Concours d'Elegance

Matzah!

contributor — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:15:23 +0000

A little somethin’ for my peeps.

Matzah! | Funny Jokes at JibJab

Lincoln on Amazon

contributor — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:51:34 +0000

The Detroit news is reporting that Lincoln is advertising some of its products on Amazon.com. They are displayed as a normal order-able Amazon item, except that instead of a “buy it” link there is a “Reserve” link, which takes you to Lincoln.com.

See The Lincoln MKX on Amazon

I think this is a silly tactic, and one that has a real danger of back-firing. In general, Amazon allows customers to post negative reviews of products if they are reasonably written. Like any other item, it appears that users can comment on the Lincoln vehicles and give them star ratings. You can’t really order a Lincoln from Amazon, and you don’t save any money, which is Amazon’s big draw. You also can’t cross-shop other cars.

People are not going to go and email each other, “hey, did you see that new Lincoln on Amazon? $ 25 shipping!”.

‘Gator vs ‘Slade

contributor — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:23:01 +0000

Today while driving home from work, I had the luck to drive near the two major competitors in the large luxury SUV class–a 2007 Lincoln Navigator (sporting an M-plate) and a privately owned 2007 Cadillac Escalade, just a few miles apart. Here are a few quick thoughts.

The Navigator (red) looked good from the rear, and had relatively clean lines from the side view. This was also my impression of the (pearl white) Escalade. Both trucks had a bit of decoration in back, the Navigator with chrome edging on its tail lamps, and the Escalade with the prominent chrome bar and Cadillac badge. I give the rear view to Navigator, for being more understated.

Where things fell apart for me was in front. The Navigator has a very busy front end, which reminds me somehow of an angry cheese grater or maybe a 1950′s era robot. Too much flash, too many lines. There is also a prominent bulge in the hood, which has a flashy chromed leading edge, forming a metallic unibrow for the robot. The front view of the Navigator gave me a nervous, busy vibe.

The Escalade was more subdued, in person, and not as busy looking. It also had a big chrome grille up front, and a chrome unibrow. The Cadillac badge up front was large, but it was proportionate to the large vertical headlamps.

If I was in the market for a large luxury guzzler SUV, based on the exterior design I think I would choose the Escalade over the Navigator. Surprisingly, in person, the Cadillac looks more elegant to me than the Navigator.

When it comes to the interior design, however, I would pick the Navigator as having the more interesting design. The Cadillac interior (which I know only from press photos on the web) is an anonymous, but tasteful space which could be from any high end Japanese or European luxury vehicle. The Navigator interior, however, has a definite character, and is unmistakably Lincoln. It is a matter of taste, of course, but I would take the Lincoln furniture.

If I actually had the kind of money to spend on a vehicle that either of these beasts costs, I would pick neither. Instead, I would get myself a nice turbo wagon (think Volvo V50 or Saab SportCombi) for commuting, and for nice days, a Mazda MX-5 or Pontiac Solstice. I’d probably have gas money left over.

WSJ On Future Powertrains

contributor — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:22:48 +0000

Last weekend, the Wall Street Journal ran a supplement with some generally well written articles about the future of energy, including such things as LED light bulbs (not quite ready yet) and underground coal gassification. It is very interesting reading, and if you haven’t seen it, take half an hour and read it through.

There was a good article by Joseph B.

White about why the gasoline engine will be with us for the foreseeable future (lots of power for the pound, low cost). But the Journal also published a table comparing some of the different upcoming greener powertrain options, which had some issues.

I can’t reproduce the whole table here easily (but you can read it here). I’ll just hit on the parts I think they got wrong.

First, describing Flex Fuel vehicles, WSJ wrote that they have “no price premium” compared to gasoline vehicles. This is not really true, as ethanol capable fuel systems must be made of different materials to resist the corrosive effects of alcohol. Also, the engine control system (mostly the software on the PCM) must be more complex to handle ethanol, because it can be present in any concentration from E10 to E85 due to fuel mixing. This requires substantially more development work by the powertrain engineers, and substantially more testing. The actual cost per vehicle of a flex-fuel system is somewhere closer to $ 100-200/car, in large volumes.

Regarding plug-in hybrids, WSJ noted that the “advanced batteries are not yet available“. This is true, in the high volume commercial sense. However, it was not mentioned that the high capacity batteries required to make plug-in hybrid cars work will be rather expensive, on the order of $ 3000/car more expensive than the current hybrid batteries.

WSJ got sloppy with pure-electric cars. They wrote, “Technology still unproven. Batteries not available.” Except that pure electric cars have been in mass production since about 1900. And batteries are available–until recently, most electric vehicles used lead-acid batteries. The article also misidentified the Chevrolet Volt as a pure electric car, which it is not-it is a “series hybrid”, which is a car that has electric drive but can use gasoline to power the electric motor through a generator. What the article was probably trying to get at was that currently, pure electric cars can not compete in range with gasoline cars, but they didn’t‘ say so explicitly.

Finally, regarding clean diesel, WSJ neglected to mention that most implementations require the driver to top off a urea tank to aid in NOX reduction–a definite annoyance, and a minus in my opinion.

More Pre-Cruise Photos

contributor — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 09:45:56 +0000

Some stuff I saw in and around Ferndale today.

Free Motor Oil Coupon: G-Oil

contributor — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:03:34 +0000

I was offered a chance to give away a free mail-in rebate good for a 5 qt. jug of G-Oil motor oil, so here it is.

Link.

G-Oil is an interesting new product from Green Earth Technologies. It is billed as a superior motor oil, as good as any synthetic or crude based product, however G-Oil is made from cattle. It comes in 5w-30 weight or racing formula.

Yes, beef.

G-Oil “recycles” beef tallow into motor oil, which is also bio-degradable. It is made in the USA.

Automotive Darwin Award Nominee

contributor — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:48:00 +0000

I don’t think this guy died, but I do think we need an automotive version of the famous Darwin Awards–people who do the stupidest things, and wind up wrecking their cars.

New Jeep Isnt Trail Rated – Watch more free videos

California ZEV Mandate Rolls On as ACC

contributor — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:21:28 +0000

Continuing with its previous nonsensical policy, California's ARB (Air Resource Board) has published new regulations which require automakers to sell a certain percentage of vehicles which are BEV, PHEV, hydrogen, or otherwise not just gasoline powered.

This is bad pollicy because the mandate tells the producers what they must sell, without forcing anyone to actually buy the cars.

This puts automakers in a difficult spot. If they can't make the vehicles attractive enough for consumers to buy, they have to dump them into the marketplace somehow. They would have to sell these ZEVs at a substantial loss, and make up for the financial damage by raising prices on traditional vehicles. The result is the same as a tax on gasoline vehicles, but done through a back-door which causes consumers to be angry with the automakers and not the regulators.

A better policy for California would be to encourage consumers to buy ZEVs, through more direct measures. For example, fuel taxes could be used to large fund tax rebates, so that gasoline consumers would subsidize ZEV purchases. Currently, CA offers a $ 2,500 rebate for a BEV vehicle, but this does not come close to offsetting the cost.

The previous ZEV mandate was watered down significantly because it wasn't a feasible goal. I don't expect this one to be feasible either, based on people's sensitivity to higher up front purchase costs.

Pre-Cruise Friday Part 2: On The Corner

contributor — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:14:11 +0000

Awesome color for a Mercedes — Construction Orange

Barn Fresh GMC

Eastern European troop transport?

Smooth wagon

Unsure, looks British

The Valentine Vodka barrel truck (I’m not sure Vodka comes in oak barrels, though)

Beat up DeLorean

Very high center of gravity on this one… probably won’t do well at the track. Or offroad.

Way chopped truck

Grand Torino (no Hmong though)

This Mustang came all the way from New Jersey

Ford GT

Junky goodness

Replica (?) GT40

California ‘Vette

Interesting CAFE Implication

contributor — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:11:37 +0000

Part of the new proposed CAFE rules is that they will be applied on a scale that varies with a vehicle’s “footprint”, which is defined as its wheelbase x track. Vehicles with larger footprints will be allowed to have lower fuel economy than vehicles with smaller footprints; this is a way to (sort of) account for vehicle size. The NHTSA decided to use a sort of s-shaped curve called a constrained logistic curve, to map the footprint to the fuel economy target.

For cars, here is the proposed set of curves for 2011-2015 (copied from here, the NHTSA Notice For Proposed Rulemaking, p. 278). To get some idea of what this curve does to actual vehicles, I calculated the footprint of four vehicles and put them on the chart.

I think a possible side effect of this regulatory pressure could be that carmakers will increase the wheelbase and track of their vehicles, particularly vehicles with poor inherent fuel economy such as sports cars.

For example, if the BMW added added about 1.5″ to its track and 2″ to the wheelbase of the 328, it would go from a footprint of 44.8 ft^2 to 47 ft^2, and therefore from a 2015 CAFE requirement of about 37MPG to about 33MPG, or about a 10% reduction.