Fri 13 Apr 2007
One of the enemies to the reduction of emission is weight. Although car makers have been improving powertrain efficiency noticeably in recent years, a large part of the gain is offset by the increased size and weight of the cars. Car makers know this, of course, but to be competitive they have to make their cars roomier, stronger, quieter, insulate vibration and harshness better and offer more luxury, safety and infotainment equipment than ever. In 10 years time, our cars gained around 15 percent in weight.
Apparently, facing the great challenge of emission reduction, our next generation cars have to be smaller and lighter. Consumers have to be told the fact that we cannot increase interior room forever. Somehow a compromise between accommodation and fuel economy has to be made. Just like when the world was hit by Energy Crisis in the 1970s, people shifted towards small cars. Similarly, the governments should be told that any plans for raising crash safety standards should be frozen if they want to put emission reduction on first priority. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
The rest of the improvement will be responsible by manufacturers. They can employ more lightweight materials such as aluminum, magnesium and composites wherever cost effectively. They can cleverly design the chassis structure to lose weight without losing rigidity. They can set a weight target for each component and give incentives to component suppliers which can design components lighter than the targets. They can integrate different audio and infotainment systems into one unit. They can combine various microprocessors into a central brain. They can develop lightweight seats and fabrics… Every sector can trim weight.
In fact, under the pressure of emission reduction, the trend of weight increment is arriving the U-turn now. The latest BMW 3-Series, 5-Series and Mini are no heavier than the cars they replaced. Ditto the new Mercedes C-class. The new Audi TT is even lighter than the first generation thanks to the aluminum-steel hybrid chassis. However, a more important indicator is probably the next generation Mazda 2, which has been shown in Geneva motor show and will go on sale later this year. The Mazda 2 is slightly smaller than the old car (40mm shorter, 55mm lower and only 15mm wider) and it is 100kg lighter. Expect more cars will follow suit.
Nevertheless, a greater problem lies in the mix of our car population. Since the late 1990s, customer taste has been shifting towards heavier vehicles like sport utilities, multi-activity vehicles and crossovers. As a result, car makers develop, promote and sell more these vehicles and lead to a dramatic increase of greenhouse gas emission. In the United States, the increase actually canceled out the reduction achieved by the progress of green technology. Both consumers and car makers should be responsible for the problem.
Undoubtedly, we have to stop the trend towards heavier types of vehicles in order to reduce overall emission. This is exactly where legislation may help – for example, a tax system according to emission level will drive consumers away from sport utilities and crossovers etc. so that manufacturers can concentrate their resources in developing smaller cars and greener technologies. Rearranging the mix of our car population is probably the easiest and cheapest way to cut the overall emission drastically. If half of the sport utilities and light trucks in the USA are converted to cars, the average fleet emission could be reduced by more than 10 percent immediately !
One thing is very interesting: by making our cars smaller and lighter, they could be actually more fun to drive ! As I always said, more power does not equal to more fun. A Porsche 911 Turbo (307g/km) is not necessarily more pleasurable to drive than a Cayman S (254g/km), Lotus Elise S (196g/km) or Mazda MX-5 (183g/km). Lightweight cars are more agile and easier to place in tight roads. Their lack of sound deadening, NVH suppression and driver assistance usually bring more direct feel to the drivers. In the future, legislation against emission will push manufacturers to shift their high performance cars towards smaller ones. Lightweight roadsters and coupes will rise again. Super-powerful performance sedans like BMW’s M cars, Mercedes’ AMG and Audi’s S lines will suffer the hardest blow. At least their numbers will be limited to avoid lifting the average fleet emission level. The top super cars like Ferrari or Lamborghini, however, will not be influenced much, because they are already very limited in numbers. They can be exempted from legislation.
There is worry that fuel saving technologies could hurt driving fun. To certain extent, yes. A diesel engine is nowhere as eager to rev as a gasoline engine. A hybrid powertrain adds weight to the car. An electric power steering is not as feelsome as a hydraulic one. On the positive side, diesel engines provide superior bottom-end torque for instant acceleration. Diesel technology is also progressing much quicker than gasoline technology so that one day it might just match gasoline engines for subjective feel. Hybrid powertrain might bring extra weight to the car, but on the plus side we can place part of the weight, say, the battery pack and inverter, at more favourable position to balance the car. The flat torque curve of electric motor also helps the car to get off the line more quickly than internal combustion engines can do. As for electric power steering, there is no reason why it can’t be improved to provide real feel in the future. In short term, any dramatic changes in automotive technologies will inevitably cause some drawbacks, just like the series of new safety and smog control regulations worsened the cars in the mid-1970s. Anyway, sooner or later car makers will overcome the problems and make better use of the benefits brought in by the new technologies.
In the future, the key to survival is technology. Developing green technologies require substantial and long term investment. Only the biggest manufacturers can afford. Smaller companies will be eliminated if they fail to form alliances to share technologies and costs. Mitsubishi and Proton are in the risk. UK sports car specialists had better to pray for an exemption for low volume car makers, otherwise they will be the victims. Well prepared companies like Toyota and BMW will be the winners. The same goes for small car specialists like Fiat and Suzuki. GM, Ford and Chrysler will survive anyway, but they will be seriously hurt because they are still building very large cars and trucks today. Hyundai group could also face difficulties to persuade people buying its cars at higher prices. So far it has shown little commitment to green technologies. Porsche could be a big loser because it produces only performance cars while its production volume of 100,000-plus units is unlikely to get exemption. Luckily, it bought Volkswagen recently. Other players like PSA, Nissan-Renault, Honda and Mercedes will be able to survive through alliances or working with component suppliers.
Global warming is going to change the view of our motor industry, our cars and our driving habit. Like it or not, you have to prepare for its coming.
Mark Wan
4 Responses to “Editorial: Global Warming to Change Our Motor Industry - Part 3”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 14th, 2007 at 3:14 am
Please don’t under-estimate Honda as one of the leaders in fuel saving technologies. Back when Prius was released there was Insight, although it never took off as a hit like the Prius was. And FCX is under in-field testing already, IMA assist platform under development, hybrid Civic and Accord on the road. I think Honda will be able to capitalize on the green technology no later than Toyota does.
By the way, I’m not sure if you realize this but it sure sounds exciting. BMW 2.0L four cylinder turbo diesel engine:
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/03/24/four-cylinders-400-nm-bmws-new-turbo-diesel/
April 14th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Dear Mark:
You really got the points and I believe most car enthusiasts understand nowadays’ car industry situation and agree what you say. More importantly, in fact, all car makers knows who made the problem and how to fix too. But the question is, if governments don’t put the visible hand in, they really don’t care.
I would say today’s SUV phenomenon is the resurrection of 60’s American muscle car: Big (thus heavy), thirsty, low technology, questionably reliability, and definite poor drivability (Everyone knows BMW X-series and Mercedes ML-class don’t have offroad ability. Yet no one see the need of Porsche Cayenne’s real offroad power for daily commuting).
However, why and what makes car makers dig out this “rest-in-peace” idea from the tomb and eventually become the hottest car segment in the world?
After the energy crisis, Japan car makers once became the biggest winners because their low fuel consumption belief, plus low production cost and low maintenance cost, prove people are sick of American dinosaur and European poor reliability characteristic. However, this game plan doesn’t last long. Japanese cars couldn’t do much for the then-biggest car market United States due to the cheap US$30/barrel oil. “Fuel-Saving” marketing strategy was just a joke. “Reliability” just did kick some European players out but the Big Three was still protected by patriotism. At least the Big Three didn’t feel the market eaten by foreigners was a big deal.
On the other hand, truck (the father of SUV) market is really a big market in States for a real need. Many farmers and construction workers use truck to transport their products and commute, especially there’s some roads are not real road in rural area. Eventually, their kids grew up and lived in cities but their childhood memory made them to buy a truck to cure the homesick. When they made more money, they still want a truck, but this time they want trucks with luxury stuffs. That detonated the big band of SUV market.
Of course, during the good old days (I mean 80’s and 90’s), it seemed that every kid can afford a car at the time. Gas’s cheap, car’s (up to BMW 3-Series) is not a big deal, more importantly, car insurance’s nothing. It’s not hard to see teenagers drive Mustang to work in McDonald’s, 325i to colleges. Yes, 300ZX, NSX, RX-7 Supra were expensive, but you still could do a lot of “fast and furious” things to a Civic in you own garage.
However, good old days was good old days, it’s gone with the wind. The gas price rises like crazy, so does car price. But the salary didn’t even match the inflation. The worst is car insurance, it becomes sky high after uncountable claims by youngster car accidents.
Today, most university graduates just can ask, “Mom, can I borrow the car (Actually, it’s a minivan) tonight?” or “Dad, can you drop me school tomorrow?” It becomes a cool thing if one of their friends buy a conservative Corolla. Why not a “more aggressive” Civic? “Aggressive” in car insurance means risk!! Muscle cars becomes baby boomer’s toy. Even Volkswagen becomes premium brand, BMW 3-Series is an absolute dream car. However, when these young people promote to young professionals, their toy car dream’s gone. They want mature identity. They don’t want to jump out a car that others think they’re still a kid. They want something make them feel they’re on top of people, SUV become the second to none choice. I guess it’s the reason why Honda claimed “due to the market shift” and declare the death of Integra/RSX. The fact is Silvia, Celica, Prelude, MX-6, MR-2/MR-S passed away before her. The death of Integra/RSX just annouce the end of “giant killer” age in North America. Civic Si? I found a lot of Civic but only tiny pieces of those wearing Si batch, comparing just one decade ago.
Incidentally, their decision really match car makers’ worry. After sedan, coupe, convertible, hatch, and even minivan… what did they need to do to explore “new market”? Especially European players, their high development and labor cost stop them exporting skinny-profit small cars to States. (I never understand why they don’t build factory in North America to make small cars to save labor and freight like Japanese do.) Japanese plays it so well. While head-scratching, eventually Mercedes invented American built ML-Class which opened a “new” car segment. Obviously, other car makers never thought Jeep, GM and Land Rover are innovators.
The game was playing very well. Other manufacturers follow leader’s path happily. BMW and Porsche rolled out the fake and real offroaders. Toyota and Mitsubishi transform their utilities to SUV with sedan interior. Nissan and Honda wants a piece of cake of course. And it even attracted new kids Korean Hyundai and Kia. Who still remember the taste of bread and butter?
However, when everyone feels ridiculously hot one day, they point the finger to cars’, specifically SUV’s, exhaust pipe, Who mess the profitable market? The oil companies? The car makers? The governments? The customers? Or the unfriendliest environmentalists? Whatever, the old game’s done and new rule comes. I think Japanese are so ready for the new battle. While American still struggles the internal problem, do they really have money and energy to deal with the upcoming global warming tide? I wish the Chevrolet Volt can save GM. How about Ford? Mazda2 and Escape Hybrid are definitely not the ultimate solution. I would skip Chrysler for its unknown future.
How about European? I would put it two ways: on engine wise, they are a bit rush but they still have diesel technology to support for a while. Hydrogen and other fuel cell technologies are not going to be mature in near future. And other auxiliary technologies mainly helping gas and diesel engine which definitely not the perfect solution.
On the other hand, how about reducing weight? I think it’s European car makers’ biggest headache. Throughout so many years being chased by Japanese (and now Korean, and soon Chinese), they make cars with “value” to keep themselves on top of the industry. More solid (thicker metal), more comfortable material (extra weight), better design (Thank god. It might not come with weight penalty but really sells). I had driven many Japanese (Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infinite, Mazda, Subaru) and German (VW/Audi, MB, Bimmer/Mini) cars. I really found German makers seriously put effort to make you love their cars. Every manufacturer has their own driving character and their models have similar characteristics but you still can differentiate which is which. Other than driving, they also work so hard to keep you in the driver seat and never want to turn off the engine. They always give you “value”. If you love these subjective values, you would also make excuse for their “minor” reliability (it’s much improved now) problems. However, for Japanese cars, I can’t really differentiate on daily driving basis. Yes, I can, but just limited. I can tell if I am driving an Integra/RSX or an Impreza RS, a Camry or an Accord. But it seems that all steering wheel is same light if not same size. Japanese cars are good, but definitely not something car nuts wants to die for.
I go too far… What I really mean is, if European cars really need to work on light weight, they really have a lot of pounds to cut. But is it what they wants? Does newly replaced material can maintain the luxury atmosphere? Can thinner body shell give such good sound when door close? Can new thinner and lighter cloth be a more comfortable seat cover at same or cheaper cost but give more expensive feel? Does there really cheaper and lighter materials which still give the better value exist? I really worry if one day European makers build cars in Japanese way.
Personally, I am favourable with European cars. I believe they will find ways to solve all the problem we wonder. But on the other hand, I still hope GM and Ford can fight for the next golden era. American have the ability and flexibility to learn, restructure, and thrive again. I believe 20 to 30 years down the road, Shanghai car show would be as important as Frankfurt and Geneva’s. Half century later, people would feel vomiting when they hear the name “internal combustion engine” since all they can remember were just “disgusting smell”.
Mark, I don’t know you personally. But I strongly feel your heart in car industry. From your technical school, I learn more than when I was in real engineering school. I’m buying a car soon and your review MUST influence my buying decision. I have no idea where you can find time and effort to maintain AutoZine after real job and family, in addition of tons of car magazine reading and digesting. If you have 25 hours a day, please let me know how.
Please keep up, I feel fortunate to enjoy some material like this, for free… or should I say “invaluable” be more appropriate?
Best regards,
Kit
April 16th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Clear and well founded analysis.
However, it misses some points. First, the car’s share of total CO2 emission has fallen dramatically since 10-15 years, at least in Western Europe. If other industries would follow it, our problems were by far not as serious. And cars and fuel are already heavily taxed. Has anybody studied wheter how much would the CO2 reduction of other industries cost compared that of the car industry? Seems a reasonable question when China opens a coal plant every week without any environmental measures. And that is where we might ask how environmantal friendly are those fuel cell and plug-in cars. Splitting H2O costs energy. Plug-in cars get energy from CO2 emitting plants as well (if not from a nuclear or water plant).
Even purchasing a car means a big deal of CO2, manufacturing plants emit as much CO2 per car as the car itself during the half of its lifetime. So you are more eco friendly buying a used v8 petrol car, than with any so-called eco car as brand new!
Anyway, let me agree with the other comment how good this site is. Working in the automotive industry i also find it highly useful and entertaining. For getting into this industry i can even say it was “invaluable”. By the way, AutoZine is 10 years old, any special article to celebrate the anniversary?
April 20th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Mr. Wan,
Thanks for the excellent site (I have been reading since the late ’90s).
I appreciate your analysis of how global warming affects the automotive industry. Because I am from the US, I was wondering how you view Bush’s strong focus on ethanol as an alternative fuel. It seems that most public research dollars are being spent here, so hybrid “plug-in” technology (and, by extension, solar and wind power) are left out.
Realistically, I think that ethanol is better than gasoline because it does not involve the creation of new C02. (In my understanding, the CO2 released from burning ethanol is reabsorbed by the plants used to produce the ethanol in the first place. I heat my house with wood for similar reasons.) However, I recently came across an article stating that ethanol burning results in air pollution (excluding CO2) that is just as bad, if not worse, as pollution from burning gasoline.
Also, the major crop used to produce ethanol today is corn, so as ethanol production has increased, corn prices have risen. This may not matter much for rich Americans, but might be a problem for poorer countries.
What are your thoughts on Bush’s policy of promoting ethanol as the answer to car-based greenhouse gases?