Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Gas 2.0

Gas 2.0

GM Delivers 321 Volts to Nissan’s 87 Leafs in January

Posted: 02 Feb 2011 11:20 AM PST

The Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf are two very different vehicles competing for a similar class of customers. So far though, the Volt is leading the Leaf in sales by a 3-to-1 margin in U.S. sales.

Nissan executives have already admitted to botching the Leaf's launch, raising expectations too high and responding to a very slow roll out. In the month of January, Nissan managed to deliver just 87 Leaf's. In the same month, GM delivered 321 Volts, three times as many Leafs. In December, GM delivered 326 Volts to Nissan’s 19 Leafs, making the grand total of 647 Volts versus just 106 Leafs.

However, if GM wants to sell or lease 25,000 Volts this year, and 120,000 Volts next year, they're going to have to severely pick up the pace and sell about seven times as many Volts every month for the next 11 months. Quite the tall order, but Nissan’s got an even bigger problem. Nissan has taken 20,000 $99 pre-orders for the Leaf and delivered just over 100 of them. How many of those people will continue to wait around for their electric car, especially with so much competition heading to showrooms so soon. In fairness though, Nissan is selling the Leaf in Europe and Japan too (the Volt sells in Europe as the Opel Ampera), and global sales figures aren’t available just yet.

It's too early to read into these sales indicators, but I'm going to anyway. Is the slow launch of the Leaf going to affect its sales going forward? Is this a sign of early Volt domination, or just an indication of GM's ability to better launch a vehicle?

Let me know what you guys think about these numbers.

Source: CNN

Chris DeMorro is a writer and gearhead who loves all things automotive, from hybrids to HEMI’s. You can follow his slow descent into madness at Sublime Burnout.

Carpooling Declines 50% Since 1980

Posted: 02 Feb 2011 08:52 AM PST

I'm lucky enough not to have a work commute, though I know many people do. What I can't explain is why carpooling has declined 50% since 1980, even as traffic gets worse and gas gets more expensive. What gives?

It seems that back in the 1970's, a decade that saw disco and destitution, high gas prices, and the exaggerated death of the American muscle car. Many companies organized carpools for their employees, and at its peak about 25% of Americans got to work via a carpool. In the last 30 years though, that number has dropped by more than half, to less than 12%, despite building more carpool lanes and commuter parking lots. It’s a national problem, coast to coast.

One cause is that as Americans got wealthier, they were buying bigger houses farther from work, making carpooling more difficult despite a wealth of social networking devices and make it easier to find people to get to work with. Carpooling dates back to World War II, when there was a gas and rubber shortage, and hit its peak during the 1970′s. Interestingly enough, minorities carpool more than whites, and in the case of Hispanics, up to 28% of the time. People just don't want to share the car, and would rather brave hours of traffic than seat next to Sarah from accounting, apparently.

How do we remedy this? I can think of only two ways; a massive overhaul of many mass transit systems, coast to coast, or an empty-seat tax. Obviously the former will have longer-lasting benefits, but the empty seat tax would be easier to implement. Charge $5 per-empty seat, and you'll start seeing a lot more carpooling. All seats full? No charge. The money collected from the tolls can go towards building the aforementioned expensive mass transit projects.

I know it sounds draconian, but just building bigger and bigger highways hasn't done anything to relieve congestion, and Americans don't seem interested in carpooling, despite the billions of dollars poured into creating HOV lanes and promoting the practice. If anybody has a better idea, I'm all ears.

Source: New York Times

Chris DeMorro is a writer and gearhead who loves all things automotive, from hybrids to HEMI’s. You can follow his slow descent into madness at Sublime Burnout.

OPOC Engine Is Smaller, Lighter, and 50% More Efficient Than Turbodiesels

Posted: 02 Feb 2011 02:00 AM PST

Among conventional combustion engines, the turbodiesel is among the most powerful and fuel efficient. But a startup company called EcoMotors has developed a design that's smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient, and can run on a variety of fuels.

EcoMotors is headed by CEO Professor Peter Hofbauer, an engineer who spent over two decades at Volkswagen and helped develop vehicles like the VR6 and VW's first-ever diesel engine. Recently a former Ford performance guru, John Coletti, joined EcoMotors as President and COO. Coletti helped develop vehicles like the 10 liter BOSS Mustang concept and various other performance projects, which makes his signing-on to EcoMotors all the more eyebrow raising. Both are heavyweights in their field, and are working to bring to market an engine designed called OPOC, or opposed-piston opposed-cylinder.

The engine is a two-stroke turbocharged two-cylinder with two pistons in each cylinder. Yes, you read that right; four pistons in a two-cylinder engine. The pistons sit opposed to each other, one being pushed, the other pulled by the combustion of each stroke. What this does is allow a normal stroke to be completed twice as fast in an engine package that is just one-quarter the size of a conventional turbodiesel engine. It's also 30% lighter, and will supposedly deliver 50% better fuel economy. With an engine that small, cars could also get smaller, and thus lighter, leading to even more impressed fuel economy gains.

Sounds like a miracle motor, and I'd be quicker to dismiss it if it didn't have two very well-known and respected vehicle specialists behind it. EcoMotors just received $23 million in funding from Khosla Ventures and Bill Gates, and aims to have a vehicle on the road sometime in 2013. They think they can deliver 100 mpg in a conventional vehicle that can run on gas, diesel, or ethanol. Sounds great; the only question I have is about the horsepower and torque numbers. Making a smaller, lighter engine is great for fuel economy, but if it takes 20 seconds to get to 60 mph, it will be a hard sell.

I hope Coletti won't let that happen.

Source: Hemmings Auto Blog

Chris DeMorro is a writer and gearhead who loves all things automotive, from hybrids to HEMI’s. You can follow his slow descent into madness at Sublime Burnout.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)