Ford clears the way for quick dealer profits August 14, 2010
Posted by richard in : History, Minutiae of cars, Technology, What I learned today , add a comment
Ford Quickclear heated windscreen tech is something invented not for customer convenience, but to please the UK’s largest car dealer network.
Well, sort of.
History time: it’s been around since the 1980s, and was designed to make life easier on winter mornings. Drive away in seconds, instead of minutes, went the promo (remember the man with the Orion in the print ads?).
Whether that was actually possible in cars with chokes, choking on sub-zero temperatures, is a moot point, but the thought was there.
Actually, though, I reckon it was developed to be a dealer-pleaser, too.
Dealer hots
Ford has more than 500 dealers across the UK (and maybe loads more back in the day). Each may have, ooh, between 20 and 100 used cars sat outside to lure people in.
Enter one cold snap, and cue frosted-over windscreens for each. What will be obscured by such an event? Yes, the price sticker hanging from the sunvisor behind the opaque screen.
In terms of manhours, this represents a lot of expenditure (and a veritable deluge of moaning). How better would it be to slash (silence) this with just the press of a button?
Of course, it wasn’t a perfect plan. Not all cars would be fitted with Quickclear screens. The higher-margin posh cars would be, though (Granada Ghia X and the like). They’re the ones in which dealers would have most cash tied up, and which they wanted to sell fast.
Quickclear would ensure the risk of missing vital marketing opportunities were minimised. Cue dealers quickly clear(n?)ing up (ahem).
OK, I admit. Ford probably didn’t invent Quickclear to please its dealer network. There, I jest, with tongue in cheek.
But knowing how thorough the brand is, I don’t doubt the consideration could have helped push the tech through in the planning meet, or featured in the strategy document presented to the Board…
+ What other unexpected uses for car tech can you think of?
+ Do you know of any other ‘Eureka’ type car inventions?
+ Ford is market leader and has Quickclear: coincidence?
SEAT applies the sun green August 8, 2010
Posted by richard in : Green cars, Technology, ev , add a comment
SPAIN is currently far too reliant on resources from other countries to generate its electricity.
This, it would no doubt add if it was PR-sensible, is madness.
See, Spain has a tremendous resource of its own, that it is currently shamefully underplaying: the sun.
Things will change in the future. Spain want most of its electricity to be ‘home-grown’. by harnessing the sun. Solar power is going to be big news in Spain – and with this comes a shift to electric cars.
Set to play a prime role in this future is native VW Group owned car maker SEAT. Already, we’re seeing electric-thinking concepts such as the IBE, and a plug-in hybrid Leon TwinDrive is promised for 2014.
TwinDrive means plug-in hybrid, with rear-mounted lithium-ion batteries powering a 35kW electric motor, for a 50km EV range. Over this, a combustion engine takes over.
SEAT EV spark
There’s something equally significant afoot right now, though. Martorell is where all SEATs are built. Soon, the entire roof of this massive factory will be covered in, yes, solar panels.
320,000 square metres of them, no less. With 10Mw capacity, that’s enough to annually generate 13 million KWh of electricity a year.
Sounds a lot? Yup: enough to power 3000 homes, and negate 6200 tonnes’ CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. It’s to be one of the biggest ‘integrated photovoltaic’ developments in Europe, and the €17m project is underway as you read this.
Longer-term, it could mean SEAT will offset the energy required to produce its cars, by generating its own electricity.
And to think some say the car industry isn’t doing its bit…
+ Know of any surprise green schemes from car firms?
+ Are SEAT’s plans viable?
+ Learn about the basics of EVs
VW Golf Bluemotion: Golf GTI for eco greens? August 7, 2010
Posted by richard in : 0 to 60, Green cars, Minutiae of cars, Technology , 2comments
Golf GTI have usually been The Supercars That Rule for we real(ish)-world folk.
Give me a mint Mk2 and I will do anything (anything) for you. I cherish/Tweet Mk1 sightings, would love a Mk6 and often browse Autotrader for cheap Mk5s.
OK, the Mk4 wasn’t ace, but still desirable because of its interior/steering wheel/wheels. I’m that obsessed, I even see the merit in the Mk3 (neon metallic green, please).
But I’m also a bit of an eco nut. An mpg obsessive. (Incidentally, I blame my Mk2 for this: it was my first car to have a trip computer.)
Although the Mk6 does 38.7mpg, and emits 170g/km CO2, that’s still too high for an everyday preacher like me. What to do?
Well, Volkswagen has a solution. Create a new sub-brand, infuse it with GTI-style marketing distinction, make it desirable and wantable in its own right – and continually develop and hone it as you go along.
Golf Bluemotion. The Golf GTI for greenies
Bluemotion is exactly that. Indeed, it is the longest running eco sub-brand (since joined by SEAT Ecomotive, Ford Econetic, Vauxhall ecoFlex… you get the idea). Like GTI, VW invented it as an engineering-led challenge-fest.
How eco, you imagine the tecchies musing, can we make a standard production hatchback? Without hybrids, new-gen engines or special techniquery demands?
The Polo Bluemotion was the first, soon followed by the ‘Mk1′ Golf Bluemotion (Mk5). Now, we’re on the ‘Mk2′ Golf Bluemotion, based on the Mk6 (with me?). It is this car I’m running as a long-termer.
It is this car that gets admiring glances thanks to its lowered suspension, its body styling aero tweaks, its characteristic Bluemotion blue paint.
Those in the know notice the badge on the grille, situated in the same position as many a GTI moniker. They’ll admire the wheels, but also be able to reel off the stats: 99g/km CO2, 74.3mpg. Up (and down!) from the 62.8mpg and 119g/km of the Mk1Mk5, you know. And it uses the EA111 1.6 TDI instead of the EA111 1.9 TDI. And it’s still mated to the 02J gearbox. And… etc…
All of this is GTI-style: the same things that attract there also apply here. That’s the beauty, see. A GTI uses efficiency to hone what’s there and create more speed. The Bluemotion does the same, but to yield more mpg.
It’s just that the route to both – lowered suspension, bespoke body and a new ‘That Badge’ – presses the same buttons for car fans who like their supercars hot hatch sized.
In the future, then, will the Bluemotion become The Supercar That Rules? There’s a thought. See, partly, it already does…
I have but one worry. Will this mean the Bluemotion badge is to be nicked off my Golf, as it was on the GTI?
+ Has hp had its day?
+ Nice dials, mate
+ BMW, you cheeky chaps, you
How fast would your car be with more power? July 18, 2010
Posted by richard in : Technology , 1 comment so far
HOW fast can cars with speed limiters go if the speed limiter is removed?
I mused on this when looking at the VW Golf R’s 200mph speedo. (VW likes to play around with the scale of its speedos; my long-term Golf Bluemotion shows 160mph top; this weekend’s Eos test car splits both with 180mph.)
Limited to 155mph, what would she do with it taken off?
Enter vehicle dynamics God Damian Harty. He sorted the Ford Mondeo BTCC car’s handling, turning it into a race winner, and has done plenty more stuff NDAs mean he can’t talk about.
‘Try this formula,’ he said, in response to my thought on Facebook. The formula being…:
New_Vmax = Current_Vmax*(New_Power/Current_Power)^(1/3)
Damian started with the basic Golf GTI’s 210PS, which saw it good for 149mph. ‘This suggests the R would do 162mph unrestricted’
Dang, that’s a bit far off 200mph! What to do, Damian?
507PS, was his answer, with the gearing set to match, too. ‘Big power gains give small VMax changes; always a little disappointing but there you go…’
Indeed, but it gives a challenge to the VW tuning world. Who’ll be the first to take a Golf R up to 507PS – and who’ll be the first to then break the double-ton?
+ If you’ve ever tuned a car, what have been your findings?
+ Is it realistic to tune a 2.0-litre turbo to 507PS..?
+ How fast would YOUR car be with more power?
EREV 101: Electric car becomes realistic? July 3, 2010
Posted by richard in : Green cars, Minutiae of cars, Technology, ev , add a comment
VAUXHALL is to market its range-extender electric Ampera via a catchy new classification: EREV.
Extended Range Electric Vehicle, that is. I reckon it’s going to become as common parlance as SUV, MPV and, indeed, EV itself. ‘Eeee-rev’… sounds kinda cool, no?
Question is, what it is. Here, I hope, is a simple crib sheet explaining it.
What is it not?
A Hybrid.
In a Hybrid, like a Toyota Prius, you have an electric motor and a petrol engine. The electric motor drives the wheels, until the batteries run out. Then, the engine drives the wheels, with electric assist.
What is an EREV, then?
In an EREV, you have an electric motor, that drives the wheels. When the batteries run out, the electric motor still drives the wheels. Only this time, a petrol engine starts running, producing electricity to feed the depleted batteries.
Sounds similar… what’s the key difference between Hybrid and EREV?
EREVs are SOLELY driven by an electric motor, fed by batteries. In a Hybrid, wheels are turned by BOTH electric and petrol motor. That’s the key difference.
To explain… there are two modes of powering EREV batteries: by plugging them into the wall, or producing electricity on the go from an onboard generator.
Which, here, just so happens to be that petrol motor. But really, it could be anything. Fuel cell? Hydrogen IC? Nuclear reactor? Anything will do, so long as it can make enough electricity. That’s how immaterial the engine is.
In a Hybrid, when the batteries run down, the engine barges the electric motor out of the way and takes over running the show. It becomes a first-line of drive, rather than the supporting role it plays in an EREV.
This means you can view the Vauxhall Ampera as an EV with a 350-mile range. 40 of those electric miles will come from power fed from a 3-hour recharge, stored onboard in the 16kW battery pack.
310 extra miles will then come from power produced in the generator by combusting the fuel in the tank.
After that? You ‘recharge’ – either by plugging it into the wall… or refilling the fuel tank. Or, both.
A little bit of genius? Lord, yes. It’s brilliant. Until battery capacity really rockets, it makes the EV viable. It’s an absolute masterpiece that will make EVs sell to real buyers.
It’s also a potential goldmine for GM. The most significant leg-up the electric car has yet got? I really do think so…
+ Are you as excited about the EREV concept as I am?
+ What do you see as the downsides?
+ Do you think it is better or worse than a pure EV – and why?
EV mystery: What is CENEX? June 29, 2010
Posted by richard in : Green cars, Technology, What I learned today, ev , add a comment
ELECTRIC car news reports often contain reference to trials, incentives or other such, in association with CENEX.
This appears to be some sort of mysterious body facilitating the genesis of all these EVs – or, if nothing else, finding bags of cash for said genesis.
So, just what is it? The National Centre of Excellence for Low Carbon Vehicles, which is based in Coventry and Loughborough.
Yup, OK. Again… what is it?
An industry-led government PPP initiative, that’s what. Check that: in this context, it’s actually a ‘delivery agency’, no less, supported by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
If (like I was) you are still no clearer, let me (try) and explain. It’s basically a PR agency. Running since 2005, its aim is to promote UK market development, in low-CO2 and fuel cell tech in transport.
Set up at the behest of automotive industry chiefs, amongst others, it’s helping give the fledgling green car industry a leg-up.
It works in association with bodies such as Regional Development Agencies – One North East is one; Advantage West Midlands is another. CENEX brings together sellers of green tech with the public sector sorts who might buy it, through a kind of match-making speed-dating operation.
Remember, those in the public sector may not necessarily be at all bothered about cars and their tech. They won’t necessarily have fleet sector-type initiatives that private corporates run, either. So, here is a Government alternative, with the happy bonus of increasing public EV awareness, too.
Today, the green car industry is fledgling, and thus massively fragmented. What it needs is a centralised body to help coordinate things and pump out messages of unified strength. CENEX is that body.
CENEX runs two key schemes.
Low Carbon Vehicle Procurement Programme
Funded by the DfT to the tune of £20m, this is aimed at getting green vans and cars into the public sector for trials. Councils will take on the cars and run them for a set period, throwing them at the mercy of workers.
Quantitative and qualitative findings will be fed back to CENEX via the councils, to see what the reality of fleet EV use is.
If you’re wondering why there’s a load of fuss about it at the moment, it’s because CENEX has timetabled March-June 2010 for delivery of the electric cars.
Oddly, it’s vans that are forming the core of the trials. That’s because there are more electric vans listed on the programme list. The only cars are the Mitsubishi i-MiEV and the Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid.
Low Carbon Knowledge Transfer Network
Funded by the Technology Strategy Board, this is a kind of low carbon car enthusiast’s club for businesses. It is a single ‘network’ for all with a business interest in low CO2 cars (such as EVs) to collaborate via, decide on Best Practice and share knowledge.
It includes universities, business suppliers, business customers, research and technology organisations and the finance community.
The KTP brings this lot together via a (private) web portal and various networking events. LCV 2010 is one such example. It’s being held at Millbrook in Bedfordshire, as effectively the CENEX ‘motorshow’. There’s also been the Green Vehicle Congress, and loads of other under-the-radar things.
CENEX sounds a load of old Quango-doctery, but it’s actually doing a pretty good job. Press release after press release encouraged by it is getting the EV message out there, and slowly, word is starting to get out there.
I’m plugging into the CENEX chaps right now, to see what else they have to say. Come back for more soon, I hope, on what they have in store next to help drive EVs…
+ What do you think about initiatives such as CENEX?
+ Are you seeing a benefit from the body?
+ Are you actually now any clearer as to what CENEX is?
Suzuki Swift superhikes engineering June 26, 2010
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars, Technology, What I learned today , add a comment
Suzuki’s all-new Swift may look nothing of the sort, but there’s far more of interest below the same-again surface.
At the Austrian launch, Suzuki flew over a veritable entourage to explain all this to me. Talk about love for their job… these guys showed a surprise passion I just wasn’t expecting from Suzuki.
So, what did they say? Plenty. Here’s some snippets…
Take the all-new platform, for instance. This has been engineered to be both more rigid and more solid in a crash. Yet, despite ever-increasing demands from customers and Euro NCAP legislators, it’s also lighter than the old one.
That’s despite being 90mm longer than before, with a 50mm wheelbase stretch! How so, I politely implored?
Well, explained chief engineer Nayoyuki Takeuchi, through greater use of high-tech, high-tensile steel. ‘The old car had 46 percent high tensile steel, up to 590Mpa in grade.’ Steel experts (no, not him) will know all about this.
‘The new Swift is 52 percent high tensile, with grades up to 1570Mpa. This is an extremely effective strategy for weight saving.’Steel experts will be impressed. I’m not a steel expert (despite being a Steel fan), but know 3x more stiffness is A Good Thing.
Many panels are thus thinner than the were before: the higher-quality steel can be a of a thinner gauge yet still outdo the old ones for strength.
There are also detail tricks to further boost the rigidity of the Swift. The boot opening, for example, is smaller than before. By reducing the ‘hole’ in the rear of the car, flexing is reduced.
Suspension components have also been strengthened, again without gaining in weight. A significant, tangible improvement here is a rear twist beam that’s 50 percent more laterally rigid (50 percent! Good Lord). This aids handling precision by reducing component-flexing ‘slop’.
It’s also 2kg lighter, and a full 25 percent stiffer in roll stiffness. Even the rear hubs are 2kg lighter, thanks to a 3-in-1 hub assembly. Yup, they too are more rigid as well.
And for some truly innovative thinking, look to the steering. Suzuki has fitted a variable ratio rack; it’s faster just off-centre, to improve dynamic response for the driver.
Wind on more lock, though, and the ratio slows. Why? It means less effort is needed, so the electric power steering motor can be downrated, so achieving better mpg from the reduced power draw!
Amazing, I thought, as I went back to the test route. Wasn’t expecting all that, and made me see it in a new light. This car feels plain high-quality and thoroughly engineered as a result: if prices are right, it will be a bargain.
Thing is, will anyone notice?
+ Some cars just ‘feel’ plain well-engineered – which stand out for you?
+ Is Suzuki right to carry on with the same-again styling?
+ What’s the difference between Japanese and German engineering thinking?
BMW 4 cylinder: 6 litre smoothness, 5 litre eco June 25, 2010
Posted by richard in : Green cars, Minutiae of cars, Technology , 2comments
BMW’s latest 5 Series marks the introduction of 4-cylinder engines into the F10 platform. Until now, it’s been all 6-cylinders or V8s.
Powertrain manager Jan Kretschmer revealed what’s been keeping them busy at the launch of the 520d variant, on the debut of this September’s F11 Touring.
My, they’ve been well-occupied, it seems. ‘4 cylinder engines are always a bigger challenge for our engineers,’ he explained; even ones like this, with counter-rotating balancer shafts.
They have, as you know, a different (‘and higher’) level of NVH – noise, vibration, harshness. ‘You have to consider this before you even start with the development and installation.
‘Luckily, our Body-In-White department is able to conduct a lot of simulation work (big investment in computer technology over the past half-decade facilitates this). This means we can predefine possible weaknesses where extra stiffening may help – or, actually, stiff areas where some weakness may be beneficial!
‘They start this 5 years before the vehicle hits the road.’
Concurrently, his powertrain team will be working to provide the smoothest possible engine for eventual implementation. With the 184hp (135kW) 2.0-litre diesel, Kretschmer explained the process was one of evolution. ‘We were tasked with further refining an already high-level engine, rather than reinventing it.’
Two key development areas were prioritised here:
• Engine Mountings: ‘These must be isolated. We fit electronically driven semi-hydraulic engine mounts, with 2 characteristics. At idle and low rpm, they are ‘weaker’, to absorb low-level vibration. When driving, there are fewer engine vibrations, so we stiffen them to improve handling.’
• Fluctuating Torque: ‘This is harder to isolate on 4-cylinder engines than 6-cylinders. On manual models, we fit a pendulum-type flywheel which minimises these oscillations and reduces the booming rear axle effect. The 8-speed auto has a new torque converter with a twin-damper system that provides isolation.’
Minimisation of fluctuating torque is the aspect he is most proud of, as it is extremely significant. ‘We have reduced it going into the transmission by 60 percent.
‘This helps us drive the car more at lower rpm, with longer gear ratios on the manual and new gearshift profiles on the auto. With the new 8-speed, this alone has led to a 9 percent improvement in fuel efficiency!’
in doing so, Kretschmer has created a ‘5-litre’ engine for the 5 Series (that’s 5 litres per 100km – 56.5mpg). Don’t think his efforts have gone unnoticed by the Board, either.
‘This is the volume model for the 5 Series, so the pressure has been on us to further improve.’ Good job, really, that he’s done just that.
+ Do you think BMW makes the best 4-cylinder engines on the market?
+ Would you consider a 520d?
+ If not, what are the main reasons stopping you chosing diesel?
MINI engines now 3-in-1 June 20, 2010
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars, Technology , add a comment
HOW do you make a MINI One engine? Make a MINI Cooper engine and detune it. Simples.
It’s true, as well. All 1.6-litre MINI engines, be they in the First, the One or the Cooper, are now exactly the same. They’re built on the same line and have all the same bits inside.
A MINI engineer from UK build centre Hams Hall told me this is for production efficiency. By standardising all the parts, it actually works out cheaper than having bespoke variations for each version.
So, although a MINI First engine may thus seem more ‘valuable’ than a Cooper engine, it’s actually much more efficient for MINI and all its buyers alike to do it this way.
Besides, the intelligence is in the ECU mapping, anyway. Releasing the power in the Cooper is more than just switching a different number or two in a computer. That’s where your extra Cooper value comes in – knowing brains have been boffing-ing away in giving you the extra value, but in a driveable and linear way. You’re buying into someone’s IP.
It’s the two other versions that really benefit, though. See, the old MINI First and One had 1.4-litre engines. ‘People complained they lacked torque – with the 1.6-litre, we’ve filled in the gaps, but the longer gear ratios also mean it’s more efficient, too.’
Does beg one obvious question, though. How long will it be before Superchips-like companies offer a Cooper-creating First tuning kit for the MINI?
There’ll be distinct Porsche crossovers if they do: back-to-basics Cooper Club Sport, anyone?
+ MINI is not the only firm doing this – can you name any others?
+ How does MINI’s approach contrast with the downsizing trend?
+ Could future MINIs move back to smaller engines with turbo to fill the torque hole?
Is it time to ditch hp and power up to kW? June 16, 2010
Posted by richard in : News clues, Technology , 1 comment so far
HP has measured engine power for years – but has its day come?
We’re all familiar with the merits of a 250hp engine alongside 200hp one. We know a 75hp supermini will be cooking, but a 100hp one will be mildly tasty; a 150bp one, amusing.
But with the coming of electric cars, the merits of using hp are numbered. Everything important in electric cars is a measure of energy in watts – or, to make the numbers more manageable, kW (1000 watts is a kW).
Key to this is the output of the battery, and how much power it produces. It’s simply not measured in horsepower!
The Nissan LEAF, for instance, has a 24kWh battery capacity. That means, it will sustain a 24kW output for 1 hour. From this, range can be calculated – and as range is THE fundamental stumbling block for EVs at the moment, any confusing and pointless conversions here are just not a good idea.
So, before electric cars become big news, maybe it’s time we got ourselves and others fluent in kW with combustion cars? Thus, easing the contextual mental comparisons when EVs come en masse?
It won’t be easy, or at all welcomed. There will be resistance. Anything Euro-speak usually is. But, whereas litres per 100km is a really big step too far (if also more logical: a lower figure means it uses less, so is better…), hp to kW is easier to work out.
Europeans already use kW. And, granted, it causes journos no end of head-scratching at international press conferences, until we see the UK-converted press pack. 66kW 1.6 petrol? What on earth does that mean? 90hp, that’s what. 135kW sounds pretty lukewarm, until you find out it’s actually 184hp. And so on.
The formula, though, is simple. 1hp = 0.746kW. Or, 1kW = 1.341hp.
So, journos, here’s a plan: why not explain to readers what you’re doing, and why, and then start putting dual figures in tests?
Mind you, mph to km/h is also a direct conversion, and that hasn’t happened yet, either. Are we thus destined for a future of electric motor conversions, too? After all, which sounds more marketable – a 150kW MINI E, or a 204hp one..?
+ Would you be happy to use kW instead of hp?
+ Does the logic of moving to metric make sense?
+ Do you find it easy to put electric car kW output into context?
