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 Quote of The Day

"Once you go hatch, you never go back."

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.

New EPA Fuel Economy Ratings Are Not The Answer

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

It seems as though the EPA is trying to get more realistic with its fuel economy ratings by revising how the figures are calculated.  It's admirable that they attempt this, but I'm afraid it won't make much difference in the way we collectively behave with our purchases.  In converting from 2007 fuel economy labels to the 2008 ones, the average vehicle loses around 2-3 mpg (combined).  Unless the person buying the vehicle is good at doing math in her head, it's not going to stop her from buying the vehicle she would have bought if she had only seen the 2007 label.  "It's only 3 mpg" is what will be thought. The phrase "3 mpg is 15% more gas I have to buy," will never be spoken.  So then the conversion to dollars won't happen either.  To those that already own vehicles, realizing that the sticker numbers have gone down may make the buyers feel a little better that they're getting fuel economy closer to "what they're supposed to get".  So there is some positive there, but then it may prevent people from trying to conserve fuel to try to match the sticker ratings.  Also, this new scheme doesn't account for the many people that surpass the fuel economy ratings.  I've done it with nearly every car I've owned, but some people never have.  For examples of people that do this regularly, go to  http://www.cleanmpg.com and see how some people have turned hypermiling into a science.  Part of it is the way the vehicles are tested for fuel economy figures; the other part that accounts for real world fuel economy is the way they are driven.

I don't have scientific proof, but only logic to explain why certain vehicles exceed the fuel economy ratings, while others do much worse.  Heavier vehicles take more energy to move and this disparity compared to lighter vehicles only increases as the rates of acceleration are increased.  So a 3-ton SUV driven with a lead foot will miss the sticker by a higher percentage than a light compact driven with a lead foot.  And at high speeds, tall vehicles don't fare well.  They tend to have large frontal areas which hurt their ability to cut through the air.  As vehicle speed doubles, aerodynamic drag quadruples, (based on scientific formulas).  So if you're bad to begin with, the high speeds have a much worse effect.  Add to that tires that have aggressive off-road oriented treads and you're heading for a career as a part-time gas station attendant whose job responsibility is to fuel your own vehicle. 

One other area that is frequently not looked at is a vehicle's tendency to coast.  This is inconsequential in the real world if you are cruising at a steady speed.  You're going to hold the gas pedal steadily for any vehicle at a steady speed on flat ground.  However, in decelerating, you're going to use a combination of engine braking and braking from your brakes.  When it comes to fuel economy testing, vehicles that engine brake significantly, will require the throttle to be applied longer to maintain the rate of deceleration that the fuel economy cycle calls for.  The test driver must follow the speed versus time profile closely.  So the rating for vehicles that engine brake a lot will seem artificially low on the highway rating.  Contrastingly, those that coast a lot will have artificially high numbers.

Having worked in the field of fuel economy simulation, I know that real vehicles aren't tested on roads for EPA figures.  Rather, a coast-down value from a real car, (time to coast from one speed to another), is "dialed in" as resistance for a vehicle powertrain hooked up to a dynamometer, (basically rollers for the wheels to spin on without the vehicle actually moving).  The test driver follows arbitrary speed versus time routes which have been around for ages and have little relation to the way we drive.  We do more stop and go and higher speeds on the highway than the creators of the cycle ever envisioned.  At least with the 2008 ratings, they're correcting some of the flaws by introducing colder cold starts, more air conditioning usage and higher speeds.

In the end, no matter how "realistic" the sticker ratings are, nothing can make up for the fact that somewhere in the ballpark of 10% to 30% of fuel economy difference is caused by driver behavior.  Perhaps the government should educate the public about ways to conserve fuel with the vehicles they already have.  At least some people would listen and it would be a relatively painless way for us to reduce our oil consumption in a short amount of time.  Here's an idea for something more compelling than an environmental or conservation message.  If the average driver drives 12,000 miles a year at $2.50 per gallon, the difference between getting 20 mpg and 25 mpg could add up to $30,000 in 40 years of driving if the money in the bank earns just 4% interest.  If one were to switch to a vehicle that gets an average of 30 mpg, the amount jumps to nearly $50,000!  Perhaps this will be more compelling than the revised EPA fuel economy labels.  Whatever the message, we should all think a little more before we buy.  Wasteful fuel consumption hurts not only the environment but also your pocketbook.

+ Atul

The Accessorized Car - Europe's Active Lifestyle Vehicle

- by Stephen A. Lovett, Senior Editor

As I’ve been spending the past two weeks in Europe, I have noticed many differences in automotive culture.  One thing in particular stood out however.  This is the way Europeans accomplish very active lifestyles, without the need of what I, as an American, consider a proper accompanying vehicle.

This became evident as I journeyed from Germany
to the ski town of Scladming, for a weekend on the mountain.  During the six hour trip, as I got closer to my destination, I noticed that, like in the US, more and more of the vehicles around me were also destined for ski weekends.  However, unlike in the
US, I didn’t notice a single SUV.  Instead, passenger cars like my Opel were doing duty of transporting their occupants and gear through Alps.  I also noticed that they were all loaded with accessories suited for such duty.  Roof top ski racks and roof top cargo torpedoes were stylishly fashioned to almost every single vehicle.  I also noticed that most every vehicle was fitted with appropriate snow tires.

This lifestyle of accessorization results in the ability to own a much more lean, efficient vehicle, which is better suited for daily life, with absolutely no sacrifice to flexibility to accommodate activities such as skiing.  If you’re a skier like myself, you know that you don’t need a large vehicle to carry many sets of skis.  In fact you prefer them to be outside, where thy won’t wet and soil the interior.  Also, if you’ve ever driven with snow tires, you’ll question the need for any vehicle to have all wheel drive.  Snow tires provide amazing grip in the absolute worst of road conditions.  I learned from interviewing several Germans that snow tires are required by law during certain months and road conditions.  Everybody there switches to them for the winter season.

So you have a region of people who are probably more active than the average American, but they don’t drive vehicles that we buy for that purpose.  Yet they still get along just fine traversing The Alps and other treacherous road conditions.  They still carry 4 – 7 adults on these journeys and all their gear.  They drive with confidence, safety and security.  This leads one to ask, “Why the difference?”  Well, it’s complicated, but let's say that most of it is attributable to fuel costs.  Fuel in Europe is two to four times more expensive than in the US.  However, there are still lessons to be learned even for those of us who don’t bear the burden of expensive fuel.  If we want to lead more responsible lives, there are other options besides driving a vehicle that is way too large for daily life, in effort accommodate less frequent activities.  I say, right size your vehicle, then accessorize it for living.

Besides the many functional benefits that come from the outlook of accessorizing, there are also financial benefits.  On average, an SUV in any given segment carries about a $3000 premium over it’s car counterpart.  That does not include all wheel drive, which is about another $1500.  Then add in the extra operating expenses such as fuel, and you’re easily talking about a $6,000 premium to own and SUV in the United States.  Compare that to about $800 for a top-end Yakima roof rack system (which still gives you that active look) and $500 for a set of winter wheels and tires.  That’s $4700 in savings and you’ll have a vehicle that is more fun to drive, better for the environment easier to maneuver and more comfortable.  The choice is clear.  For real life driving and living, we should learn a lesson from the Europeans and live right size, then accessorize.

What's In a Name?

- by Christopher A. Olliff, Senior Editor

Names….we all have one, some of us have more than others. Good names, bad names, happy names, sad names….all objects and feelings, places and such also are blessed with a name. Famous people have things named after them, and couples are wont to wage battles over the naming of a child. I think we can all agree that 1) Names are important, and 2) Names tell a lot about who created them….I’ll bet that you have even given your car a name……

Car names can be numbers or actual names. If you are BMW or Mercedes, it’s quite simple:

-         First letter or number is the class or series

-         Second set of numbers denote engine size…so a Mercedes S430 is a large S class sedan with a 4.3 litre v8 engine.

Naming other cars is not so simple, and car companies spend thousands of dollars to name a car. This can be done through on-line surveys or elaborate brand attribute studies. There is, but one problem…..

Like cats chasing their tales, automotive marketing executives at GM and Ford were running in circles in the 1990s over brand management. I’ll spare you the lecture, but I will tell you that they basically wanted each car to be its own brand and therein lies the folly….

A car is not a brand, but a car company is. Marketing executives want us to believe that a car is a brand, as they want to get as much “mileage” as they can from the name. This can cause a lot of confusion at the basic level….is Ford the brand, or F150? This is not to say that a car name does not have equity in the brand that it is under…look at the Toyota Camry. For years there has been a Camry, and nothing else has been or ever will be named anything else…..which brings me now to the sad story at Ford…

Like a ship that has lost its way, Ford has had car naming issues of late. Their latest insurrection is the naming of the Ford Fivehundred the Taurus. Oh the Horror! Ask a marketing man at Ford, and he will tell you that the Taurus brand will be good for this vehicle, and that its “all new for 2008” (new front end and some interior trim bits) Ask me and I will say: RUBBISH! Just like Sadam Hussein, the Taurus is DEAD and Ford is the killer. That’s it, unless you want to have an entirely new car developed with the Taurus name in mind again….Don’t just slap an old, known name on a vehicle that you need more sales from next year….the public will know that it is a Fivehundred with the Taurus name…

Ford is not the only company suffering from this sickness. Just as they were sitting at the port waiting for their new owners, someone at Volkswagen decided to change the name of the Golf to the Rabbit! Yes….as many of you can remember the Rabbit….there is nothing like the feeling of car parts falling off during vehicle ownership! A door handle here, a loose armrest there…..The Rabbit was an OK vehicle, but not one to be known for its quality. If you know the current affairs at Volkswagen, the last thing they need as they attempt to re-build their quality reputation is fond memories of the Ghost of Rabbit Past…I know if, or when, I buy a new Golf….I will not allow it to have a Rabbit on the rear flanks…

What does this say about Ford and Volkswagen? With Ford, I think that they are in crisis mode and are looking at all of their options. At Volkswagen, I think it was a way for a new marketing manager to put her stamp on her new brand, and she has already left the company….

Names are important, and they can not be bantered about like silly jokes…….

But... who am I? and... What's in a name?

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.