What Porsche gives to BMW M April 23, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , 6commentsBMW’s M3 is the core of the M brand, Rolf Sheibner from the division told me.
So who is its closest relative? Step forward the Porsche 997 911. Yes, really. ‘In terms of dynamic skills and character, the M3 and 997 are like relatives,’ Sheibner revealed.
Well, I’ll be.
He was straight up, though. The M division hadn’t benchmarked the M3 against other M cars, but the mighty and ever-better Porsche, the definitive everyday supercar.
‘For 30 years, M3 customers have also been drawn to Porsche. When someone considers one, they’re usually looking at the other, too.’
Which presents quite a high bar for the M division to clear. That’s why they start early. Albeit, from a solid base.
‘We let the road car division develop the standard 3 Series for two years. And, once they reach a certain level, we then start to develop the M version.’
Makes sense. So how much independence do they have here? A wry smile from Sheibner. ‘Look in our papers: we’re a maker! We’re called M GmBH…’ All that was missing here was the cheeky wink.
He knows his customers pretty well, though. I asked about the eight million different settings for the V8 M3’s suspension, engine mapping and whatever else. How on earth will customers get their heads around it?
‘They will play at the beginning,’ he said. ‘But then, after 3 weeks, they’ll probably leave it, happy that they’ve explored enough.’
Hence the importance of getting the standard setup right – and why there will always be a degree of computer reprofiling as per driving conditions here.
Even if customers can’t be bothered prodding buttons, there still needs to be some reward for the money spent…
BMW tells me why its instruments are lit in orange
Porsche makes cranky Cayenne cool
Mini brochure makes fascinating reading April 20, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , 1 comment so farSTUDYING new car data is something I do every day at Motoring Research Ltd.
Torque figures, combined fuel consumption, CO2, weights, boot capacities, the whole shooting match.
So it was with fascination that I flicked through the classic Mini brochure I dug out recently.
That’s Mini Classic – as in, the 1997 Rover-BMW model, by then differentiated from the forthcoming new MINI by yet another name change (and the retention of correct capitalisation).
Looking at it with today’s eyes, it’s truly fascinating. For example, engine power output of 62bhp is no great shakes by modern 1.3-litre standards: a Peugeot 107’s 1.0-litre triple yields 68bhp.
However, 70lb/ft of torque IS much more like it – particularly as it’s generated at an almost diesel-like 3000rpm. I read into this, lots of low-rev sluggability.
Performance figures still stack up, too – for a tiny city car, 0-60mph in 12.2 seconds is pretty decent, even if aero effects ultimately does limit the maximum to 90mph.
This is, alas, why economy is less than glittering. That modern Peugeot 107 returns well over 60mpg. The Mini? 43mpg combined.
That equates to CO2 emissions of circa 155g/km: compare this, for example, to something like a BMW 320i. Which emits 146g/km (and the diesel 320d puts out just 128g/km).
Still, at least modern car service intervals were quoted. After an initial 6000 mile check, you’d only have to take it to the Rover dealer every 12,000 miles, or 12 months.
That’s probably all for the better, mind. For the dealer’s sake. At the back of the brochure, a finance example is quoted. Yes, a Mini could have been yours, for just £2715 down, then £169 a month for two years.
Great!
Sure, you’d have a final payment of £3800 on the PCP scheme, but a minimum guaranteed value of £4700 would easily cover that.
All good? Well, no. See, this £9000 Mini would actually, by that stage, have cost you £10,572. Why? Average APR of 15.9 percent, that’s why.
To modern eyes of 0.5 percent base rates, and car dealers not bothering to get out of bed if they can’t do 0 percent finance, that seems somewhat rich…
More insights on my brochure studies to come!
Can you help me buy a Mini in 2009?
How Chevrolet today became cool
Audi Q5 economy enough to tyre you out April 19, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , 1 comment so farDON’T buy an S line Audi Q5 if you want the best fuel economy possible.
The Q5 scores a Cd drag coefficient of 0.33 – for all engines… fitted with 17-inch or 18-inch wheels. That’s standard and SE, then – not S line, with its great-looking standard 19”s.
In days gone by, this would have forced Audi to publish individual CO2 and economy figures for the S line version. Today, while eco rules are generally tougher, they’re also more lenient in areas like this.
It also means customers can really destroy the mpg, by taking up optional 20-inch wheels. There are air brakes that are less effective.
Me, I can’t deny they look great – but it still seems a shame to undo all the good work done my engineer insider, whom I met on the Q5 launch.
Boasting of the Q5’s low drag, he said it was all the more impressive, considering the 2.65 sq m frontal area. Not particularly aero, that.
How to overcome? ‘We designed in a V-shape, which helps,’ he told me. ‘We also have a smooth roofline and a tapered rear end. The underside is flat, too.’
But Audi prefers not to use complicated solutions such as BMW’s active aerodynamics. ‘We’ve managed to reduce fuel consumption by 15 percent without them,’ my engineer insider said.
Canny. Then, someone goes and ruins it all by bolting on a set of 22-inch aftermarket rims. Dammit…
Fuel economy economical with the truth?
Secrets of the new Toyota Prius
Why Renaultsports don’t have rear spoilers April 18, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , 3commentsRENAULTSPORT Megane customers want sporty cars, but they also want low running costs. Apparently.
That’s why Renault doesn’t fit a rear spoiler.
See, it would up the drag, worsen the Cd, and push up mpg.
That’s also why, it was explained to me on the car’s launch, there’s a RenaultSport Megane diesel – with multi-stage Piezo injectors, the last pulse of which is charged with burning off soot emissions. Overall, 45mpg. Good, oui?
Fear not though, I was told. Being racy is still the prime reason for the RenaultSport.
The need for bigger brakes, for example, led Renault to develop trick double-axis front suspension. Another benefit of which just happens to be high stiffness levels.
As an engineer explained, it means there’s ‘no wobble under hard acceleration, so no geometry loss, so no steering squirm.
‘During cornering, forces on the front outside corner are high, which distorts the suspension. Not on double-axis though, which is twice as stiff as MacPherson strut.’
And that’s not all. ‘Less parasitic movement means less need for steering correction, so it’s more precise…’
Blimey. But yet more precise still is the Cup version. This has ‘reinforced dampers, 37 percent more rear spring stiffness, and ESP that can be turned completely off.’ Hardcore features for hardcore drivers.
Clio Cup Runneth Over
He was a handling geek, my insider. And how I delighted in speaking with him, over the fizzy water. I soon got him onto the Clio RenaultSport, where his revelations were just as cool.
Did you know, for example, the Clio’s seats help lower the car’s centre of gravity? It’s also 27 percent stiffer in spring, and 10 percent firmer in damping… ‘And the double-axis front suspension separates steering efforts from the damper.’
Now, it was a veritable flurry of gems from him. Four-pot Brembos come on the Clio, which he revealed to me (but not the guys within Renault who control costs) are ‘oversized’.
The rear diffuser? It has a 26 degree angle, creating a depression under the car, which ‘weights’ the back down at speed. Not only does it reduce lift by a factor of 3, but it also ‘primes’ the suspension for best response at speed.
Genius. And for real.
I can’t repeat what he said about makers who fit false rear diffusers.
‘The diffuser also does away with the need for a rear boot spoiler,’ he added.
Which takes us back to the start. That’s why Renault doesn’t fit one to the Clio RenaultSport, either. But why, ahem, Vauxhall has to fit one to the ‘diffuser-equipped’ Corsa VXR. Ahem, ahem.
How Chevrolet today became cool
BMW X5 – reviewing the 2007 launch
Security worries for old car ownership April 15, 2009
Posted by richard in : What I learned today , 2commentsHERE’S something I haven’t considered before. When I buy a classic Mini, how am I going to make sure it remains mine?
See, old car security is, generally, pants.
My parents’ old BL cars had locks so lax, it often didn’t matter if mum lost her Mini keys. She could just use dad’s Dolomite ones. Me, I remember getting into the Mini once with the key to the garage.
Thatcham was just a distinct of Berkshire. Alarms were something that sounded when the fuel was low. Modern cars are immeasurably more secure – but this doesn’t mean old ones have benefited.
Nowadays, we’re used to leaving our cars in the middle of urbansville and, so long as the window’s not smashed, generally finding both it and its contents there when we get back.
I sure won’t be able to do this with a Mini, though.
Night out in Brum? Leave it on the street and I may as well Sellotape the keys to the roof. Use a car park and, even if they have CCTV, the canny criminal would still be in and away without rousing even the most caffeinated security guard.
Even storing it in the garage could be an issue – the locks on that are barely any more secure than the car’s potentially would be.
No, this is a worry. It was brought home to me by something Tracker said – apparently, lots of owners are fitting tracking devices to their classics, and the company’s responded by ensuring installations can be done discreetly, without being seen and putting concourse show points at risk.
Learning as I go, I certainly am. How does everyone else tackle classic car security?
Can you help me buy a Mini in 2009?
How Chevrolet today became cool
Motoring entertainment for Easter April 11, 2009
Posted by richard in : Uncategorized , 3commentsLIVE in Norwich? Stuck for something to do over Easter? Got a car that’s spizzy through the corners?
Then get yourself over to one of Lotus’ own test routes, and enjoy some of the best roads in the district.
I did this, a few years back, on the Elise S launch. That’s the one with the old Corolla 1.8-litre engine, by the way – proving that 134bhp is just enough. It’s a sublime car.
The routes were as good, though. Google Maps will give you an idea, but a brief overview from the company’s Wymondham base will see you heading…
• North on the A47
• North on the B1145, just past Honingham
• Swinging onto the B1354 at Aylsam
• Peeling off onto the B1149 at Saxthorpe
• Threading through Little Thornage, then sniffing out the B1156
That gets you to Burnham. It got me to a hotel just outside Burnham. And, back to the factory the next day? Well, we headed…
• South on the B1355
• South on the B1146
• Just past Dereham, south on the B1135
Top stuff, and not a motorway in sight. Hark! What’s that ticking noise? Probably Lotus’ red Elise S test car, still cooling down.
Yes, you could say I enjoyed it.
bmwblog and UK car dealer agree
How Chevrolet today became cool
bmwblog and UK car dealer agree April 11, 2009
Posted by richard in : Uncategorized , 4commentsBMWBLOG has been reporting from the New York Auto Show. Of course, with a focus on BMWs.
But the guys there also took time to sniff around the other exhibitors – and came up with a ‘cars to watch’ list.
What struck me right away? The first car on the list – the Fisker Karma. A green petrol-electric combo, and set to be the world’s first high-end eco-supercar.
Why my interest? Because I spoke with a dealer of high-end cars in the UK last week, who said something very similar. Of all the forthcoming ‘green’ supercars, he reckons the Fisker is the most viable.
It’s got the looks, the performance and the prestige to both justify a high price tag and to stir customer demand. He’s thus watching it – because he knows his customers will be.
Two insider heads-up for the new Fisker, then. Guess we’d thus better be watching it…
BMW tells me why its instruments are lit in orange
Which totally random used car am I looking at today? 2 April 9, 2009
Posted by richard in : Uncategorized , 3comments9 April 2009 – Volkswagen Golf V5
VOLKSWAGEN’S Golf V5 is a Ferdinand Piech special. The father of the Audi quattro is a mechanical genius, who famously embraces anything that’s hard, technical or, seemingly, impossible.
Take the need to have an engine with a lower output than VW’s beautiful 2.8-litre VR6. You could, of course, make do with the 150bhp 1.8-litre turbo four-pot. Torquey, driveable and eager, it was hard to love but did a workmanlike job.
That wouldn’t do for Piech, though. Four cylinders, smooth as they are, simply lack the class of multi-cylinders. Yes, the V6 was a bit too juicy, but there was another solution staring (only him) in the face.
Chop a cylinder off the V6. Creating a 2.3-litre V5. From the father of the five-pot engine, it was like night following day. Production line efficiencies, shared components, lower development costs, bingo.
For everyone else, it was absurd. Odd cylinder numbers are naturally unbalanced. How the hell do you make that work in a vee, with three going one way and two the other?
With brilliance, methodology, determination, and a crankshaft that one wag said ‘looked like it had melted in the forging factory’, that’s how.
At launch, some griped it lacked torque, others that 150bhp wasn’t really an advance over the 1.8T. (VW later fixed this in part, with a 20V head that yielded 170bhp – nevertheless, this was still never a firebrand).
Everyone agreed, however, that the noise it made was utterly beguiling. Offbeat, both thrummy and warbling, it had character by the bucketload. And really was impeccably refined.
But, all that effort for an engine that wasn’t really necessary, didn’t sell in huge numbers, and hasn’t been replicated even by the Chinese? Only a man like Piech would see it through. He’s the Alec Issogonis of the 1990s.
Which is why I diverted from my Mini hunt to see how much Golf V5s today go for. £1895 is the answer. For a 150bhp Crème Egg of a gem, that’s smoother than Galaxy and tastier than even the freshest Chocolate Orange.
I adore them. I’d check the sump was still in one place, of course; the soft suspension and heavy engine meant ‘spirited’ motoring sometimes resulted in a loss of Castrol. But, for this sort of money, I’d have something very, very special indeed.
1.8T? Pah. THIS is the Golf you should be mothballing. I’m sure Piech has.
Volkswagen Golf looks to history for GRD inspiration
Porsche makes cranky Cayenne cool
What I learnt… from Autocar, 11 March 2009
Why Minis are like Macs April 8, 2009
Posted by richard in : Uncategorized , 3commentsMAC fan Charles Moore has written a well considered piece on theappleblog, making the link between the Mini and, well, the Mac mini computer.
Me, I’m also a worshipper of both, and the comparisons are so apparent, I’m amazed I’ve not spotted them before.
Macs? Well, they’re cool, classless, not the cheapest but exceedingly well packaged, extremely well conceived and pretty damn trick underneath the surface. This blog is originated on a Mac. Everything you see here has been written processed on a Mac.
Minis? Well, we all know they’re pretty cool, period. ‘Nuff said there.
What’s soon apparent in the piece, though, is that Moore is comparing the original Mini, not the new MINI, to the Mac mini. That car, he says, is more of a rival to Apple’s premium machines.
Interesting.
These really are quite delectable things of envy.
But, a Mac mini can do most of what they do, for much less. While also being, well, the world’s greenest and most efficient computer. The exact same concept the original Mini introduced the world to, back in the day.
It’s a compelling piece. Have a read and see what you think. And try to deny the genius of the wordplay: Mac mini. Mini. Max respect due to both.
Have I (again) solved the great Mini search?
Can you help me buy a Mini in 2009?
BMW tells me why its instruments are lit in orange: an iDrive iNsight April 7, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , 10commentsLAST year, I was sworn to secrecy. A fellow scribe and I nipped into BMW’s uber-secret FIZ development base, to have a swatch at the latest iDrive system. Which was to be installed in the even-more-secret new 7.
Down in the dungeon-like, windowless lair (keeping us away from windows, you see…), the BMW engineers gave the background of their iDrive philosophy.
Now, with old iDrive, turning and prodding 4-leaf ‘Rose’ menu was fine for the turn of the century. But, today, it’s limited. BMW needed a fundamental overhaul of its controller system. As we now know, and was shown to me then, the solution it found is brilliant.
‘We’ve kept the 4-Rose menu as ‘direct’ buttons,’ said the engineers. ‘But, if you’re trained in iDrive, you don’t use the buttons. You do the whole interaction WITHOUT looking at the controller.’
That’s fine, we wagered, but isn’t it even easier to have touchscreen? No, said a horrified engineer. See, touchscreen is absolute: ‘you need to guide your finger all the time, by looking at the screen.’ Imagine, they said, driving along and trying to input a nav destination.
‘iDrive is relative, though – you can turn, wait, give your attention to the road, but still know where you were when your eyes flick back.
‘This is a system for driving. We’ve designed iDrive in general to consist evolutionary steps, so you can see where you came from. It doesn’t overload drivers. And is, we feel, far safer.’
It’s not an issue of justifying cost saving, either. ‘Touchscreen is cheaper. But we don’t go for cheap. We go for premium – like Audi, like Mercedes-Benz.’
As we’ve seen, now it’s been launched the left-to-right hierarchy structure is, indeed, very logical. Proving BMW wasn’t lying when it got us to wear jazzy ‘goggles, limiting our vision to flashes within periods of total blackout.
Intended to replicate eyes flicking between display and road, it was a key test in developing the system. ‘Our tests amazed us – there was little difference in input time between wearing goggles and not…’
Believe me, these guys live and breath iDrive and instrument panels. Geeks, like me: hence, at the end of the day, all my geeky questions. They loved ‘em…
• Why orange dials? Because it’s BMW, and the best colour for legibility. The worst? Blue and red, apparently…
• Why an oil temp dial in the new 7? Because BMW is about engines, and it shows the brand’s sporty outlook.
• Why not Lexus-style black panel dash? Because you should be able to see the dial tubes when the car’s turned off. To show they’re ‘real’ hardware. Mechanical.
• Why not go all-digital instruments? Never! What’s more, there should be no visual split between mechanical and digital displays. The development and integration here took BMW years…
The engineers also proudly told me the left dial ‘tube’ was for velocity, and the right for ‘info’. Mirrored by the buttons on the steering wheel. Mirrored on the dash layout. Great! There’s a dash masterplan.
Shame the logic didn’t make the conversion to right hand driver, though. Think about it: because, no, BMW hasn’t switched the steering wheel buttons for right-hookers…
BMW X5 – reviewing the 2007 launch
