Five Minutes to Wapner, Five Minutes to Wapner...

TV... in my car?! Life is complete.

(Image courtesy of Chrysler.com)

Thanks to Chrysler, no longer will you have to fret that you might miss your favorite TV show. By the end of the year, for a mere $629 (plus installation costs), you can outfit your new Chrysler with roughly twenty channels of live television, including CBS, MSNBC, and MTV, among others.

At a time when some states are enacting laws prohibiting texting on cell phones while driving, Chrysler has added yet another distraction to the ever-increasing list for today's driver. Of course, the 7" TV included in the FLO TV Auto Entertainment system will not be positioned within view of the driver's seat. Nevertheless, the sound of live TV in the background, coupled with cell phone conversations and crying children, only adds to the many distractions faced by the average driver. And if the background noise is the sound of MSNBC reporting yet another day of dismal performance in the stock market, there is, it seems, little hope of returning the driver's focus to the task at hand, namely, the road ahead.

Leaving aside tangential concerns--why not talk to your children instead of turning on the TV in the backseat?--one hopes Chrysler has not hinged too much on this new innovation. It is, to be sure, a difficult time for Detroit auto makers, and live TV is certainly not the best means by which to bolster brand image.

Lo and Behold, a Porsche Sedan...?

Image courtesy of Porsche.com

With most of the automotive world occupied with news about the fledgling American auto makers, it has been easy to ignore what would otherwise be a very strange sight in a Porsche dealership--the Panamera sedan. The 2010 Porsche Panamera recently hit dealerships in the U.S., marking the release of the first sedan produced in the history of the company.

This, of course, begs the question: A Porsche sedan? Really? Increasingly, Porsche has found itself in a peculiar position in the automotive world. It has long been a specialty auto maker--a boutique auto company, if you will--producing a very limited model line dominated, principally, by the 911, and supported over the years by an array of short-lived models, like the 914 and the 968, to name just a few. As other luxury brands, like Mercedes and BMW, have broadened their model lines over the years, releasing progressively more competitive sports cars in addition to their other ever-present wide offerings, Porsche has slowly succumb to the changing market demands, offering models aimed at different segments of the market--witness the Boxster and the Cayenne--not merely at the competition in the upper echelon of the sports car market.

The new Panamera seems to follow this trend. Though in a time when public image is ever so crucial for auto makers, this is a bold move by Porsche. There is, it seems, the risk of dividing its customer base--for the Porsche purist, the thought of a Porsche sedan is as disturbing as was Porsche's release of a SUV, the Cayenne; but for the discerning, (wealthy) comparison shopper, it stands as a very viable alternative to comparable offerings by, say, Mercedes and BMW.

Nevertheless, for some, the Panamera might be nothing short of a religious awakening. After all, it is a performance sedan made by the company that has brought you the 911, the most enduring sports car in history. Surely it must be a remarkable car... right?

While the Panamera is not on my Christmas wish-list, I certainly would not refuse a test drive.

Ford Focus: Signs of Intelligent Life in the Automotive Universe

One World. One Focus.

(Image Credits: Autocar Magazine Online)

The FI faithful will be familiar with the fact that Ford is a favorite tackling dummy of mine. I have written a couple of times times (at least) in the past about how, inexplicably, Ford wanted to sell two different versions of the Focus; one for the American market, and one for the European market. Granted, Europeans, particularly the British, have different tastes. But if a car is such a dynamite success, why mess with the formula? It's at best patronizing, at worst insulting, to suggest that American tastes run so different to European ones that an entirely different version of the same car is necessary. It's not like "good driving dynamics" and "highly efficient powertrains" don't translate.
Well, Ford has pulled the soapbox from underneath me. SETI can stop directing its antennas at Detroit because we've found sentience. There will be one Focus in the next generation; it will return to being a "world car." Let's applaud a sensible business decision from a company that, despite the competition, has made a series of them. Not to lay too much pressure on "the little Focus that could," but this could be exactly the sort of decision that pushes Ford back to the forefront. It could bring the world closer together, make trees dance, and squirrels sing. Okay, maybe it was just a good move.

The Lotus Scura: Lord Vader, Your Car is Ready

Luke and Leia's Half-Brother is a Lotus. This One is a Bad Guy, Though.

(Image Credits: Twentieth Century Fox)

Many cars come close to being villainous. There's the Hummer H2, that ponderous, panda-killing enemy of the planet. Then there is the Maybach 62; a car that practically screams "bailout bonus." Or what about the AMG Black Series cars? These are, of course, cars so dangerous that Mercedes sells each one with a "parental advisory warning" (scroll to the video at the bottom of the page. For non-UK, see here). All of these cars, though, are choir boys compared to a car so evil, so devilishly cool, and from somewhere wonderfully unexpected: Lotus.

I know what you're thinking: Lotus makes cars that punch above their weight performance-wise, but they always tend to be a bit dorky or just downright effeminate. But check out the new Lotus Scura. It looks like the unholy offspring of a Lotus Exige (of which it is a special edition) and Darth Vader's helmet. What's even more delightfully sinful is that matte black paint scheme that makes the car a poor man's Reventón. With the new Evora out, it's nice to see the Exige being freshened. Even if it is the only sports car seeking to wield total control of the galaxy.

The Hydrogen Car in Perspective

Colonel Claudius Crozet was a man of perspective. He would carefully weigh the decisions relating to our personal transportation destiny.

I want you to close your eyes and think back. I recognize that this will make it difficult to continue reading, so maybe we can just pretend. Think back to when you were in Kindergarten, 1st, or 2nd grade. What sorts of things were you learning? The alphabet? Simple words? Mathematically, you were probably learning addition, maybe subtraction, and what we would call planar shapes; that is, shapes that are two dimensional. Squares, circles, triangles are all planar shapes, for example. Fast forward to 9th grade Geometry. Now you are learning three-dimensional shapes. Suddenly, the rabbit hole is deeper. Two dimensional shapes are easy to render on paper; it is a two-dimensional medium. Three dimensional shapes are more difficult; this is the subject of a rather advanced field formerly known as projective geometry. I learned this in a very basic form in the second year of my engineering undergraduate course as a part of technical drawing. The problem with projective geometry is that the drawer is required to convey the most defining features of the three-dimensional object in question without obscurity and in as simple a fashion on a 2D medium. Hence, there are some things that you will see, there are some things that you won't.

This might seem like a bit of a flippant, technical digression from our usual programming here at FI, but it is, I hope, a clear metaphor for the issue of alternatively fueled vehicles. The problems that we faced during school were "two-dimensional," if you like. They were easily visualized, well-defined, and well-trodden. There was a well-defined beginning and end, as well. Finding a solution for the world's transportation needs--despite the hopes of many of our duly elected officials--is a "three-dimensional" problem. It has facets and characteristics that will appeal differently to different people. Most frustratingly, perhaps, is the fact that there may not be one solution. Rarely, in fact, is this the case. Often we have a preferred solution that seems like the only one, but it is just one choice out of many alternatives.

The Washington Post has run an interesting article about Congress continuing funding for research into hydrogen vehicles in the United States. Few technologies are as polarizing as the hydrogen fuel cell. There are those who insist it is the way forward. There are those who insist it is a pipe dream. The majority live somewhere in the middle. Understanding that this is a complex issue, and not wanting to wander too far off topic, allow me to posit a few statements on this issue in particular.

The Case for Hydrogen
In its favor, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. The trouble is that it is often paired with something else. On Earth, this is often oxygen, in the form of water. Thus, to "free" the hydrogen it must be debonded from the oxygen. This costs you something. Proponents of hydrogen argue that, given hydrogen's abundance, if an effective and efficient method were developed for releasing it, it would automatically become profitable and viable. Using hydrogen in a fuel cell is a completely zero emissions process. By using a fuel cell to generate electricity, only water is produced. Thus, a relatively sustainable cycle is produced. Ideally the hydrogen consumed as fuel produces exactly the amount of water needed to return to fuel, again. Engineers refer to this as a "closed-loop" process. Theoretically, the vehicle itself could have a finite amount of water in the system that could be "electrolyzed" for power, with the water returning to be re-electrolyzed to continue the process.

Hydrogen can also be burned. This is what makes hydrogen unfortunately infamous. The world is very familiar with the internal combustion engine, however. Again, we would be reacting hydrogen in the presence of oxygen to produce only water vapor. Perhaps some other hydrocarbons or CO2 would be produced in trace amounts, but nowhere near the levels we see with the large-chain hydrocarbon fuels we use, today. Also, to just scrap so advanced a technology in favor of a less-understood alternative is something of a folly. We should always seek to build, technologically, rather than regress. BMW currently is the world leader in combustible hydrogen powered cars, though there are demonstrated difficulties with the technology.

One of the complaints levied against hydrogen is that it is not a viable short or medium-term greenhouse gas reducing fuel. This, however, is a somewhat ignorant complaint. Is science or engineering solely in the business of producing short or medium term solutions? Are not there experimental projects out there with no demonstrable public benefit? Developing an ultimately useless vehicle is not a sensible prospect for government. However, consider all the short-sighted comments that have been uttered in the past and proven silly by history. It was the chairman of IBM who said that computers would never fit into the room of a house; then the silicon microchip was invented and the rest, as they say, is history. The transistor was developed by Bell Labs; a research lab with ample funding and limited practical remit. The results produced by Bell Labs are continuing to pay technological dividends today. Could not the hydrogen economy benefit from such faith and monetary support? No, it may not be viable now, but our grandchildren could thank us.

The Case Against Hydrogen
The polemical side of the argument is, admittedly, easier and centers on three crucial fields: production, storage, and power.

Hydrogen is incredibly difficult to separate from oxygen. When compared with the streamlined process for converting crude oil into gasoline, electrolyzing water to produce hydrogen and oxygen gas seems wasteful, primitive, and stupid. Where does the electricity come from? Methane? Coal? Better yet, nuclear? The best method we currently have to produce hydrogen is by electrolyzing water, and the yields are appallingly small for the energy required. Furthermore, there are already cataclysmic water shortages in parts of the developing world that will only get worse as climate change occurs. Thus, many of the same criticisms levied against biofuels (they will require land used normally to produce food) can be levied against hydrogen production (it will require water necessary to irrigate land or nominally used for drinking). Yes, ocean water can be desalinated. This only increases the energy input and further swings the needle away from hydrogen.

Storage gets a lot of press, when it comes to criticizing hydrogen. It is, after all, the lightest element and, therefore, the least dense. To make hydrogen viable will require storing it at very cold temperatures (as a liquid) or under very high pressure (still, as a liquid). Yet, even with cryogenic hydrogen fuel, the hydrogen car will require a much larger fuel tank than its gasoline powered ancestor. Hydrogen is also volatile, flammable, and dangerous. For that matter, so are gasoline and alcohol. There are developments for storing hydrogen in a solid mixture, but then it must once again be separated out; renewing the same line of criticism previously levied.

Ultimately, though, this may really be a question of compromise and power. Engine Control Units (ECUs) have become so advanced over the past decade that drivers are used to having cars that produce 300 horsepower and can get 30 MPG on the highway. This odd juxtaposition is impossible without adaptive control of the air-fuel ratio. Despite all the computer enhancements, the internal combustion engine remains a massively inefficient device. Best estimates are that modern gasoline internal combustion engines have a thermodynamic limited efficiency of 37%. The majority of energy loss is as waste heat. Although a hydrogen ICE will run at a lower temperature--that is, with less heat loss--it will still not be perfect. Fuel cells, as well, will have finite performance limits. As demonstrated by the BMW Hydrogen 7, hydrogen has a lower energy density (energy available for power per unit weight). Thus, the MPG of a hydrogen ICE is markedly lower than that for a gasoline engine and it produces less power. Consumers will likely be unwilling to compromise on a step backwards from what they are used to, even if it would raise the likelihood of future benefits. After all, look how far the gasoline powered car has come.

Finally, this decision reeks of patronage. Once the government has set aside funding, good luck trying to take it away. 190 separate hydrogen projects? Would not 10 have done, let alone a couple of hundred? The development itself is proving to be mismanaged, wasteful, and devoid of any real urgency. While hydrogen may not be a sensible short or medium term solution, there are technologies that may be, and that would become so if they received the funding being sent down this questionable route.

---

The choice should ultimately be made by the market. There were literally dozens of car manufacturers and various types of drive other than the gasoline engine at the turn of the 20th century. The market settled on the gasoline engine and a few manufacturers as being best. Now it is time once more to have a plethora of options available. Returning to our problem solving analogy, it is clear that this is a 3D problem. Consumers and decision-makers alike must ask themselves some very serious questions:

1) What problem are we trying to solve?
2) What technologies are available now?
3) What technologies show promise for the future?
4) Is the government the best suited for making a decision in this regard?
5) Is funding hydrogen research a good idea in the short term given its uncertain long-term potential?

These are questions that should not be simplified or idealized. After all, this is a three-dimensional world we're living in.

The New Porsche Turbo: The Nerdy Supercar

As Reliable as a Labrador. As Fast as Angelic Flatulence. As Efficient as German Public Transport.

(Image Credits: Autocar Magazine Online)

Is it wrong to want a Porsche Turbo? Is it somehow boring or mundane? Although there is a vast swathe of performance metal available on the market (more now than at any other point in the history of the automobile), gearheads can be divided into two camps: those that would own a Porsche 911, and those who never would. It is such a polarizing car, and it has had nearly four decades worth of engineering refinement to heighten the debate. I personally have long lived in the camp that finds them boring, unoriginal, and too common for someone who actually likes cars. However. the more I see the Porsche Turbo, with its classic lines and rear track as wider than Shaq's wingspan, the more I realize how deeply desirable it is. It is, for all intents and purposes, an executive jet for the road. All comfort, all luxury, all performance, all business. And now, there's a new one.
The video is hilarious. Compare the Porsche Turbo video with this Ferrari 458 trailer and you'll see what I mean. On one hand, unbridled (ha ha) Italian exuberance. On the other, calm, reserved, German efficiency. Powerslides and pumping music versus...well, a nerdy guy with an unpronounceable last names extolling the virtues of variable stiffness engine mounts. How many times does he have to say it's "efficient" anyway? But it's then that you realize what a compliment that that is. To an Italian, nothing could be more central to the essence of life than passion and emotion; that is why Ferrari is so consummately Italian. And to a German, there can be nothing of greater value than efficiency and reliability; and that is why Porsche makes the best damn sports cars. Period.

DeLorean Proves the Existence of Irony

DeLorean: Still Making Time Travel Possible

Not only is the sun shining in the UK--making this a pretty good, albeit really cold, day-- but what came across the feed this morning has to be the most exciting news to reach car and nerd fandom, well, ever. Never has a confluence of these two spheres been so complete than when one considers the DeLorean Motor Company. And yes, dear readers, DMC is planning to come back. DMC is, of course, the company that gave us the iconic (and forever idiosyncratic) DMC-12. Nothing fixes the 'Back to the Future' franchise in the 1980s like the DeLorean. Nothing. Only the failure of Pan Am was more significant in making all movies prior to 1991 seem quaintly old-fashioned.
According to the article, DMC is weighing a plan to continue production of the Pontiac Solstice because some mythical creature named 'JZD' remembered it from a past life, or some other flaky explanation like that. The real question: does DMC really expect to be taken seriously if they refer to their founder as 'JZD?' Let's not forget, this was a man who funded his corporation by extorting the Irish government and selling cocaine (scroll down to 'Entrapment'). He was already sketchy enough! Let's hope that this '80's comeback is more like 'Don't Stop Believing' and less like leg warmers. Those definitely could have stayed confined to history.

German Minis: Sounding the Shallow Depths of National Identity

Sara Lee's Japanese Parent Company Happily Announces American Apple Pies Are to Be Produced in Hokkaido

(Image Credits: makepeacewithfood.blogspot.com)

Autocar reports this morning that BMW will likely be opening an assembly line for the Mini brand in Germany. What is unclear from the tone of the article is whether this is perceived as a good or bad thing. To me, it is little other than a foregone conclusion. When BMW bought the Mini brand it was buying just that: a brand. In that time, the Roundel has almost single-handedly created the market for luxury small cars. Now competitors have gotten wise; Audi has the A1, Mercedes has the A-class. In a situation that is somewhat the mirror of our earlier Phaeton discussion, BMW has no direct competitor for either of these cars; it has Mini. As the article states, one possible explanation is that BMW is planning to create a BMW-branded small car.
Not to do any transatlantic finger pointing, but isn't this exactly the issue that GM ran into: too many fingers in too many pies? Granted, luxury small cars are still something of an oddity in the US. Why would you want to pay more to get less when you could have more? A couple of quick disjointed thoughts:

1) From the connoisseurs perspective, this may not be that much of a bad thing. Better to have a little of a good thing--say a bottle of a fine microbrew--as opposed to a whole lot of something of lower quality; the ubiqutous case of Natty Light. This is anathema to a lot of people; look at the Camaro, I need say no more. By the way, how bizarre is it that Natty has commercials now? Do they really need to advertize? What emerging markets are they trying to reach? Was there uncharted territory in the 18-20 fratboy demographic? Returning to the automotive sphere, the Mini and its competitors offer that 'microbrew' option. You could get more car for the money, yes. Do you need more car? Maybe. However, if you don't, there is something luxurious and pleasurable for the money.

2) This unfortunate episode highlights how shallow cultural identification has become in this age of globalization and rebranding. While the Mini exudes 'britishness' like a greasy slab of cod with some double-fried chips in a styrofoam container on a rainy seaside afternoon, it is a German car, through and through. The Mini would not be so good if it weren't German. It's 'britishness' is as thin as the sheetmetal of its body panels. Through the token gesture...actually, through the vast charity of BMW in modernizing the Morris factory in Oxford, the Mini has kept physical connection to the country that gave birth to it. However, it was only a matter of time before it became little more than a brand. Is Mini about to jump the shark? Possibly. But for the time being, lets revel in its second rennaissance.

Hyundai to Honda: "I think you're pretty swell, too."

John Muir First Described the Sequoia Redwoods as " Wicked Sweet."

(Image Credits: imlablog.wordpress.com)

In a press release statement straight of our current 'Twitter-era,' Honda's CEO described Hyundai as being "awesome." While the erstwhile Mr. Takanobu undoubtedly meant it in the sense of 'inspiring awe,' though perhaps stopping short of 'majestic,' it is at once a silly, hyperbolic, and foreboding statement. 'Awesome' is not quite the adjective that I would use to describe Hyundai, in any sense. I usually tend to reserve 'awesome' for the Alps, or King's College Chapel, or perhaps even an '80's power ballad. Hyundai? Not really. The gymnastics of diction aside, there's absolutely no questioning Mr. Takanobu's assessment of the potential challenge that Hyundai will raise for their cross-strait neighbors in the coming years. Improving quality, excellent warranty plans, and--that jewel of capitalism--cheap labor have convolved nicely in South Korea; see the relative success of compatriots LG and Samsung, as an example. It is only a matter of time before people trade down on the quality of a Japanese car for the economy of a Korean alternative.

Good Night, Saturn

Saturn: GM's Stab at Long-Term Relevance Goes Straight Through Its Heart
(Image Credits: Treehugger.com)

As this Washington Post article details, Penske Automotive has backed down from a deal to acquire the Saturn brand from GM. Penske had hoped to acquire the Saturn dealers, leaving a partner manufacturing firm to build the cars to be sold. It was a sensible plan; Penske has long been a force in retailing and the dealership world, yet he has very little experience (if any) on building cars (Indy, excepted). The obvious hitch was that there were no automakers out there who are so flush with cash that they could acquire a brand like Saturn.
I did find one of the descriptions of Saturn in the article a bit overblown. For example, does Saturn really have a " '...passionate customer base'?" I can't remember too many people salivating over the Vue, but then again, I know people who like cars. I won't make light of what is clearly a tragic consequence of GM's mismanagement. Saturn could have worked, in fact, I'll even go so far to say that it should have worked. A company dedicated to customer service, safe, cheap and efficient small cars. Gosh, that sounds like a recipe for a turnaround, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it was--like so many other GM decisions of the past two decades--a reaction to what Toyota, Honda, and other Japanese automakers had already done. If the automobile market is to return to a sustainable level, some of the saturation needs to be wrung out. It won't be pretty, it won't be popular, but it is necessary. The first one down the drain just happens to be "a different kind of car company."