Road & Track jumped the gun on April Fools Day with this lovely photoshop of a droptop Chevy Volt. Looks good if you ask me. Even better? It's solar powered. Oh if only it were true.
Nerdy, yeah. Wouldn't it be cool if GM came out with one of these though? The Road & Track guys turned the sedan into a two door, and added solar panels that would power interior cooling fans in hot weather. Awesome idea; why hasn't a car company thought of this and applied it to their own car?
...could have used a longer door
The dreamiest part is the supposed price of just $43,000. That’s just fantasy land; a droptop Volt would probably be closer to $50,000. I don't know if Chevy plans to offer a Cruze convertible, but if they do, than there might be a chance of a Volt Convertible…some day.
Chris DeMorro is a writer and gearhead who loves all things automotive, from hybrids to HEMIs. You can read about his slow descent into madness at Sublime Burnout or follow his non-nonsensical ramblings on Twitter @harshcougar.
Audi released photos of its new e-Tron Quattro system frolicking on (what’s left of) the winter ice. The prototype hybrid system is based on the current Audi A5, but earns its “Quattro” moniker not with a conventional all-wheel-drive system, but with what Audi is calling an “electric rear axle”.
The innovative new hybrid Quattro system is markedly different from what companies like Honda and Toyota are offering in that it isolates the production-standard internal combustion engine with Audi’s usual transaxle, set up (in this instance) for front-wheel-drive “only” use. The center tunnel – which usually houses a prop-shaft that taxes motive force to the rear axle – is filled with batteries that power an electric motor which, in their turn, can power the Audi’s rear wheels “on demand”. The Audi also features a second electric motor placed between the gasoline engine and FWD transmission, which adds another 40-ish hp to the front wheels.
The Audi’s clever layout is illustrated in Audi’s diagram, below.
Click to Enlarge
Audi claims overall fuel-economy to be in the 85 + mpg range (2.7 liters/100 km), and that the hybrid Quattro can sprint to 60 mph in under 6 seconds, on its way to a top speed in excess of 140 mph.
No word yet regarding the car’s Geico-inspired graphics … or whether or not that amazing mpg number is some kind of early April Fool’s joke.
With so much focus on hybrid and electric vehicles right now, it's easy to overlook that many other alternatives companies are working on. Ford says that with the recent rise in gas prices, more fleet owners are buying CNG vehicles.
The Big Three have offered CNG engine options for over a decade now, but they never really pushed the cheaper, cleaner, even during the last gas price run-up. With CNG prices around $2 for a gallon equivalent, it's about half the cost of gasoline in some parts of the country. That means huge savings for fleet owners like Bill Scalzi, from my home state of Connecticut. His company, Metro Taxi, just bought 20 CNG Transit Connect taxis. I may have to pay Mr. Scalzi a visit. Connecticut, it seems, is installing more CNG fueling stations. I can get down with that, as CNG is the least refined fuel, mostly made up of methane, and puts out much fewer emissions (with the obvious exception of methane) than do other comparable fuels.
President Obama mentioned natural gas in his speech yesterday, so Ford is obviously paying attention this time around. However, their CNG offerings are limited to fleet vehicles right now, namely the E-Series vans, F-Series Superduty, and the aforementioned Transit Connect. Fiat and Chrysler are said to be investing in CNG vehicles, including Ram pickup trucks, but for now the Honda Civic GX is the only passenger car with a natural gas engine option. I'd love a CNG Mustang, but I doubt anything like that is in the cards. If I really want a clean-burning Mustang, I'll go to ROUSH for some propane power. Hank Hill would be proud.
Chris DeMorro is a writer and gearhead who loves all things automotive, from hybrids to HEMIs. You can read about his slow descent into madness at Sublime Burnout or follow his non-nonsensical ramblings on Twitter @harshcougar.
You are subscribed to email updates from Gas 2.0 To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
Lotus has been developing a number of innovative new “green” technologies in recent years, with much attention being paid to its compact range-extending ICE generator, itself based on Lotus’ Omnivore engine technology. Lotus first showed the system in their Evora 414E hybrid concept car last year.
As our longer-term readers might recall, I’ve tin-hatted myself into believing that Toyota is gunning for Lotus in a quest for yet more hybrid-fueled brand-equity on more than one occasion – so it is perhaps not surprising that Gas 2.0 editor Chris DeMorro’ earlier post about Fisker purchasing range-extenders for its new Karma sedan got me thinking … or, “thinking” at any rate.
Into that insanity, comes news that Lotus is actively shopping its range-extenders to other automakers – but who might they be? Lotus’ little-engine-that-could has already shown up in Jaguar’s Limo Green concept car, so I’ve got to assume Jaguar and sister-company Land Rover are on the list of potential buyers. Today’s news from Fisker indicates they’re on the list … but who else?
Lotus’ project engineer Lee Jeffcoat claims there is interest from “several OEMs in 5,000-10,000 units annually, for a potential annual output of 30,000 engines.” Lotus are no dummies, so if they’ve geared up to build “up to” 30,000 engines a year, I would be they plan on building 30,000 engines a year. My guess is the same as it was in September: Toyota is going to snap these up for use in an iQ-based extended range EV.
March has been a busy month for Boeing – one which saw the maiden flight of the company’s third new biofuel-capable 747-8 intercontinental plane and new patent filings for quieter, less disruptive passenger planes.
Those patents for quieter new planes I mentioned above? Take a look below.
This wild, forward-swept wing design minimizes turbulence and positions the plane’s engines above the wings or rear section of the plane (between two vertical tails). A patent for the design was issued March 8th, on applications filed in 2006 and 2007. The thinking behind the design is that conventional engine placements under the wings puts nothing between noise and the ground, and actually serves to deflect sound off of the wings toward the ground. Boeing notes a similar issue with heat, which can be a problem for military aircraft trying to avoid heat-seeking ground attacks.
No word on when forward-swept sexy planes would be shuttling people around commercially – but considering the long life cycle of airline fleets and their highly rebuildable nature, it probably won’t be soon.
SoCal start-up Fisker has just completed its first production car (in Finland), but already they are talking about future cars. One idea; use of a dedicated, 3-cylinder range extender rather than the 4-cylinder EcoTec car engine currently under the hood.
The Fisker Karma is a plug-in hybrid with a GM-sourced turbocharged 4-cylinder engine operating as the range extender. Using an already-built production engine has saved Fisker countless millions that would come with designing their own engine. But since this gas engine is optimized for driving a car, rather than operating as a generator, it isn't the perfect system. Perhaps the biggest issue is weight; the GM EcoTec engine weighs in at 360 pounds, not exactly a featherweight.
Fisker seems to think that a dedicated 3-cylinder range extender could shave at least 100 pounds off of that number, and any weight savings for the hefty Fisker would be a boon for both performance and range. Lotus has developed a dedicated, 1.2 liter 3-cylinder range extender that could be just what Fisker is looking for, and it weights just 124 pounds. There's money to be made in the range-extending engine business it would appear.
Chris DeMorro is a writer and gearhead who loves all things automotive, from hybrids to HEMIs. You can read about his slow descent into madness at Sublime Burnout or follow his non-nonsensical ramblings on Twitter @harshcougar.
In the face of rising gas prices and increasing turmoil in the Middle East, President Barack Obama today called for a one-third cut in oil imports by 2020. The President's plan to accomplish this goal relies on a variety of energy sources including increased domestic oil and gas production.
But the aspect of the President's plan that is of particular interest to our company is his call to increase biofuels production and use. Specifically, the President wants at least four commercial-scale refineries producing cellulosic ethanol or advanced biofuels to break ground within the next two years to help launch next generation biofuels in America.
That caught our interest because we have been working for a decade to commercialize cellulosic ethanol. In fact, our CEO is in Washington today testifying to the Senate Agriculture Committee about the progress we’ve made on cellulosic ethanol and how policy makers can help us bring this project over the finish line. In his written testimony, Jeff Broin wrote:
My company has been making steady progress toward the commercialization of cellulosic ethanol for more than a decade. But the 2007 Renewable Fuel Standard, along with support from the Department of Energy and the Iowa Power Fund, allowed us to dramatically speed up our efforts. Today, we have an operating pilot facility producing cellulosic ethanol from corn cobs and light stover and plans to construct a full-scale commercial plant later this year.
Our model for cellulosic ethanol builds on the foundation of our 1.7 billion gallons of corn ethanol production capacity. We will bolt cellulosic technology onto our corn ethanol plants so that we can benefit from the infrastructure that is already in place and our existing relationships with farmers, many of whom are investors in those plants. The corn ethanol plants will also become more efficient because a byproduct of the cellulosic will be used to power both the cellulosic and corn ethanol production facilities. Because we use a waste product to produce cellulosic ethanol and generate power, an independent report found that our process reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 111 percent in comparison to gasoline. Cellulosic ethanol is a carbon sink, not a carbon producer.
Nearly 100 people at POET are working on this project and our partners include universities, all levels of government, technology developers and hundreds of farmers. All are motivated to increase the production of clean, domestic energy.
This first project alone will create about 300 jobs and launch an industry that will create almost 90,000 direct jobs just by meeting minimum targets in the Renewable Fuel Standard.
Today, we are producing cellulosic ethanol from the abundance of corn crop residue in the Midwest. In the future, we can also produce it from Georgian wood chips, Arkansas rice hulls and other sources of biomass that exist in all 50 states of America. POET put forth a plan to produce 3.5 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2022. We will get there by adding cellulosic technology to our existing plants, licensing it to other ethanol producers and by getting into new raw materials like wood chips, energy grasses and waste products.
But we can't get there without stable government policy.
He goes on to talk about the impact that policy instability has had on the farmers we have contracted with and the investment community. We’ve been making tremendous headway in developing the logistics chain necessary to supply our commercial biorefinery with 300,000 tons of biomass per year. You can see the fruits of our efforts in the above picture and read more on our cellulosic ethanol blog. We have been assisted in that effort by the USDA’s Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) that matches payments to the farmers up to $45 per ton. But when legislation was introduced to eliminate BCAP it planted seeds of doubt in the minds of the 85 farmers who signed contracts with us and could make it harder to sign the additional contracts we will need to reach commercial scale.
Similarly, the investment community has received mixed signals from policy makers as uncertainty has arisen about the future of the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program. Yesterday, Jeff Broin was one of 34 CEOs of renewable energy companies who signed a letter calling on Congress to fully fund the loan guarantee program.
Finally, cellulosic ethanol is challenged by a lack of access to the marketplace. Because ethanol is currently limited to ten percent of the fuel market, we are currently exporting affordable ethanol at the same time we are importing expensive foreign oil. That’s why we have proposed phasing out the current ethanol tax credit and using the funds to install blender pumps that allow consumers to choose their blend of ethanol: 10, 20, 30, 40 or 85 percent.
Is it a realistic goal to have four commercial next generation biofuels facilities under construction in two years, especially considering the challenges listed above and that we are falling short of the production levels required by the Renewable Fuel Standard? It’s a fair question and I’m not sure I can provide a definitive answer. However, I believe that it’s a worthy goal and one that we are prepared to help meet. With policy stability and a loan guarantee we will start construction on one of those four facilities later this year. And having the President solidly behind the effort, sure can’t hurt.
Ford didn't make a big deal with the announcement that the Lincoln MKZ Hybrid would cost the same as the standard MKZ. Maybe they should have, as sales of the hybrid version have taken off this year.
Ford is the only automaker to offer a hybrid version of a car at the exact same price as the non-hybrid version. The "hybrid premium" is usually so high that finding any financial savings from less fuel usage often takes five years or more. Ford decided hey, what the hell, lets sell the MKZ Hybrid for the same price, and sales have beaten even Ford's estimates. The Blue Oval thought hybrid sales would account for, at most, 15% of MKZ sales. Instead, sales of the hybrid have tracked in the 22-23 percent range through February, and should continue through March. Overall Lincoln sales are in a slump, with the MKZ hybrid being one of the only bright spots. Too bad Ford isn’t making any extra money on them.
With both cars starting at $35,455, buying the hybrid version will actually result in an immediate fuel savings. Ford managed to sell over 760 MKZ Hybrids through February, compared to 469 units of the comparable Lexus HS 250h sedan. Personally, I still find Lincoln's lineup a little bland and boring (something I usually say about Toyota!) but the MKZ Hybrid makes a tempting case for those looking to get a little luxury with their fuel efficiency.
Can Ford keep this hybrid momentum up through 2011 as gas prices inch ever higher? We'll see.
Chris DeMorro is a writer and gearhead who loves all things automotive, from hybrids to HEMIs. You can read about his slow descent into madness at Sublime Burnout or follow his non-nonsensical ramblings on Twitter @harshcougar.
Lots of people like to characterize anybody who believes in the government pushing green technology as socialist hippies. So what do the people who actually work in the energy industry think? You might be surprised.
Bloomberg Businessweek Research conducted a study of "energy professionals." The study, funded by the ABB, found that 76% of energy professionals believe government regulations should push energy companies to produce more power from renewable sources.
Remember, these are people working within an industry that still provides 50% of our country's power needs from coal. And 89% of energy professionals believe that government incentives trump the market in driving up consumer energy efficiency and 81% believe a smart grid Why? Because energy in America is still dirt cheap, and most people don't pay attention to their power usage. But plans for a smart grid, more efficient vehicles, and eventually electric cars are all integral to the future of this country, and even the people in this industry, who will experience the most growing pains, think the government can have a huge role to play in pushing for green power and efficient energy usage.
Do you agree with energy professionals, or the politicians who want to keep us chained to coal and oil?
Chris DeMorro is a writer and gearhead who loves all things automotive, from hybrids to HEMIs. You can read about his slow descent into madness at Sublime Burnout or follow his non-nonsensical ramblings on Twitter @harshcougar.
In December of 2008, the BBC aired an episode where Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson got behind the wheel of a Tesla Roadster. Tesla Motors is now suing over that episode.
If you haven't heard of Top Gear, then you are missing out on some hilarious automotive shenanigans. Of course, the Top Gear Trio have been known to stretch the truth for the sake of entertainment, and most of the time it's just good, clean fun.
That's not the case with the Tesla Roadster review though. Clarkson and the program showed the Tesla running out of juice after just 55 (very hard) miles, and being pushed into a garage, described its charging time as 16 hours, complained of broken brakes and an overheated the motor, resulting in both cars supposedly being unavailable for driving.
But that's not what happened according to Tesla's Rachel Konrad. Neither of the two Tesla's had their charge drop below 20%, the brake problem was resolved by replacing a fuse, and most people who invested in a $100,000 roadster also invested in a home-based fast charger that can get the car back to full charge in under 4 hours. As for the overheated engine, the car merely lowered the amount of available power to keep the engine from overheating…and having plenty of video evidence of how Clarkson drives, the computer was probably doing the right thing to prevent damage to the motor.
This is so serious that Tesla even went so far as to set up a website. Tesla says they still get questions over that particular episode, and that it has spent the last two years trying to work out something with the BBC to issue some sort of correction. Tesla is "reluctantly" going to court over this issue, but I think there is a better way to solve this. Here is the lawsuit case file.
Tesla brings TWO roadsters to a neutral track right here in America, and their own crew of advisors/intermediaries yadda-yadda. Then Top Gear U.K. and Top Gear America come together and compete in a sort of scavenger hunt where they must maximize both speed, and range of two Tesla Roads. The losers have to drive something embarrassing, like say a Reliant Robin, for the next month around their home town.
I am a fan of both Tesla Motors and Top Gear, and it is really a case of semantics where Tesla, already facing an uphill battle, has gotten some pretty awful publicity with the biggest car program on the planet. Even Clarkson called himself a "volt head" after driving the spirited roadster, so why can't these two get along a little better…and entertain me at the same time. Thoughts?
Chris DeMorro is a writer and gearhead who loves all things automotive, from hybrids to HEMIs. You can read about his slow descent into madness at Sublime Burnout or follow his non-nonsensical ramblings on Twitter @harshcougar.
You are subscribed to email updates from Gas 2.0 To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
