My hit car colour of 2010 December 31, 2009
Posted by richard in : News clues , 2commentsBrown – I predict it’s going to make a comeback in 2010. Seriously!
Well, not brown. Anything but brown, in fact: instead, think Rich Chocolate, Frothy Latte, Cappuccino, or anything else that’s fancy, tasty and, err, brown in colour.
Two things make me predict this: the first was the stunning Porsche 911 Turbo I drove late last year. Resplendent in metallic, ahem, brown, it looked delicious.
Second? Audi showed the R8 Spider in metallic, cough, brown – and, as Audi has kinda led the trend for car-colour-hit-setting over the past few years, it’s surely thus only a matter of months before we get a Frappuccino Fizz Ford Fiesta.
I could be wrong. But, you must admit, the R8 Spider above does look pretty good, no..?
What’s your car colour hit prediction for 2010?
Another most amazing save of 2009
TDI earns its place in history October 28, 2009
Posted by richard in : Technology , add a commentVOLKSWAGEN is finally pensioning off its long-serving 1.9-litre TDI diesel.
The car that really gave the modern diesel credibility has had a good innings, but it’s now being put out to pasture, after driving (almost) billions of VW Group cars off the production lines.
It’s been around in the Golf since 1994, after production was slowly ramped up in the Audi 80. Coming to the Golf was big-time for this then-startling new powerplant; because, unlike its rivals, Volkswagen had mated 1896ccs of blown four-pot to direct injection.
Controversial, this was, at the time. Direct injection is noisier and rattlier than indirect, you see; every single driver who’s experienced the 1.9-litre’s characteristic rattle ever since will attest to that.
The benefits, foresaw canny old Volkswagen, come in more compact combustion chambers. These lose less heat to the surrounding coolant – which, VW reckoned at the time, equals a 15 percent efficiency saving.
It was punchy. 90hp at 4000rpm was superb for 1994 – particularly in the 1145kg Golf (yes! I had to double-check: 1145kg, for the ‘heavy, safe and solid’ MkIII Golf? Now, a Clio weighs more…). This saw it to 60mph in 11.5secs; fast enough to have Autocar & Motor asking when the GTi-bodykit version would arrive. (Seems they were ahead of their time, too).
But just as impressive was the 149lb/ft torque output, particularly as it came in at just 1900rpm. This, remember, was before the days of PD pump-jet injection; the 1.9-litre TDI’s trademark low-rev surge is an inherent trait, it seems. It’s a damn strong engine from the innards out.
OK, said Autocar & Motor, the tickover is ‘boisterous’, which may put some off. Back in those diesel-pensive days, it more than likely did. A £2k price premium over oil-burning French rivals didn’t help its cause, either. But, such it always is for VW.
This couldn’t dim the significance of a fine engine, though. Even its first mainstream installation saw it mark itself out as special. Evolution through the years, particularly in the MkIV Golf, underlined its place in history.
Will its replacement, the 1.6-litre TDI, be as venerable? Time will tell. For now, though, here’s a cup of oil to a diesel that I’ve seen, through car magazines, develop, delight and dominate. Classic Diesel, here’s your first-issue feature car…
Volkswagen Golf looks to history for GTD inspiration
Volkswagen Golf GTD photostream on Flickr
Audi lit the way in ‘88 August 28, 2009
Posted by richard in : Technology , 1 comment so farFASTER cars need better headlights, said an Audi ad in 1988. Particularly models such as the 136bhp Audi 90 (136BHP? Steady…).
What’s more, it added, congested roads mean less opportunity to drive on main beam.
Audi’s solution? To extend the width of its wide-beam asymmetric headlamps. This increased beam breadth and range, on both dip and main beam, by 20 percent. Achieved because, apparently, doubling the width of the reflector doubled the luminous intensity at the side of the road.
Now, some marketing wizardry. Why doesn’t everyone just double the size of their headlights, Audi asked. Because, Audi answered, with conventional round headlights, when you increase the size of the reflector, you may also increase the height of the car’s frontal area. Result: worse aero. A slower top speed. Defeating, guffawed Audi, the point of bigger headlights in the first place.
Some manufacturers, it added, naming no names, have ‘solved’ this by using four round headlamps instead. Imagine; the very thing. Because, of course, to achieve sufficient illumination on dip beam, when only one set of lights is used, they (would) have to resort to ellipsoid lenses.
Great for fog lamps, pooh-poohed Audi, but they fail to produce breadth of beam as wide-beam asymmetric lamps. They also give an over-intense ‘white’ light. This will upset oncoming motorists, rather than the ‘soft’ light of asymmetrics.
And, driving behind an intense beam strains vision and leads to tiredness. Thanks God no foolish manufacturer did such a thing, Vorsprung Durch Technik’d the ad-reading reader.
But, hang on: four headlamps? Didn’t Audi rivals BM…?
Apple Tablet changes the game. Again
Why did people hate the Lotus Elan?
Audi A6 3.0T photostream on Flickr May 17, 2009
Posted by richard in : Minutiae of cars , 2commentsThis week’s road test car is one I’ve put a load of miles on – now, check out my Audi A6 3.0T S line photo stream on Flickr.
It’s my way of bringing my driving impressions to you.
So nip on over there and see what you think.
Oh, and feel free to let me know!
Audi Q5 economy enough to tyre you out
Fuel economy economical with the truth?
Secrets of the new Toyota Prius
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
What I learnt… from Autocar, 11 March 2009 March 18, 2009
Posted by richard in : What I learned today , 1 comment so far… Top VW product man Ulrich Hackenberg says customers are prepared to pay more for Bluemotion ‘green’ cars. That’s because they’re 5-10mpg more economical. Win-win for VW, then. It gets more cash for each car, which customers are happy to buy in decent numbers.
With such a business model, why would it thus apply the Bluemotion changes to all models, cutting such a profitable revenue stream?
VW’s rivals may snipe and say that ‘all our cars are green, not stand-out green specials’ – but they ‘aint getting the profits of VW. That’s why Bluemotion’s here to stay.
Hackenberg also says customers are understand that they must look at engine technology, not size, to gauge performance. Good news for the downsizing trend.
… Next year, MINI will start selling patterned soft-top Convertibles. Not easy to productionise down at Oxford, but extremely lucrative, I’d have thought.
… Renault reveals the Megane Renaultsport 250’s carryover platform has been re-engineered to take a short-shift 6-speed gearbox. Why go to the trouble? Unless there are future transmission developments we’re not aware of…
… The Golf R32 will lose its heavy V6 for a more eco four-pot turbo. Probably the TTS’s 268bhp unit. It’s for handling as well as emissions, says VW.
… the origins of the TTRS’s five-pot turbo are revealed. It’s actually a tuned-up version of an engine seen in the US-spec VW Jetta. Not, as Audi claims, half a Lamborghini V10. Ahem.
Saab’s lost 2 decades February 22, 2009
Posted by richard in : What I learned today , add a commentI want GM to survive. With its E-REV Chevrolet Volt/Opel Ampera, it has a future fuel revolution on the shelf, tantalisingly within reach. Painfully close. But it doesn’t half deserve a kicking for what it’s done to Saab.
It’s the early 1990s. You’re a volume manufacturer, who fancies a bit of posh. But, lo – you have a slightly leftfield but still premium brand in your portfolio. What an oppo: treat it as a separate division. Give it oily bits from one of your best-selling cars, and let it produce its own version. Give it the cash to make this entirely bespoke – needn’t cost a fortune. The margins on said car will bring home the bacon.
At this point, Volkswagen and GM split. Audi came up with the so-so but beautiful first-gen A4. Slickly marketed, it sold in droves. Ii inspired the VW-based A3. The VW-based TT, and so on. You get the picture. Audi was raking it in, becoming a cash cow the equal of its parent. ROI: unquantifiable.
GM, however… Lord, how I want to put the boot in. It gave Saab the dire Cavalier platform. Then, as if that wasn’t bad enough, didn’t give it enough cash to do much with it. Then, sent the mediocre Vectra bits to Trollhatten, and told them to make a 5 Series rival. Then, cut the direct debit. Then, started whining that Saab still wasn’t doing an Audi, and told it to make a 3 Series alternative. OK, this 9-3 Sport Saloon was a start, but Saab’s heart clearly wasn’t in it.
Then what? Nothing. Audi brought out the A3. BMW the 1 Series. Merc the C-Class Sport Coupe. Saab’s answer? Despite having GM’s pretty decent Astra platform to call upon? Nothing. Open goal; ah, there’s the ball, flying into row Z.
Since the 9-3 Sport Saloon? Zilch. Nothing epitomises this torpor more than the Vectra-in-drag 9-5, limping on year after year. It was average when new. It’s abysmal now. The 9-3 has just been jacked off and ‘allroaded’, 5 years too late, and apart from the 9-4X, still not with us, there’s nothing.
Now it’s being taken on by the Swedish Government. Seriously, thank God. Because they can’t do any worse a job than GM. Of course, it’s not that straightforward. There are reasons why GM didn’t do a halfway decent job. But, on the showroom floor, what does the customer see? Elderly, average cars, a 2-model range, and the quickest possible route to the megalith that is Audi. A maker launching 10 new cars in 2009 alone.
GM needs to be saved. There are brilliant people there, once the chaff has been cleared out. Here’s just hoping the person with the casting vote is a greenie. And not a Saab fan.
