Facelifted Elise - lower drag, new engine

Autocar brings news that Lotus has given the Elise a mild facelift and some new mechanicals. The new look brings the car in line with the styling of the Evora, but importantly also reduces drag which, combined with the new engine option, improves fuel economy and reduces emissions.

That new engine is a VVTi Toyota powerplant similar to those currently used in the Elise, but in a new 1.6 litre displacement. The new motor will power the basic Elise S model, and reduces emissions to 155g/km of CO2. As a conservative estimate, fuel economy should be in the early forties mpg, yet coupled to a new close-ratio six-speed gearbox, performance even from the basic 1.6 should be as impressive as ever.

The car is expected to start arriving in showrooms in April.

(Image: Autocar)

Volkswagen 1-litre concept one step closer

News arrives via AutoBlogGreen that Volkswagen's 1-litre concept is still under development and nearing production reality.
The concept, now being named the L1, will be on display at the upcoming Frankfurt Motor Show and Volkswagen have released more details about the car and the engine that will be powering it in a press release that you can read in full on ABG's page.

The 1L has a 0.8 litre TDI developed from Volkswagen's new 1.6 TDI that makes its debut in the new Golf and Passat BlueMotion. Along with automatic stop-start, a 0.195 coefficient of drag and thanks to an all-in weight of only 380kg, the 1L is claimed to sip one US gallon of fuel every 170 miles, or 204mpg imperial (and only 36 grammes per kilometer of CO2). This works out at a little over the original 1l/100km that Volkswagen claimed, though I'm sure owners wouldn't complain as the eventual figure is still only 1.38 litres per 100km. Thanks to the light weight and slippery shape, the 1L also manages 100mph.
Volkswagen are now giving the car a tentative 2013 release date. Should give you time to save up...

(Image credits: Volkswagen)

Letter to Auto Express

I don't often feel compelled to write in to motoring magazines. Actually, I tell a lie. I often feel compelled, but rarely follow through with the desire.

However, Auto Express columnist Mike Rutherford (who also writes for The Times and The Telegraph) has finally irritated me enough to put digit to keyboard in his column for the 17-23 June issue of Auto Express. I shan't replicate his column in full - Mr Rutherdford aside the magazine is still one of the better motoring titles out there and this issue has an interesting comparison test between old and new Mazda MX-5s. But I digress.

Mr Rutherford writes: "If we're to believe those in authority and their ecomental pals, global warming is the greatest threat to mankind. The allegation is that the phenomenon will kill untold millions of people and places. What's more, some mentalist 'experts' deviously give the impression that CO2 emissions from 'murderous' motor cars are largely or entirely to blame for scorching the earth and allowing the planet and its inhabitants to crash and burn.

"I hear what they're saying, and I acknowledge their right to express their own opinions and predictions. But can we have less of the crystal ball gazing and scaremongering, and more of the hard facts, please? Where is the unbiased, incontrovertible, compelling evidence which proves beyond doubt that global warming will, on its own, destroy earth and mankind?"

He goes on to say: "When was the last time you actually heard any of the leading political parties even mention the T word [transport], let alone say what, if elected, they intend to do with the roads, rails, waterways and sky routes?"

The rest of his column devolved into a rather dull bash at politicians who've done far worse things than to not mention transport policy in their manifestos. Anyway, after adding weeks, months and years worth of straw with Mr Rutherford's smug columns, the camel's back finally succummed:

"Perhaps if Mike Rutherford is to get the unbiased evidence of man-made global warming he desires, he should first avoid biasing his column too far in the other direction. Labelling those who consider motor vehicles to be a large component of global warming "mentalists" is ignorant and arrogant. Regardless of whether Mr Rutherford likes their findings or not, these are still the findings of scientists which still hold more weight than the smug rantings of a mouthy motoring journalist. Indeed, Mr Rutherford is not even being forced to believe these findings and there are many, many other theories out there which he conveniently ignores in order to propogate an opinion that has already been done to death in the motoring media.

"Oh, and last time I checked, Mayor of London Boris Johnson was a Conservative MP, and he mentions "the T word" [transport] quite frequently, and I seem to remember his transport policy was instrumental in his election as Mayor. Perhaps Mr Rutherford is looking in the wrong places for his own research.

"Global warming probably didn't kill the dinosaurs, but perhaps Mr Rutherford is worried that environmental issues will wipe out the dinosaur journalists?"

It remains to be seen whether my letter will merit inclusion in the comments section of the magazine, but if it does I'll update the blog with the response, if any. Who knows, I may even receive an email from Mr Rutherford himself.

The numbers have it: UK car CO2 emissions are falling fast

If ever there was a sign that times are tough and people are trading down to more efficient cars, it's the sharp reduction in the average CO₂ emissions of cars sold in the UK from 2007 to 2008.

Average emissions have dropped by over 5g/km in the past year, continuing a trend that's seen CO₂ plummet by over 30g/km in the last ten years. 2008's figures show a significant fall however, suggesting that the current economic climate, the spike in the price of fuel last year and purse-strings generally being tightened across the country are resulting in people buying much more economical cars than they may have in more favourable times. The figures have been outlined by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) More of the results are illustrated below.

(Images: SMMT)

The trend can also be attributed to the huge efforts that manufacturers have made in recent years too. BMW recently launched their 116d, the most fuel efficient BMW currently available, capable of over 50mpg and with CO₂ emissions as low as 118g/km. Many companies now offer stop-start technology which significantly reduces fuel consumption in city traffic, and companies like Mazda with their 2 and Volkswagen with their upcoming new Polo have worked hard to reduce weight, allowing smaller and more efficient engines to be used without compromising on performance. Volkswagen recently unveiled the new Polo Bluemotion concept at the Geneva Motor Show, which sips a gallon of fuel as infrequently as every 85 miles. It also manages to look very handsome indeed.

With cars such as these, expect the current trend to continue.

(Image: AutoBlogGreen)

RAC: Scrap cars over 18 years old?

For a body that is often found fighting for the rights of the motorist and the car itself, the RAC's subsiduary, the RAC Foundation, has just released a confusing report suggesting that cars older than 18 years should be be scrapped in an attempt to "clean up" the roads. 18 years ago was the general time that the majority of cars started being fitted with catalytic converters. First impressions seem to suggest that cars older than this, then, are "dirty".

Whilst the RAC is not suggesting by any means that all cars older than this should immediately be destroyed, the report is still worrying, in that a body such as the RAC has a voice that can be heard by the government. The government aren't known for the subtlety by which they execute ideas, so I'm sure I'm not the only petrolhead who has images of a bill being passed through the Commons making all cars made before 1990 illegal.

Much of the RAC's report, available here (.pfd file) makes sense, but they worryingly refer to the scrapping plans increasing demand for new cars. This, in my eyes, has a few problems.

Firstly, the sort of people who own cars this old are either people who consider them classics, and therefore have deliberately bought them instead of buying a newer car, and those who struggle to afford even a car half that age so buy an older car through sheer necessity. Consumers in the first group are likely to be better equipped to keep their cars, under grounds that they're likely to be well-maintained and not too "dirty" anyway. Even if they do end up having to go to the scrapper, they might be in more of a position to afford something newer. Consumers in the second group might not be so lucky. Even with the small financial incentives that will be offered should any sort of scheme go ahead, they may not be able to reasonably afford a newer car. Many of either group might struggle to afford a new car, which is what the scheme is incentivising.

Secondly, the RAC keep referring to pollution as the CO2 figure (a trend echoed by the government). CO2 is directly proportional to fuel efficiency, so a car made in 1990 that does 30mpg will be producing roughly the same CO2 as one that's been made in 2008. The RAC provide figures showing that average CO2 has decreased by 16.4% since 1997, but this is much more indicative of the trend towards diesels than it is the trend for less polluting cars. And diesels produce very different particulates than the petrol engined cars that were more prolific back in 1990 anyway.

If we're to compare like-for-like, a 1990 BMW 318i should do around 35mpg in normal useage (and capable of much more), judging by various owners' reports found around the internet. The model that followed (91-98) did... 35mpg. The following model did a whopping... erm, 35mpg. The latest model (05-) does 38mpg according to official figures. Only the very latest version released this year, thanks to BMW's Efficient Dynamics program, climbs significantly to 47mpg (though it remains to be seen whether this is achievable in day-to-day use). The bottom line is that the CO2 rating will have stayed roughly the same for a good 17 years.


Old: 35mpg; New: only 3mpg better
This brings me onto the third point - that a car that's been well engineered in the first place (like the early 3-series above) and well maintained throughout its life will likely be kinder to the environment than many badly engineered and maintained vehicles half it's age. Not to mention that subsequent users aren't adding to the global carbon footprint by buying used, wheras new buyers are each contributing to the share of CO2 that the production of their car has caused, before the key has even been turned for the first time. Now obviously, it's unrealistic to assume that we should stop buying new cars to cut down on global CO2, but at the same time it's clear that scrapping anything older than 18 years is the answer either.

I'd personally be suggesting that pollution from any age of car could be reduced by additional driver training to enable people to extract the maximum efficiency from their chosen vehicles, but that's another subject for another day.

If you're the owner of an older car in the UK I wouldn't get worried just yet, but don't let that stop you thinking of some good excuses either...