Audi has been quietly going about the business of preparing its lineup for a green future, with cleaner and more efficient diesels in Europe, and oil-burners scheduled for the US in the near future. While the German automaker realizes diesel will be big in the next 10 years, it's also planning for life without emissions. Audi exec Rupert Stadler says the four-ringed automaker is primed to offer an electric vehicle in the next five to ten years. Meanwhile, Audi's German competition has been talking up its green position, but Stadler points out that the Volkswagen-owned brand has more research resources to exercise its options.
With the emissions belt being tightened both here in the US and in Europe, every automaker is going to have to make huge changes to its vehicles to stay in the game, and Audi is no different. We're going to be the big winners during these changing times, and while a battery-powered R8 won't sound as good as its petrol-powered twin, we like the idea of plugging in our sports car instead of filling it with gas every few days.
In California, home of the strictest car emissions regulations in the U.S., cars produced before 1976 do not need to undergo smog testing. California State Senator Dean Florez has proposed legislation that would remove that exemption for cars registered in the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
What would that mean if it were passed into law? It would mean that as of January 1, 2009, any car registered in a rather large swathe of central California -- from the 1974 Maverick to the 1929 Model A -- would need to pass every current and future smog test. If it didn't, it couldn't be driven.
It is theorized that the move comes because state authorities have missed their air quality goals and are now looking at targeting a tiny fraction of cars. Living in LA, we can't speak for Central California, but most of the pre-1976 vehicles we see here sound and run better than the glut of 80's Toyotas puttering down the streets. What vintage car owners fear is that if the legislation becomes law in the San Joaquin Valley, then it's only a matter of time before it gets adopted everywhere.
When the city of London decided in November 2006 to tax gas-guzzling, emission-spewing vehicles (aka sports cars), we knew someone would put up a fight. It didn't take long before Porsche, the enthusiast-oriented German automaker, stepped into the ring. Round One started last month, after London's Mayor Ken Livingstone decreed that a $50 daily tax shall be levied against all environmentally unfriendly vehicles that drive through his city beginning this October. After Porsche formally requested the mayor reconsider his plan or else it would call for a judicial review of the proposal, the Mayor kicked off Round 2 by accusing Porsche of imposing unnecessary pollution on Londoners and then compared the brand's sports cars to garbage littered on the street.
After consulting with its ringside trainer, Porsche has chosen to involve a legal referee in this match and make a formal application for judicial review to challenge the matter. Once the papers are filed, Mayor Livingstone's corner will have 21 days to acknowledge the claim. Don't expect the Mayor's office to throw in the towel -- most expect this bout to go the distance.
The big news from Bentley in Geneva wasn't really about today -- but stay tuned for 2012. Bentley plans to have its wheel-to-well measure of CO2 emissions down to less than 120g/km, from 400 g/km now. How? By lightening the cars, by engineering better transmissions, and through powerplants able to take advantage of 2nd generation biofuels, meaning cellulosic ethanol from straw and waste products. The best Bentley head Dr. Josef Paefgen would say for specifics was "everything is being considered." So there. Click through the jump to get the full press release and the science, and be thankful Bentley's given you something to look forward to.
California and 18 other states have been waiting patiently for a reason why the EPA denied them emissions waivers even after the government agency's own scientists recommended that the waivers be granted. EPA chief Stephen Johnson finally provided that answer last Friday, which allowed the 19 states' lawsuit against the EPA to move forward. Johnson's basic argument for denying the waiver centered on numbers stating that California's pollution and global warming problem is no greater than that of many other states, and that his decision was based on the facts and the law.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown called Johnson's response "obfuscating, sabotaging, specious, and ill-founded," which we think means that Brown believes Johnson is full of it. We don't have a position on the California vs. the EPA waiver war, but it'd be nice to have just one regulation for all United States whether it's California's standards or that of any other state. That way automakers have but one mark to aim for, and Price is Right doesn't have to mention "California Emissions" when someone wins a new car.
Jon Markman at MSN Money doesn't hold back when he says "Corn-based ethanol production is sure to go down as one of the greatest mistakes ever in U.S. energy policy." It's even more provoking when he writes "replacing fossil fuels with corn-based ethanol would double greenhouse gas emissions over the next three decades. The studies show that switchgrass, an alternative to ethanol that's more weed than plant, would boost emissions by 50%."
The problem isn't with the cars, the problem is with what it takes to grow the biofuel in the first place. Clearing the land, harvesting, and refining the crops, plus the loss of forest and wild lands and habitats, amounts to creating a carbon footprint worse than fossil fuels. According to the Science article which, admittedly, posits an extreme scenario, it would take 423 years to even out the carbon debt if Indonesia's peat lands were converted to palm oil fields.
The research is starting to give some people pause, such as the folks at the European Union who declared they wanted ten-percent of the block's transport fuel to come from plants. And Joe Fargione of the U.S. Nature Conservancy asks, "Is it worth it? ...[S]urprisingly the answer is 'no'. These natural areas store a lot of carbon, so converting them to crops results in tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere."
It's the mayor of London in one corner and Porsche, the maker of thoroughbred sports cars, in the other.
In the green trunks, Mayor Ken Livingstone has decreed that a $50 daily tax shall be levied against all gas-guzzling, emission-spewing vehicles that drive through his city beginning in October. His logic says that it will fight global warming, and the money raised will help implement a Paris-style bicycle plan for the city. Re-election is around the corner, so this initiative is imperative to his tenure.
In the black trunks, Andy Goss, the Managing Director of Porsche Cars GB, rejects the tax as unjust. The automaker claims it is a disproportionate fee that will have a very limited effect on CO2 emissions. Its plan is to write Livingstone a letter requesting that he reconsider the proposal, and if nothing happens after 14 days, take the matter to the courts, which could throw out Livingstone's tax altogether.
And the winner is... neither side. Both are unable to deliver a knock out punch, so the winner will likely be chosen by decision.
New emissions standards in 2010 will make things too stringent for GM's Duramax diesel, in its current form, to make the grade. To help its prize student pass the looming tests, GM is investing $69 million in its DMAX plant (a joint venture diesel engine factory in Moraine, Ohio) for plant renovations and new machinery and tooling.
While GM doesn't really rate the uptake of diesel in the American market in passenger cars, the Duramax is an engine that has powered its fair share of GM sales. Since its introduction in 2001, more than one million Duramax diesels have found their way on the road in Chevy Silverados, GMC Sierras, full-size vans and some medium duty trucks. The current 6.6-liter Duramax V8 has a diesel particulate filter to meet today's standards. For 2010, GM will add a selective catalytic reduction NOx after-treatment system (along with the particulate filter) to meet the Tier 2 BIN and LEV 2 emissions standards. It will remain good to go in all 50 states.
Britain's Automobile Association has found another bump in the road to environmental kindness: speed bumps and really low speed limits. They took a car that got 58-mpg running a constant 30-MPH, and ran it over speedbumps at the Millbrook Proving Ground, slowing down and speeding up for each bump. What they discovered was that mileage dropped to 31-mpg and carbon dioxide emissions went up. The findings correlate with those of the country's Transport Research Laboratory, which reported that "carbon monoxide emissions are increased by as much as 82% and nitrous oxide levels by 37% on roads with speed bumps."
The AA also found that setting the speed limit at 20-MPH instead of 30-MPH raised car emissions and consumption by 10-percent. Along with the speed bump results, these are intriguing findings, but in the real world, how long do you spend each day driving over speed bumps, and driving 20-MPH? The AA says that it knows speeds need to be kept down on residential roads to keep children safe, but thinks that "average speed cameras" would be more acceptable to the driving public. Based on the comments we get at Autoblog about speed cameras, we doubt it.
The Impala isn't the only RWD car stuck in limbo while GM waits for the fog of new CAFE standards to lift: Motor Trend reports that now the C7 Corvette program has been put on hold, as well. We reported yesterday that the next generation C7 Corvette will bow out of the horsepower brinkmanship game and instead shed weight, engine displacement and ponies. The interim issue is that GM doesn't know what its EPA gas mileage targets are during the run-up to the 35 mpg fleet average in 2020, and those won't be sorted out until 2009. Until they are, GM is content to wait to sort out the next 'Vette, including whether or not it will retain its traditional layout, switch to a mid-engine layout or be offered as both. As a Vette owner and fan, this blogger is not against high-horse performance, but the idea of a light(er) C7 that focuses on power-to-weight and is "more fuel efficient [and] even nimbler than it was before" is an exceedingly tasty proposition.
