Where are the Green Fuel Efficient Cars?

The marketing and PR spin of many automobile manufacturers is downright laughable. The way GM presents itself in its current crop of TV ads would make you think they are the world leader in saving the planet! Aside from 1 or 2 rather unimpressive hybrids from the Saturn division, there is absolutely nothing in their lineup with any environmental or fuel efficient attributes. What really got me going about this was the latest PR from BMW, a manufacturer that has mainly very thirsty vehicles in their lineup. What really riles me about these puff pieces is that the technology to save fuel has been around for so long, but manufacturing and marketing decisions keep mainly what is under the hood away from the usual criteria people use to buy a car. For example, the steady weight gains of cars in recent years may be a testament to more rigid chassis design and safety, but this flies in the face of what modern CAD structure design software should have delivered in terms of performance in vehicle design.

In the case of the BMW 118d, there are some pretty obvious engineering decisions that improve fuel efficiency that have been known for years, such as flaps behind the grill and preheating intake air to improve cold weather thermal efficiency. In fact in the days before mass airflow sensors, this was quite common. Where is this technology now? (My Mazda6 actually has a heat riser in the intake air box, and I attribute my good fuel economy and fast warmups in the winter to this feature).

The other thing is low rolling resistance tires. Aside from this single source of information that dates from 2005, I dare anyone to try and make a tire buying decision based on rolling resistance data. Considering how much fuel can be saved, I find it beyond belief that rolling resistance is not one of the main performance criteria for tires.

Of course this is about a shift in consciousness in the consumer public, but at the moment it can be very frustrating to make a green decision about the cars we drive, and how we maintain them.

2009 Mazda6 First Drives on the net (disappointing)

I am a very pleased owner of a 2007 GS (4 cylinder), so I am a bit disappointed in Mazda with the (North American) 2009 Mazda6. The new car is bigger (the size of a Camry or Accord), heavier, and less fuel efficient. It is actually bigger than a Ford Fusion (same platform) in both wheelbase, length and curb weight.

My feeling is Mazda wanted to keep costs down, and just took Ford's chassis improvements from the Fusion and put new sheet metal. The only improvement I feel worthy of mentioning is a shorter turning radius (the current model is really huge, and the only minor complaint I have).

The new car is disappointing much like the 2009 Acura TSX, which also seems to have lost its lineage with the JDM and European Honda Accord. The world is going to smaller cars, and I don't think trying to cater to a diminishing market by mimicking the class leaders is a great strategy.

Too bad we aren't getting the world car (Atenza) which is actually lighter, more fuel efficient and more powerful than the outgoing model. I suspect this will not go over here in Quebec, where we love small cars, and where the current 6 is very popular. In fact when I bought my 2007 I was actually shopping for a smaller car, and did not even consider a mid-size. As the smallest mid-size car, it was a great compromise and a truly excellent value.

I think Mazda is blowing it much like Honda has done with the Civic, Acura RSX and TSX, by trying to be more Toyota like. I am not sure they understand that Toyotas are really for people who want trouble-free appliances and not a driving experience.

Check out the comments on the Car & Driver website, I don't seem to be alone.

Link.