RealityDriven

The H. I. D.ilemma

- by Atul H. Patel, Editor-in-Chief

Cool blue light. How modern. How bright. How cool (in the other sense). High Intensity Discharge head lamps have become increasingly popular and desirable to the point that they are a mini status symbol. This phenomenon even justifies the creation of paltry halogen lights that appear like HID’s. Young people with their otherwise normal vehicles want to be noticed. The whitish blue lights get attention, and in the case of real HID’s or bi-xenons, they get enough attention to annoy other drivers.
But from the standpoint of a person who owns a car with HID’s, I occasionally notice the hostility. People sneer at me because the light is somewhat annoying. I bought them as part of a luxury package on my car since I wanted the up-level stereo and passenger power seat. I do have auto-leveling, a feature that on my car is programmed to wink at start-up, almost as if to say hello. The light is bright and works well for my own visibility. I can’t complain about that. An average HID system is usually much better than an average halogen system. But what makes it worse is that my daytime running lights are the HID’s, so they are on all the time.  I’m guessing some people think I am showing off by keeping my HID’s on all the time, but this is not the case. I’m not one to visually show off in my car. I prefer the underdog approach, downshifting to 3rd to surprise those who underestimate a stationwagon. At night, it becomes apparent how rare HID’s really are, (unless you live in a wealthy city). And they’re one of the few features that you can show off at night, probably the only one that can be made known from a mile away. I wonder if the police seek out HID’s for wealthy would-be ticket victims.

So this all creates a dilemma. Should I put on a bumper sticker that says, “I’m not showing off. My HID’s stay on by themselves all the time.” Or one that says, “I didn’t buy HID’s to annoy people, just to see better.” I’m also left to wonder how long my HID’s will last. I’ve heard they’re pricey to replace, in the hundreds of dollars. I hope that prices will come down by the time I actually need to replace them or I can wear them out before my bumper-to-bumper warranty runs out, that is, if they’re covered.  

In any case, I like my HID’s. Others seem not to like mine, especially those driving in the opposite direction, and I do worry about replacing them. All in all, they’re a bit over-rated but they are cool, blue, and different, (at least for now).

Automotive Ironies

- by Atul H. Patel, Editor-in-Chief

The world is full of ironies and the automotive industry is no exception.  Over the years as I've observed the industry, I've noticed lots of things that didn't make sense, and nobody else was writing about them.  So I have taken it upon myself to mention these so that you can comment on them. 

• Manual transmissions are more popular in areas of the world where traffic is more congested.  - Within the U.S. manual trannies are more popular on the east and west coasts where traffic can be horrendous.  You'd think drivers would change to automatics since they might get tired of clutching and shifting while inching along at 3 to 10 mph.  In middle America, the open roads have drivers who prefer automatics.

• Roof racks are almost always put on stationwagons and SUV's which have more cargo room than sedans. - Since the box in the back has so much room, you'd think the cargo rack would rarely get used.  If you think about it, sedans need roof racks more since they have less space for stuff inside.  But, that's not the case.  And roof racks create unnecessary aerodynamic drag, thereby further decreasing fuel economy.

• The decklids on some sedans are becoming shorter, approaching hatchback decklid length. - Most car buyers in the U.S. feel that hatchbacks are "unbuyable" but some of the sexiest looking cars have really short decklids.  This makes the trunk less acceptable and it also makes the car look more like a hatchback.  The Scion tC takes the opposite approach.  It's a hatchback that pretends to look like a notchback coupe.

• Some sports cars get worse fuel economy than SUV's, but little of the scrutiny. - Lamborghinis, Ferraris, even souped up Audis and BMW's get really poor fuel economy, lower than some SUV's yet, people tend to criticize only the SUV's.  Sure SUV's obstruct your viewpoint and roll over more, but environmentally speaking, a 600 horsepower super car is just as irresponsible as a large SUV.  And a large SUV might actually be used for its people or cargo-carrying capability.

I don't know how many others have noticed these peculiarities, but we would be interested to know your thoughts.  I may write more about each of these topics individually in the future, especially if we see comments about them.

We Could Learn from Our European Neighbors

By: Chris Olliff, Senior Editor

Ahhhh…Driving in America. The land of wide open spaces, Big Macs, Big states, and BIG CARS! Where else can you be a single male and drive a Chevrolet Suburban and be seen as a hero like you are saving the American Dream? Is this a dream…or a NIGHTMARE?

They are everywhere…these big, 6,000 pounds goliaths (and even mid-size SUVs), and the only thing worse is the fact that most don’t even need the space. Yes….you families with ranches and boats are off the hook here. Confront those drivers who are guilty of waste, and they will often say that “they like to sit high up” or “they like to haul things from time to time”. I must say, this is absolute RUBBISH, especially when you consider the trade-offs.

SUVs are styled like appliances, heavy and clumsy, bouncy, hard to get in and out of, hard to drive ‘round corners, hard to park, hard to maneuver, expensive, have poor resale value, and get poor fuel mileage. I can just hear it now…..the cries from all of the SUV owners this summer as fuel hits $3.00 a gallon……again!

In Europe, yes….there are a few SUVs, but people make do with vehicles that better suit their lifestyles while taking size, practicality, and economy in mind. Instead of driving a Ford Explorer which handles like a drunken Hippo, single people drive VW Golfs and Seat Ibizas. Yes, they still carry as much as we might on a weekend holiday, but they make better usage of the vehicles space. OK, to be fair, a European family may have to drive a Renault Modus or Grande Megane Scenic to get the space that an American family may use in an Explorer, but they will be getting at least 30% better fuel economy to boot!  

 

I know….”fuel is more expensive there”, you say….”so they NEED to drive smaller cars”. This is true, but we could learn from our European neighbors to use vehicle space better and be more efficient. How can we do this? Here are some ideas…

- Don’t buy more car than you need. There are several hundred choices out there, so pick a vehicle that is “just right” for your needs. If you are single and carry stuff occasionally, try a small wagon or even a Prius and use a roof carrier. If you are a family of four and want space, try a Mazda 5 with three rows of seats and get 27mpg instead of 17.

- Go after vehicles that have better fuel economy and may have a better impact on the environment

- If you can, drive a vehicle with a manual transmission and you will get better fuel economy and performance

- Look for vehicles that use technology to save fuel like hybrids, diesels, direct injection, and cylinder deactivation

- Look for vehicles that use maximum efficiencies of interior packaging.

- Support car makers who are serious about their global footprint, their commitment to advanced technologies, and environmental outlook. 

 

These are just a few ideas….please feel free to write in with others.

Lest you think I don’t ascribe to any of these myself, I do. My wife drives a Scion xB, which is a very efficient vehicle in terms of economy and space. The vehicle gets an average of 35mpg, and has 2 cubic feet less of total interior volume than a Ford Explorer. Me? I drive a 1998 BMW 323 ic which gets 33mpg as well, and is about the largest vehicle I will ever drive…

In the face of looming fuel hikes and environmental regulations here in America, we should do our part and buy vehicles that are more efficient for our needs. As I have just brushed across this subject one thing is clear: we could learn from our European neighbors…. 

   

The Pickup Truck Has Met It's Match: The Utility Trailer

-by Stephen A. Lovett, Senior Editor

Let me start by staying that the pickup truck is a great vehicle.  It has served this country very well, in fact, it has built most of it.  Pickups from Ford, GM and Chrysler have served their owners with loyalty over the years and should be commended for their duty.

I appreciate that the pickup is an invaluable tool for professionals such as builders, plumbers, carpenters, firefighters and rangers.  These tradesmen use their trucks to haul 100% of the time.  They are true work trucks.

I am perplexed by the pickup’s recent popularity a household vehicle.    As an everyday vehicle, they waste fuel and space for what?  The occasional run to the hardware store, or even the thought of doing so.  In most cases, we really are purchasing the ability or fantasy to do such things, while most users find they rarely do them.  Household pickups which operate 98% of the time with nothing in the bed are owned by people who like the allure of hauling things, and don’t want to cut off that possibility.

Well, I have the perfect solution for such weekend wannabe’s!  Instead of buying a huge, wasteful truck for 2% usage at best, buy the car that you want, and a utility trailer.  Store the trailer vertically in the garage, and hook it up to your car with a proper hitch when you need to carry something tall or extremely long.  A utility trailer can be had from Costco for $500, the hitch will cost you about $250 installed for a “hidden hitch” which you can’t tell is there until  you attach the tongue and ball to haul, giving you a clean look for most of your driving, plus you’ll save a ton on fuel.  Not to mention, you’ll be in a vehicle that has much better performance than any pickup.

This is even a good solution for the more active handyman.  My neighbor built a 1000 square-foot finished garage on his own.  He hauled all the supplies needed with his Chrysler Sebring convertible.  Pretty amazing, huh?  Well he used the Sebring and of course, a utility trailer.  In fact, depending on the equipment, a utility trailer may be even more handy than a pickup.  Rare these days are the 8-foot beds on pickups that were truly useful.  As pickups have become fancier and their interiors longer, most pickups now have short-beds, with cargo length less than 6-feet.  That’s not even enough for the obligatory 4X8 sheet of plywood.  Get yourself an 8-ft trailer, and you’re good to go.  Plus you don’t have to worry about scratching paint in the bed or denting the thing.  It’s only 500 bucks, so who cares how you treat it.  Now that’s starting to sound like the old pickup that we fell in love with.

Lesson learned?  Don’t drive some expensive, cumbersome vehicle 100% of the time for utility that you may need 2% of the time.  Put your utility to work only when you need to with a simple hitch and utility trailer.

The Myths of Power and Torque, (What About Weight?)

- by Atul H. Patel, Editor-in-Chief

You see horsepower figures advertised all the time, and the race keeps escalating.  You'll scarcely find a vehicle that has less than 150 hp, and now 300 hp is not that rare in cars, as well as trucks.  So why shouldn't you pay so much attention to these numbers?  First of all, the advertised horsepower is the peak horsepower that the engine can put out, most likely at 5,000 rpm or higher.  Chances are, you don't drive at 5,000 rpm very often, unless you're a leadfoot.  That means you won't see the fully advertised horsepower much at all.  It's power that accelerates you and your vehicle, but then what is torque?

Torque is just spinning force and the faster it spins, the more power you get.  Therefore 175 lb-ft of torque at 1000 rpm constitutes half the power of 175 lb-ft of torque at 2000 rpm.  The formula is as follows...

Power  =  (Torque  x engine rpm )  /  5252
.. where power is in horsepower, and torque is in lb-ft

Regardless of how much power you have at a given engine rpm, the more torque you get at any rpm, the better "pull" you feel.  A flat torque curve implies that there is a high amount of torque available from low rpms up to high rpms.  (Diesel engines provide lots of torque from low rpms but don't spin as fast so their peak horsepower ratings tend to be comparatively low).  Turbos, (once spooled up), compress air coming into the cylinder and maximize oxygen combusted and thereby maximize torque across most of the engine rpm range. In day-to-day driving, torque availability at low and mid rpm's  makes a vehicle more driveable.  Since the engine has enough torque at lower rpms, you don't have to rev it as much and so it is quieter and seems more responsive because you don't have to wait for then engine to rev up to get the torque you want.

Don't get me wrong.  A free-spinning high revving engine can be fun, but if you're driving the vehicle with a manual transmission, you'll be downshifting often to maintain speed in higher gears going up grades, and you'll need to downshift a lot more often to make a spirited pass.

But all this is moot if you drive a heavy vehicle relative to the power and torque available.  300 hp in a 6,000 lb vehicle gives you the same power-to-weight ratio as 150 hp in a 3,000 lb vehicle, and most likely similar acceleration (not considering the weight of the people inside).  That's why many of these larger heavy SUV's have plenty of power, but have a difficult time keeping up with average family sedans.  Transmission gearing and final drive ratio are also factors which affect both performance and fuel economy, but I don't want to complicate matters for the purposes of this article.

To sum up, my advice is this... The next time you look to buy a vehicle and want to consider acceleration and driveability, check out the engine's torque curve to see how much you have to rev to get to substantial torque, and then check out the weight of the vehicle and divide it by the peak horsepower to determine the power-to-weight ratio.  You might be surprised that 300 hp may be hard to reach by stepping into the gas pedal, and even when you do, it might not be enough to accelerate the vehicle as well as you want.

Leather Interiors versus Cloth Interiors

- by Atul H. Patel, Editor-in-Chief

There was a time when only the most luxurious vehicles were offered with leather interiors.  It wasn't that long ago.  I was old enough to remember.  But today, even compact vehicles have leather available as an option and leather is standard on some entry luxury vehicles.  Really nice synthetic leathers make the situation more complex.  But is leather all it's (not) cracked up to be?  I would argue that leather is severely overrated.  Sure it smells great, looks luxurious, but it's  not worth the extra $800 to $2,500.  First of all, you slide around a lot on the leather.  As a result, in spirited driving, you aren't held in your seat as well unless you have mega side bolstering.  Your belongings can also slide around like crazy when you drive in a spirited fashion around turns.  This doesn't happen nearly as much on cloth, regardless of the type of cloth.  And then, with leather, there are temperature issues.  In the winter, it feels cold.  This makes heated seats almost necessary.  In the summer it feels hot, and then you sweat and stick to it.  That's no good and fan ventilated seats make noise.  Cloth on the other hand, grips better, absorbs moisture and stays more temperate.   

Leather is thought to wear better than cloth, but this is not always true if the leather is of a cheaper variety.  I've seen reliability test results that proved this out.  Even if it does wear better, it gets wrinkles and eventually cracks without proper maintenance.  Cloth is more difficult to wrinkle and it doesn't require care and feeding.

Regardless of where your ethics lie, leather is dead animal skin.  I don't like that fact so when I have a choice, I choose cloth.  It's interesting that in Europe, even luxury vehicles are offered with cloth.  I wish that model was followed here in the U.S. as I was forced to get leather on my latest Saab vehicle.  I indirectly paid for it as well.  The synthetic leathers are not cheap, but at least they don't have all of the same issues as real leather.  Nor do they have all of the same advantages.

I doubt that you all agree.  What are your thoughts?  Feel free to comment.

Manual Transmissions Versus Automatics. My Divided Thoughts.

- by Atul H. Patel, Editor-in-Chief

I've had my manual transmission car about a year now.  I had grown up in an automatic transmission family, but as a car fanatic and an employee in various powertrain engineering and product marketing positions, my exposure to manual transmissions encouraged me to finally buy a manual Saab 9-3 SportCombi 2.0 T.  It didn't hurt that my two car enthusiast friends (who also happen to write for RealityDriven.com), almost ridiculed me for giving in to the easy availability of automatic transmission versions of the car I wanted.

I actually flew from Detroit to Manchester, New Hampshire to buy this car at a Boston dealership, (long story), and drove it back to the Midwest.  One year later, I must say that I have a love/hate relationship with the fact that I shift gears manually.  Perhaps part of it is my car itself and the big gap between the first and second gear ratios in conjunction with little torque until 2000 rpm.  The shifting action isn't the smoothest.  But I do like the clutch.  Design aside, living with any manual transmission vehicle is not like driving on a test track.  Driving is full of distractions, unexpected events, potholes and unsympathetic drivers of automatic transmissions.

Starting off from a light, even when done properly can make a manual transmission car seem like a slowpoke.  Shifting takes longer, and it takes mental attention.  Some people say you get to control the vehicle better, and that's true on the powertrain side, but I find that since my mind is occupied by shifting, I don't get to enjoy the rest of the vehicle, (like the handling), as much like when I'm driving around turns.  Perhaps it's me, but the human mind can only comprehend so many things at once.  I can guarantee that unexpected moves can be done more quickly on an automatic, but ones that are planned, such as accelerating out of a turn can be done quicker on a manual because the transmission doesn't know what you will want to do.  Once you are fully proficient, you can pass on the highway quickly with a manual whereas it is basically thought-free, (and subsequently faster) with an automatic.

On the fuel economy front, the gap between automatics and manuals has lessened to the point that it is negligible and sometimes favors automatics.  The manual version of my car revs faster on the highway because it doesn't have the benefit of torque multiplication from a torque converter.  Manuals tend to be cheaper, lighter and less complex, but they require eventual clutch replacement.  As for resale values, automatics are favored heavily except in some sporty vehicle markets.  With some models, you can't sell a manual easily unless you find somebody who's specifically looking for a manual.

Many automatics allow you to shift gears, but they sometimes prevent you from revving as high as you like.  You also don't get that direct connection with what is happening.  But that has even been watered down with manuals due to the advent of electronic throttle control.  I do see manual transmission vehicles as deterrents for theft, and drunk driving, but on the safety front, I have to believe an automatic is safer in a panic situation.  You have enough to worry about when your life flashes before your eyes.

No matter where you stand, the debate continues and it has become further muddled with the advent of DSG and other sequential transmissions that use multiple clutches.  But if you're on the fence, I say this… Automatics are for those that appreciate smoothness which usually coincides with efficiency.  Manuals are for those that want performance and continual attention and excitement.  I guess I like a little bit of both so I'm still torn.  I did keep my old automatic transmission car which is a nice relief when I get sick of shifting, but there are many times I find myself wanting to get into my manual Saab and drive.  I like the challenge of shifting smoothly and well.  When it goes right, I love the transmission.  When I shift poorly, I get de-motivated and I don't like the transmission as much.

You might agree or disagree with this quote which references my comments on your mind only being able to comprehend so much at one time.

"If you want to enjoy the drive, drive an automatic transmission.  If you want to enjoy driving, drive a manual transmission vehicle."

+ Atul

The Great Diesel Engine

 by Chris Olliff, Senior Editor

Since I was a boy, I have been fascinated by the diesel engine. My friends down the street had a 1978 Mercedes Benz 300D (non-turbo). You could hear that car coming for miles, and the 2 to 3 shift on the transmission seemed to take as long as the Iraq war.  Who could forget the great smoke screens they could produce, and the wonderful black out feature….they could soil the rear of a car and cover the license plate to make any get-a-way car proud. I was especially fond of watching the Mercedes in-line 5 shake like a dog when wet upon start up. Ahhh…the fond memories…

Or should I say…..THE HORROR……

Yes, you can take the bag off your head and stand up. We know who you are, you are one of the few, the proud, the ex-GM diesel owners! What do you get when you take a 5.7 liter V8 gas engine and convert it to diesel power….a GM publicity nightmare…  Who could forget that sound, the sound of the engine running. If you closed your eyes, you would have thought that someone put a bunch of loose bits of metal in your engine to run amok. Also, there was excitement over how to jump start a GM diesel, as they had TWO batteries!  But, most of all, the fun of owning a GM diesel was betting your friends how long the thing would go without warping the cylinder head. Yes, this problem was so bad, that some vehicles were converted back to gasoline by GM. You see, diesel engines run on compression and they need thicker metal in the engine to handle the higher pressures. The GM 5.7 converted engine could not handle the pressure…(no pun intended)

Soooo….Where does this leave us? Well, most Americans think a diesel is smelly, slow, loud, and not that reliable thanks to the great GM diesel of the 1980s.  So bad are the memories, that GM and Ford are reluctant to re-introduce the diesel to the market in the US. Add to this the fact that pumping diesel fuel can be as nasty as cleaning up cat poo, it is slimy and smelly and foams up. If you get it on your hands, it is not a pleasant experience.

While we in America ran from the diesel engine as if running from a skunk, Europe embraced the technology and made it better. Today, over 50% of the vehicles in  Europe are Diesels, and they have what Americans love: TORQUE. So, why should we car about all of this?

Recently, the US has adopted lower sulfur Diesel fuel, which has been used in Europe for some time now. This allows for the engines to use higher pressure injection systems and better particulate cleaning devises. These higher injection pressures have enabled the diesel engine to have performance as good as or better than gasoline engines. What this translates into for you and me is that we will be able to buy diesels that are not any noisier than what we drive now, do not smoke at all, have a higher level of durability, and will get 27% to 30% better fuel economy than their gas counterparts.

Ok, so what’s the catch? Great question! Basically, a vehicle with a diesel engine may cost up to $2,000 more for that option. As most of you search for your calculators to figure out the return on your investment, don’t forget that that cost is more than half of the premium you would pay to drive a hybrid. Keep in mind that the hybrids have not been consistent with their fuel economy ratings, but a diesel will be more consistent in all types of driving styles. You will not have to “pilot” your diesel vehicle like you do in a Prius, and you won’t have to hide because your car resembles a stapler.

So there you have it…..a modern diesel may have nasty fuel to pump (which I hear is better in the lower sulfur form), but it has many benefits over any other car out there. Many foreign car companies have plans to bring diesels to the US market in the next few years, and we can only hope that the folks at GM and Ford will come out of their fox holes and take another chance on the diesel car. No more needing to wear bags over our heads or wait until Christmas for our diesels to reach 60mph, the new diesels are awesome! 

Don’t take my word for it, drive one yourself….