura knows how to manage a luxury brand. They build cars with very nice interiors and a lot of technology packed into them, with good driving traits (given their front wheel drive origins), but the current lineup isn’t really anything special. The TSX is a rebadged European Honda Accord, the TL is a rebodied US Honda Accord, the RL is a rebodied US Honda Accord with all wheel drive added, the MDX is a rebodied Honda Pilot, and the RDX is a rebodied Honda CR-V. This platform sharing makes Acura cars reliable and fundamentally sound like their Honda cousins, but doesn’t really do anything to make buyers feel special, or that they are buying more than a higher trim level on a Honda.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 6 }

2008 Ford Taurus X Review

By on February 21, 2008 in Reviews
Autosavant Review

By Igor Holas with Melissa J. Sanchez

02.21.2008

Vehicle Details: 2008 Taurus X Limited AWD. MSRP: $39,000

The day we received the Taurus X was miserable with cold rain and strong winds. As a complement to the awful weather, everyone in Philadelphia forgot how to drive. In the first mile of driving the Taurus X, I had a chance to test many of the features – emergency stopping, emergency lane change, full acceleration, and absorption of potholes. Luckily, for the rest of the week of driving the Taurus X, the weather cleared up and we had a chance to get to know this big wagon from Ford a little better.


Melissa and I drove the car together and shared thoughts on it. We approached this review from a very down-to-earth point of view. We did not pretend that this four-thousand-pound crossover was a sports car, so we did not bother trying to carve canyon roads, drag race it, or test its skid pad limits. Instead we took it on a shopping trip, we drove it to the mall, we took it to the park for a family trip; and most importantly, Melissa used it to drive to and from work for the whole week.

The car provided by Ford was a Taurus X Limited AWD with almost every option added. We had the pleasure of enjoying power memory driver seat, mirrors and pedals, heated front and second row seats, power lift gate, navigation, SIRIUS satellite radio, navigation, SYNC, rear DVD system, and many other features that make life with any car easier. Looking through the options list for the Taurus X, the only option lacking from the test vehicle was the sunroof. As equipped, the vehicle’s suggested retail price was just below $39,000, but the base SEL FWD model begins below $27,000, and one can certainly option out a well-appointed Taurus X below $32,000. At the time of this writing, there was a $1,500 rebate available on all Taurus X models.

While there is nothing economical about our tester’s $39,000 price, using TrueDelta.com’s Price Comparison, the Taurus X is several thousand dollars cheaper than any other comparable vehicle besides Kia Sedona. For comparison, a comparably equipped Highlander, Acadia, or Odyssey will cost you around $6,000 extra.

Exterior
The exterior of the car is not very exciting, but it is utilitarian. The car sports a wagon/SUV look but with lower stance. The roof above the rear seats is raised to increase headroom, and the rear hatch is almost vertical to maximize the cargo space. The Taurus X is between the size of a mid-size crossover like Toyota Highlander or Honda Pilot, and the size of a minivan, like the Honda Odyssey, or Toyota Sienna. However, compared to both, the Taurus X sits several inches lower. The new-for-2008 face with Ford’s ubiquitous three-bar grille and stylized headlamps is mildly aggressive, and makes it easy to spot the car on the road. The overall shape of the car is decidedly more wagon-like than any of its competitors, which is unfortunately not a positive attribute for most American buyers.

Interior
The interior is a very pleasant place to be, and all the optional features of our tester did a good job of spoiling us as drivers. The interior design may not win any design prizes, but it is elegant and functional with a nice solid feel to most materials and the overall assembly. The memory seats function was very appreciated, as Melissa and I have very different preferences in seating position, and mirror settings. Of course we enjoyed the SYNC system; I was able to link my phone within five minutes and hook up our iPod even faster. I did have to read the manual to set up the system to my full liking, but for basic use, it was ready out of the box. We have to admit that with the touch screen in the navigation, we did not bother with the voice commands; the visual touch screen interface was easier to use and did not misunderstand our commands.

The navigation was also surprisingly easy to use, we enjoyed the interface and the system of chimes and voice prompts Ford programmed in. Unfortunately, we did not find the system without its faults. Ford’s decision to split navigation interface between three hardware buttons creates a slight learning curve during the first encounter. Moreover, we felt the screen was positioned a little too low. Finally, at one occasion the map failed to recognize a median-divided street proudly proclaiming “your destination is on the left,” and we were left to our own devices to figure out how to actually make it there. (our standalone GPS from TomTom usually gets these situations right).


The most enjoyable part of owning a Taurus X is its packaging. The vehicle is very spacious inside. The third row seating position is actually quite natural and while the legroom and foot space is limited, unless the second row seats are all the way back, it is not uncomfortable. We have previously ridden in the 1999 Expedition, and the 2004 (previous generation) Honda Odyssey, and the Taurus X has the best third row seats out of all of them, with the most space, and the easiest access. Relative to the Highlander and the Pilot, the Taurus X bests them with several extra inches of third row space in most directions, but falls short of the space offered by the leading minivans.

The second row, by comparison, lacks nothing in space or luxury. Our tester was equipped with heated, sliding, and reclining captain’s chairs separated by a nice center console with cup holders. We were a little disappointed that in the otherwise well executed cabin, the second row center console was quite cheap with hard plastics and “yank here” opening mechanism. Instead of the captain’s chairs and the console, one could opt for the three-passenger split-folding bench seat. The tester was also equipped with rear DVD entertainment system. It comes with a flip down screen, two wireless headphones, and a remote, and like the front system, it was linked to SYNC.

Driving Impressions
For a car this size probably the biggest compliment for its drive train and ride can be “gets out of its way nicely.” When pushed, the engine pulled very nicely from any speed, and the transmission shifts were almost imperceptible. The car was also surprisingly agile in curves, and extremely smooth on the highway. The driving position was decidedly car-like with the butt-to-road distance several inches shorter than SUV, crossover, or minivan.

During Melissa’s commuting, the mileage was a miserable eleven miles-per-gallon, but it is an extremely challenging duty. For comparison, our Mazda3 with a manual transmission usually averages only 19 mpg on the same use. Once we took the Taurus X on the highway, the mileage quickly climbed. Without cruise control and at speeds around 70 mph we averaged about 20 mpg (we usually get about 27 from the Mazda).

Living with the Taurus X
Despite this capacious cabin, and actual footprint, the Taurus is surprisingly easy to maneuver and live with in the everyday urban hassle. Most of this manageability comes from the aforementioned lower floor and seating position. Unlike an SUV or a minivan, you are at the same level as other cars and can clearly see their position and distance. This might not be a big factor for people with their own driveway, but we parallel parked this car at least twice every day and deeply appreciated this “feature.” Thanks to its lower stance, Taurus X might just be the easiest car to own in the city if you need a useable third row.


With all this praise we have for the Ford, the car was not without flaws. We were disappointed with Ford’s decision to make the outside rear-view mirrors look more interesting by cutting out the bottom inside corner This corner is crucial for “sensing” the curb, and this design element made parallel parking more of a chore. This shortcoming could be easily fixed by a stick-on convex mirror, but I was surprised by such a bad design decision.

Another bad decision by Ford is more serious and substantial in nature. Despite capable platform and engine, The Taurus X is not offered with a towing package, so its towing limit is 2,000 lbs. That is not only less than every one of its competitors, it is less than even compact crossovers like Ford’s own Escape, all of which offer towing up to 3,500 lbs. Most people do not need that kind of towing on a regular basis, but many will likely perceive the 3,500 lbs mark as a reasonable maximum need, and 2,000 lbs as insufficient.

Despite its shortcomings, the Taurus X is a very well executed car that leaves us very satisfied. For families with children, or planning children, the Taurus X offers great combinations of features and amenities. This is especially true for those who can appreciate the value of the Taurus X’s easy to live with size, well sorted ride, comfortable cabin, and lack of SUV pretense. Unfortunately, without effective marketing from Ford, the Taurus X seems to be simply viewed as another “uncool” wagon, and sales reflect that. We definitely feel that the low sales are undeserved.

IMAGE GALLERY: Click here for more images of the Taurus X.


Post Script:
As this review was being edited and finalized, media outlets confirmed that the Taurus X will not be produced past the 2009 model year. The main descendent of the Taurus X will actually go on sale this summer as the Flex. The Flex builds on the wagon qualities of the Taurus X, but adds some much needed visual flair, updated interior, additional upscale features, and a towing package. It seems Ford will also finally invest in marketing the vehicle’s qualities to the public, and hopefully higher sales will follow.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 9 }

Microsoft to Announce Another Major Automaker Partner by End of 2008

By on February 21, 2008 in News

By Chris Haak

02.21.2008

Ford’s popular SYNC system, which allows simple voice-activated integration of cell phone, iPod, and other electronic devices with its cars, was developed by Microsoft. Part of Ford’s deal with Microsoft was that Ford had exclusive rights to the software for 18 months, but Microsoft is free to offer it to other automakers at the end of 2008. Microsoft also has provided a system similar to SYNC to Fiat (which, having been on the market since 2006, actually predates its cooperation with Ford).

According to the Detroit Free Press, the general manager of Microsoft’s automotive business unit, Martin Thall, said that Microsoft plans to announce a deal to utilize a system similar to SYNC with another major automaker’s vehicles. He did not indicate which manufacturer it would be or whether it would be one that sold vehicles in the US.

For its part, Microsoft gives credit to Ford for being an early supporter of the technology, which has proven popular with consumers. Last year, over 30,000 vehicles equipped with SYNC were sold, and Ford expects over one million SYNC-equipped vehicles to be on the road by early 2009.

Aside from working with automobile manufacturers, Microsoft also is working on adding new features to its software. These include tighter integration of things such as real-time traffic, navigation, and point-of-interest-directories; Fiat is adding something called Ecodrive to its system, which will provide feedback to drivers about how they can reduce their environmental impact. (I’m guessing it will be a lot of “please slow down” and “don’t brake so hard.” I don’t need a computer to tell me those things, since I have a wife!)

In the more distant future, Microsoft would like to add advertising relevant to a user’s current location. I can see why Microsoft would love to get their hands into that area, but as a consumer, I feel that our society is already way oversaturated with advertising; it’s bad enough that companies are chomping at the bit to show ads on cell phones (and next time you’re at a professional sports game, look around you at all the advertisements), but to start encroaching on navigation displays under the guise of “providing a service” is personally offensive to me. Of course, if SYNC without advertisements was $395 and with advertisements was $195, then I’d be OK with the concept – or, if the system allowed the driver to disable the advertising functionality, with the understanding that ads the driver might find relevant would no longer be displayed, I wouldn’t have as much of an issue with the concept.

The convergence and simplicity of the SYNC system is definitely the future of in-vehicle electronics, and I’m glad that SYNC is forcing other automakers to either join the Microsoft bandwagon or (like in the 2008 Cadillac CTS) to invent competitive systems with similar functionality.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 2 }

Renault Launches a Logan Pickup

By on February 20, 2008 in News

By Brendan Moore

02.20.2008


Renault’s subsidiary, Dacia, has launched a pickup based on the wildly successful Logan line. The original Logan sedan has already spawned a van, an estate car (station wagon) called the MCV, and, in Brazil, the Sandero, a very different-looking version of the sedan.

Like all the rest of the vehicles on the Logan platform, the pickup has a lot of space and a low price. it is 4.50 m long, 1.74 m wide, 1.55 m tall and bears an internal luggage compartment that holds up to 300 liters. Outside, in the bed, it is possible to carry objects as long as 1.80 m and as heavy as 800 kg (1763 lbs.!). In terms of prices, they will start at € 7,250 ($10,600 USD).

The power comes from two engines; a low-emissions gasoline 4-cylinder 1.6-litre engine with two valves per cylinder that generates 90 HP at 5,500 rpm and a peak torque of 128 and two versions of the same (diesel) CRDi 1.5-litre, with 70 HP and 85 HP. All transmissions will be manual 5-speed affairs.


The pickup will be built at Dacia’s plant in Pitesti, Romania. It will be released in Turkey, Bulgaria and of course, Romania in 2008, with release in the rest of Europe slated for 2009.

How long before we see a version in Mexico called the Nissan Aprio Pickup? Here’s the answer: Not long.

Here is the official press release from Renault/Dacia:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robust above all

Dacia Logan Pick-up follows the highly successful example set by its stablemates — Logan, Logan MCV and Logan Van— to extol the virtues of straightforward, robust design. Interior materials, for the dashboard, door panels and upholstery, are sturdy and durable, an important consideration for a working vehicle like Dacia Logan Pickup.Exterior features are as found on the other Logan models: metal panels protected by wax injection of hollow sections, systematic application of sealing mastic for exterior cabin joints, and reinforced anti-chip protection for the substructure.

Bodywork corrosion protection on Dacia Logan Pick-up includes a galvanized roof and door panels, while some versions have wide protective door mouldings. Other protective features carried over on Dacia Logan Pick-up include raised suspension, higher ground clearance, and a protective skidplate under the powertrain. Dacia Logan Pick-up also gets the new dustproofing system for gearbox and transmissions, introduced on Dacia Logan MCV.

Dacia Logan Pick-up’s most salient feature – the pick-up bed itself – is designed to last. It carries a payload of up to 800kg, and comes as standard with a protective surround that prevents damage to the bodywork during loading operations, and easily resists loads up to 100kg. The tailgate is designed with robustness and safety uppermost in mind, and will resist loads up to 300kg when open, a capability usually only found on larger pick-ups. The bed floor, sides and cabin partition are especially corrosion-proofed and there are two ducts at the front to drain out rainwater.

Safety first
Dacia Logan Pick-up has all the active and passive safety features of Dacia Logan MCV. Like all vehicles in the Logan range, it is built on the B0 platform, derived from the Renault-Nissan Alliance’s B platform, as used by Renault Modus, Renault Clio II, Renault Clio III and Nissan Micra. The suspension has been designed for sound, balanced response under all circumstances. The front suspension uses the MacPherson layout featured on Renault Clio II, with wishbone arm and non-damped cradle. As on other B-platform vehicles, the reinforced rear suspension uses a programmed deflection H-type torsion beam, plus coil springs and extended-travel vertical dampers, consistent with the poor road conditions on many of the car’s markets. There’s a front antiroll bar as standard.

Dacia Logan Pick-up has disc brakes at the front and drum brakes at the rear. Versions with ABS use a latest-generation Bosch 8.0 system with electronic brake distribution, as fitted on Renault Mégane II. Passive safety systems on Dacia Logan Pick-up include a driver’s airbag as standard, plus a passenger’s airbag on option. The restraint system comprises threepoint seatbelts. Dacia Logan Pick-up reaps full benefit from Renault engineering expertise in impact resistance and kinetic energy dissipation. The engine compartment layout is designed so that the content will tend to stack up under frontal impact conditions. The dashboard material has a highly absorbent polypropylene honeycomb structure to minimize the risk of knee injury on impact. Enhanced lower limb protection is afforded by under-foot padding on driver and passenger sides. Meanwhile, in side impacts, the B-post, seats (with enhanced lateral resistance) and door padding combine to provide effective hip protection.

Reliable engines
Dacia Logan Pick-up comes with a choice of three engines from the Renault group powertrain bank: one petrol engine (1.6 MPI) and two versions (70hp and 85hp) of the 1.5 dCi diesel unit. The 1.6 MPI petrol engine develops peak power of 64kW (90hp) at 5,500rpm and peak torque of 128Nm at 3,000rpm. It is rugged and easily serviced, important criteria for a utility vehicle. And it yields very creditable torque from low engine speeds. The first three gear ratios are short, for good pullaway and acceleration at low speeds or when heavily loaded, while the top two speeds are staged for acoustic comfort and fuel economy. On a combined cycle, Dacia Logan Pick-up with the 1.6 MPI consumes a very reasonable 8.1 litres per 100km.

The technologically advanced 1.5 dCi diesel engine enjoys benchmark status in its category, and features a second-generation common-rail direct injection system that combines responsive performance with very low fuel consumption. The 50kW (70hp) 1.5 dCi version produces peak torque of 160Nm at 1,700rpm, with 85% of peak torque available between 1,500 and 3,500rpm. With the 63kW (85hp) version, peak torque is 200Nm from 1,900rpm, with 90% available from 1,500rpm. The five-speed gearbox, lubricated for life, is specially developed with longer ratios to make the most of the 1.5 dCi’s torque. Pullaway and acceleration are crisp and sharp, even with a loaded vehicle. Both 1.5 dCi versions are ideally suited to a working vehicle like Dacia Logan Pick-up, and they give very reasonable fuel consumption and CO2 emission figures. With the 85hp 1.5 dCi engine, Dacia Logan Pick-up consumes just5.2 litres per 100km (combined cycle), with CO2 emissions of 137g/km. Because these figures are very low for a vehicle with such a substantial loading capacity, Dacia Logan Pick-up makes a significant contribution to one of the undertakings of the Renault Commitment 2009, namely to sell a million vehicles that emit less than 140g of CO2 per km by the end of the business plan. With its 50-litre fuel tank, Dacia Logan Pick-up 1.5 dCi 85hp also sets a benchmark for range in this vehicle category, approaching 1,000km.

The petrol and diesel engines powering Dacia Logan Pick-up all benefit from the latest developments in Renault group engine technology, bringing greatly extended service intervals. Owners of the 70hp or 85hp 1.5 dCi diesel versions will need to bring their vehicles in for servicing every 15,000km (or every year) instead of every 10,000km, making six oil changes instead of ten per 100,000km. And the petrol version only needs serving every 20,000km (or yearly) instead of 15,000km. This improvement brings a spectacular reduction in servicing costs, of direct benefit to Dacia customers in general and business users in particular.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 2 }

Turbocharging – Back to the Future

By on February 20, 2008 in Features

By Ian Grasso

02.20.2008

We are in the midst of another turbocharging renaissance. It seems that every 10 years or so we see an uptick in turbo development, usually coinciding with some sort of government regulation on fuel economy. BMW recently returned to turbocharging after a 26-year absence with the outstanding and award winning N54 3.0L bi-turbo, which produces over 300HP and 295 Lb. ft of torque. Ford, GM, and Chrysler are all back in the fold – promising new turbo powerplants for their entire lineups from compacts to trucks, while many European manufacturers are building on already solid turbine technology and incorporating it into new cars. But unlike BMW, the latter manufacturers are not promising better performance along with their new engines—because of CAFE they are looking to replace their heavy and inefficient naturally aspirated engines with smaller and lighter engines with equal, or lesser, performance.

Because soon we all might be driving 4-cylinder turbo minivans or V6 turbo F-150s, it seems appropriate to look at the capabilities and limitations of turbocharging.

The turbo was invented to provide a higher manifold pressure to piston-powered aircraft during and after World War II, a process known as Turbo-normalizing. Turbo-normalizing is different from automobile applications in that its goal was simply to maintain the air pressure inside of an aircraft engine closer to 1 atm/101 kPa (the air pressure at sea level) while allowing aircraft to take advantage of the benefits of high altitude travel. Early turbo-normalizing was incredibly complex, as operators had to manually operate the wastegate and normalizing control for each engine. In automobile and commercial diesel engines, turbos are used for boosting – delivering a higher air pressure than that produced by the simple suction created by cylinder motion.

The classic boosting problem is that a sufficient amount of exhaust gas is needed to overcome the rotational inertia of the compressor – this is the dreaded “turbo lag.” Lag is realized by the driver quite simply—a lack of engine response at low engine speeds. Some cars are famous for their laggy performance, namely late 70-80’s domestics, the BMW 2002 Turbo, and early Saabs and Volvos. There were other reasons for performance issues – including unsophisticated valve timing and port fuel injection, but the size of the turbo was a considerable factor. Saab was and is known for strapping huge turbochargers onto small engines, unfortunately, the huge rotational inertia of those big turbines necessitated high idle and a heavy right foot to move the car from a stop. However, Saabs were also famous for having breakneck acceleration at passing speeds – in some cases faster than Porsche 911’s of the day.

BMW Inline-Six N54 Turbo Engine

To combat lag most manufacturers are now using small turbochargers. The smaller compressor allows it to spin up to boost speed quickly and limits turbo lag, but this workaround has its own pitfalls. Small turbos limit maximum engine speed – they do not let enough exhaust gas leave the engine during high power operation and produce the familiar turbo “wheeze” while they rapidly lose power at high RPM. Those who owned an early gasoline turbo or turbodiesel are very familiar with this lack of power at the high end. Of course, engineers design the engine management software to limit the driver’s use of high engine speeds in cars with small turbochargers. A good example is that BMW N54 engine – it produces its maximum power at 5800 RPM, while the mechanically similar, non-turbocharged N52 creates maximum power at 6650 RPM (272HP). Another example is the VW/Audi 1.8T engine, which was available in a wide range of configurations- from 150 to 225 HP. As HP and torque numbers increase, the maximum effective speed of the engine decreases (except in the case of the 225HP 1.8T used in the Audi TT – which used a different, larger turbocharger).

The holy grail of boost, which solves many of the problems of lag and wheeze, is the variable geometry turbocharger. The variable geometry turbocharger uses guide vanes (also called variable stator vanes) prior to the turbine that change the airflow of the exhaust gas based on engine speed. The volumetric efficiency of the engine is maximized through this method. Variable stator vanes are a technology from aviation jet engines that prevent turbine stall at high airspeed or angle of attack. This technology has been used since 1996 in commercial truck engines to great success, and is now making its way to automobiles.

The only manufacturer currently using this technology in cars is Porsche, in its 911 Carrera Turbo (997). The 997 produces maximum torque over a wide power band – 1,950 to 5,000 RPM– and has the ability to overboost the intake manifold for more power. Compared to the naturally aspirated Carrera, the Turbo actually produces maximum power at a higher RPM – something almost unheard of before.

Sophisticated fuel programs and reinforced components are absolutely vital to high performance turbo engines. Because these engines operate at high compression ratios, often close to 12:1, they generate more heat their naturally aspirated counterparts. Turbo engine blocks often contain more iron than those without forced induction and make heavy use of charge cooling. This method of cooling the combustion chamber by enriching fuel mixture can decrease the inherit efficiency of high compression ratio engines, but is mostly an issue for high performance cars and heavy duty trucks.

BorgWarner and Honeywell (Garrett) are the leading developers and suppliers of turbochargers, and they stand to profit from an increased use of the technology in automobile engines. But while turbocharging is a way to get more performance out of a smaller, lighter, engine– it is not the answer for fleets of 35 MPG plus automobiles. It is important to note that all other things being equal, a turbocharged version of a 4 cylinder engine does not get better gas mileage than the same engine naturally aspirated, but it will provide better torque and horsepower over a limited powerband. Like the fuel crisis of the late 70’s spawning a turbo Mustang, they will be used as a replacement for higher displacement engines – sometimes to the detriment of performance.

Additionally, turbocharging an engine does not simply mean strapping a turbo to the exhaust system. An intercooler, boost controller, and a myriad of other gadgets and reinforcements for high compression must also be installed. Overall, a turbo engine is more expensive than its naturally aspirated counterpart, even if it has less cylinders. The day may soon come where marking the “Turbo” box on the option sheet means a lower performance, albeit more expensive, option—if you even have the choice.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 5 }

Mopar Lift Kit on the Way for Jeep

By on February 19, 2008 in News

By Mike Mello

02.19.2008

Lots of Jeep owners agree that any Jeep model looks great with a set of oversized tires under the fenders. Suspension lift kits use tall springs to create more room between the axles and frame, allowing for bigger tires which some Jeep owners like for looks and others make use of off road. Either way, adding a lift kit to your Jeep usually creates warranty problems if you’re dealing with a newly-purchased rig – but that could be changing.

Automotive News reports that Jeep dealers will now be offering a wide range of Mopar accessories for Jeep products and that a Mopar lift kit will soon be available! What would this mean for factory warranties? Would a dealer-installed lift kit comply with those terms?

I aim to gather details about the upcoming Mopar lift, including proposed lift heights, which Jeep vehicles will offer a lift kit and, of course, whether the Mopar lift is to be just a body lift of a complete suspension package.

Other Mopar accessories that are already available through the new EASy, or Electronic Accessory System, include an off-road navigation system, chrome grille (like the old CJ Laredos,) a winch and heavy-duty bumpers. Although this system debuted at Jeep dealers last year, it will become an online consumer tool on March 31.

If you were considering purchasing, say, a new Wrangler for bringing to the dunes or the woods, would a dealer-installed lift kit change your mind if it didn’t void your brand-new Jeep’s warranty? I don’t yet know the details about the upcoming Mopar lift kit’s relationship to factory warranties, but one would hope that a dealer-installed lift option would keep your Jeep completely covered…we’ll have to wait and see.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 2 }

The Genesis of Phaetons – Some History and Opinion

By on February 19, 2008 in Features

By Ian Grasso

02.19.2008

When I was much younger, my favorite cousin celebrated his graduation from law school and subsequent offers of employment by purchasing a nice little car from Mazda called the 929. At the time it was Mazda’s luxury sedan, and it was attainable for a twenty-something newly-minted attorney with $100,000 dollars in student loan debt. As some of you may know, in his industry, image is everything and the car fit the bill with its nice leather, smooth 90’s lines, and a nice 200HP engine.


The 929 was eventually sold alongside and later replaced by the Millenia, another fine car that got good reviews and sold with a semblance of volume – about 20,000 cars a year in the U.S. until its demise in 2003, when it only sold 1700 units.

Well, my cousin isn’t a lawyer anymore, but volume manufacturers are still trying their hand at undercutting the big-car luxury market on price. The grapevine is ripe with news about Volkswagen trying to resurrect its Phaeton here in the United States – all part of its quixotic quest to sell 800,000 cars here by 2018.

The original car from La Mancha Phaeton, introduced in 2003, was in all ways an incredible flop. According to Automotive News, the $70,000 to $100,000 Phaeton sold a total of 3,354 cars during its four and a half year run here. Most of the time, these cars were being sold with well over $10,000 dollars of incentives – in other words, they were not at all profitable and had to be wished off the lot by desperate dealers.


Hyundai is getting a lot of press for its Genesis sedan – much of it very autoshow-season-like in its adoration. Can we all put away the complimentary punch and cookies for a second here?
Like the 929, the Millenia, and the Phaeton, the Genesis is by all accounts both a good-looking and fine-performing car. But it has a few things working against it – namely that it is a (relatively) expensive Hyundai and that people shopping at Hyundai dealerships are not looking for a luxury automobile.

The last swan song for volume brand luxury was around the time of the Millenia’s demise – 2002-03(strangely enough when the Phaeton was released).

Mazda quickly realized that their version of luxury was great as long as their core group of buyers could not afford BMW, Mercedes, or Lexus luxury. When interest rates plummeted in 2002 and the 60 month loan became in-vogue, all of the sudden those customers who would have considered a Mazda or a VW luxury automobile for cost reasons were lured to the real deal over at a Mercedes or BMW dealership encased in their usual haughtiness, glass, and brushed aluminum.

I understand the concept of a flagship vehicle. It is a technology leader that turns heads and helps the sales of the cheaper volume units while allowing the engineers to work on technology that will someday inhabit cheaper cars.

But heads-up, Hyundai: there is a reason why Toyota sells the LS as a Lexus at a Lexus dealership and the Avalon at a Toyota dealership. If Hyundai wants to sell luxury here, they have to establish a luxury brand. Mazda actually planned for the Millenia to be the flagship of its own luxury brand, Amati, before finances and lack of volume doomed that nameplate to the limbo where Merkur XR4TIs and Hudsons still ask for forgiveness.

Please note that I am speaking about the U.S. market – in their home market of Korea, where they sell about 50% of all new cars, Hyundai will likely move a lot of Genesis sedans.

But I cannot conceive why Volkswagen continues to even mention Phaeton here when they have something Hyundai does not – a perfectly good luxury brand in Audi. The brass at Volkswagen is going to be dropping the price from $70,000 base to $55,000 with the new model – but people historically have not and most likely never will buy Volkswagens at that cost in the United States.

If people don’t buy VWs at that price, there is no way that Hyundai can expect to lure higher income clients into its dealerships, which are, according to Automotive News, already suffering from much lower margins this year.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 3 }

Volkswagen, A Glutton for Punishment, To Attempt Phaeton Again

By on February 19, 2008 in News

Are they “Attempting Phaeton” or “Tempting Fate?”

By Chris Haak

02.19.2008

The Volkswagen Phaeton luxury car hit the US market in November 2003 as the Volkswagen brand’s flagship and with the hope on the part of the company’s management that it could forever change the brand’s “people’s car” image in the minds of consumers and vault the brand to Tier 1 luxury car status. The car’s sales goal was 5,000 units per year.

We all know what happened next: the car hit the market and consumers stayed away in droves. It had many problems, but the top three were probably: 1) the car was too similar in price and size to an Audi A8, yet not sold at much of a discount; 2) the car’s $70,000 starting price was nearly double the price of the next-lower Volkswagen model, leaving too much daylight between the two models, and 3) the Volkswagen brand does not carry the level of prestige that a $70,000 to $100,000+ vehicle requires in order to be successful. Annual sales for the Phaeton during its time on the US market were:

2003: 343 (November and December only)
2004: 1,939
2005: 820 (down 58%)
2006: 235 (down 75%)
2007: 17 (down 92%)

The worst part of the Phaeton experience for VW was not its US sales thud, but how the development of the technically advanced car – including one of the most impressive assembly plants in automotive history – distracted resources from the development of the company’s bread and butter products – the Passat and Golf/Jetta – which forced the company to keep them on the market longer than they would have liked to and cost the company many sales as consumers stayed away from the models in need of a refresh.

Stefan Jacoby, CEO of Volkswagen of America, is toeing the company line (the one re-established by Ferdinand Piech) by stating that the Phaeton should not have been dropped from the US lineup (it’s still sold in Europe) because it’s so difficult to launch a new car in the US and the German management had sky-high expectations for the car.

However, Mr. Jacoby offered some more hints about the Phaeton returning to the US, but it’s expected to debut in Europe in 2010 and would land in the US sometime after that. To differentiate itself from its corporate cousin, the Audi A8, the next Phaeton will be far cheaper (around $55,000 to start) and shorter. Diesel power, not available in the previous US-spec models, is likely to be offered.

Building the Phaeton in the first place was the mistake, not pulling it out of the US market. I mean, is 17 units (or even 235 units) sustainable? If a car that reaches 40% of its sales objective in its BEST sales year isn’t one to withdraw from the market, I don’t know what is. With that being said, positioning the Phaeton (which will remain the name of the new car, in spite of its prior lack of sales success) as more of an E-class/5-series competitor rather than as a peer of the S-class/7-series at the same price should ensure better sales results. Volkswagen manages a large portfolio of brands worldwide (VW, Audi, Lamborghini, Skoda, Seat, Bentley, etc.), but it seems funny that they have so much trouble defining their own brand in the US. At the very least, I’m betting that the 2010 or 2011 Phaeton will sell more than 17 units.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 5 }

Is US Introduction of Ford’s Transit around the Corner?

By on February 18, 2008 in News
By Igor Holas

02.18.2008

The dust has not even settled after Ford’s announcement regarding U.S. sales and the Chicago Auto Show introduction of the small Transit Connect delivery van, and a new series of rumors is starting about the Connect’s big brother – the venerable and decidedly larger Ford Transit itself.


Unlike the urban-friendly Transit Connect, the Transit is a full-size van directly comparable to the Dodge Sprinter. Like the Sprinter, the Transit is tall and narrow, with low floor, well appointed cabin, huge cargo capacity, and diesel-powered heavy engine.

Rumors of US introduction of this large van have been circulating in the media since Alan Mulally’s original spate of announcements about the redundancy of vehicle architectures across international divisions of Ford. Among the models mentioned were the Transit and the Econoline – two full size vans designed around very different concepts and riding on completely unrelated architectures. Inside information from last year pointed to Ford delegating a team to figure out the feasibility of merging the E-series and Transit onto a single frame. Skeptical assessments pointed to the year 2012 or later as the most likely timeframe for such unified architecture becoming a reality, and sometimes even questioned the wisdom behind such move.

Indeed, this would not be the first time Ford tried to unite the two vans. A similar project was commenced, and abandoned, in the 1980’s. At that time the major reason the project’s failure was the fundamentally different concepts employed in developing each vehicle.

The Econoline rides on a frame derived from the F-150 and Super Duty trucks. As such, the fame sits high, but provides impressive gross toughness and capability. However, the high level of the frame, and consequently the floor, limits the cargo space of the truck. Moreover, the trucks heavy-duty underpinnings contribute to its hefty curb weight and all-V8 lineup. For many businesses, a van of Econoline’s strength is simply overkill. However, by sharing a number of parts with the high-volume F-series trucks, the Econoline has always been cheap to build and cheap to buy.

The Transit, on the other hand, was designed ground up about space efficiency, and moderate amount of capability. The frame sits very low and the roof can go very high creating cargo space that puts Econoline to shame. The sheer flexibility of the platform is amazing. While the Econoline comes only in two versions: short body or long body (with identical wheelbase), the Transit offers three wheelbases, four lengths, and three roof heights. Moreover, it can be optioned out as light-duty, and efficient, front-wheel drive, or heavier-duty rear-wheel drive, model. The lightest-duty Transits run around Europe with four-cylinder engines, while the top-line models are equipped with a inline five-cylinder diesel. However, the top end of the Transit cannot reach the brute force of the E350. Moreover, like the Sprinter, the Transit would probably command a higher price; the combination of advanced engines, frames, and cabin sets Sprinter’s price of entry at $36,000, about twice as much as basic E150; unless Ford offers the base Transit with a gasoline engine, the difference between Econoline and Transit prices likely be similar.


Despite all this second-guessing inside the media, sources inside Ford’s Avon Lake plant in Ohio, which currently builds the Econoline, recently revealed that Ford is moving forward with selling the Transit in the US. According to these sources, after this summer’s shut-down, Ford will begin installing tooling for the Transit. Given this timeline for tooling, announcement of the model’s US sales could come as soon as 2008 Los Angeles Auto show and production could begin by summer 2009.

It is unclear whether Ford would replace the Econoline, or simply let the two models sell side-by side. After all, their different qualities could make them attractive to different customers. Some observers highlight the lack of investment in Econoline as a sign of the impeding end of this traditional US van. The Transit has seen steady development funds, and is generally considered the best utility van on the planet. Moreover some large-volume fleet buyers in the US, such as UPS, have literally been begging Ford to offer this vehicle in the US. If Ford can simply amend the Transit lineup with a heavy-duty version able to replace the E350, Ford might just have found a way to remove one out of the more than forty platforms it currently uses around the globe.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Comments { 3 }
← Older posts Newer posts →