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)

Renault's ZEs... driven by Autocar, confirmed for production

Renault will be the first major car manufacturer in the world to offer a range of zero-emissions all-electric vehicles for sale when the Twizy and Zoe go into production in 2011.

The French manufacturer is taking quite a risk given that this will leave many countries with only a short space of time in which to set up a reasonable electric charging infrastructure, though according to Autocar magazine who feature the three Renault ZE concepts this week, Israel and Denmark have both made commitments to importing 100,000 electric Fluence models by 2012. Renault will be establishing a network of "Quickdrop" centres (areas where ZE customers can take their car to have the entire battery unit changed for a fully-charged on in around three minutes) in these countries.

The Twizy

The Twizy microcar is the smallest of Renault's ZE (Zero-Emissions) concepts and has been confirmed for production in Spain in 2011. The car/scooter is a tandem two seater and is designed solely for city driving, with performance similar to that of a 125cc scooter (topping out at around 50mph). Range is short at roughly 60 miles, but realistically you don't need any more than that in a city commute and even in a city like London you should be able to get at least a couple of days' commuting out of it. As you can see in Autocar's video above, the Twizy is apparently quite fun to drive.

The Zoe

The Zoe is supermini-sized (only slightly larger than a Clio) though unlike the Twizy and the larger Fluence, the styling might well change significantly for production. Renault say the Zoe is more representative of what can be done in terms of size. Range is around 100 miles and the motor makes the equivalent of 95bhp giving a 90mph top speed.

The Fluence

Looking more production-ready than either the Twizy or the Zoe is the Fluence. Styling-wise it shares hints of Renault's 2005 Fluence concept as well as a hint of Tesla Model S. However, it's likely to look much more similar to the production petrol and diesel Fluence that appears to be replacing the old Megane saloon. The concept has the same powertrain as the Zoe and shares similar performance and range.

Renault are clearly taking a large risk putting four EVs on sale at the same time (the fourth is an EV version of the current Kangoo van) but this may well be the kick other manufacturers (and indeed customers) need to embrace electric car technology. We await 2011-12 eagerly to see if customers are ready to take the plunge...

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.

Rhymes with "scrap"

A while back I wrote about the RAC's suggestion that cars over 18 years old should be scrapped. I was a bit worried about this, as a body such as the RAC is respected enough that even the government might listen to it on occasion. Since then I haven't heard anything further on that particular plan, but what you might well have noticed in the UK more recently is the government's plan to offer £2000 towards a brand new car if you're trading in one more than 10 years old. The ten year old car will then be scrapped - as naturally, it's going to be more polluting than something brand new. In theory.

As I pointed out in my last story, the figure that the government always goes on is the CO2 figure. A useful figure, undoubtably, and we all want to do our bit to reduce CO2. But then it's not really a relevant figure for judging anything, because it's more or less directly correlated to fuel consumption, a figure that we've been using as a yardstick for years. And lets not forget, we already get taxed according to how much fuel we use in a very natural way - the more fuel we put in our cars, the more we pay in tax. The current taxation based on CO2 is basically a second fuel tax, only less fairly applied as it's indiscriminate as to how much a car is used. It's perhaps unfair for a Ferrari owner who does 1000 miles a year to pay a vast amount on road tax, when someone in a "green" Prius might do 20,000 miles a year and pay nothing under the current rules.

Anyway, I digress - I should be talking about the new scrappage scheme. On the face of it, all appears well. You trade in your ten year old banger, and the government and the manufacturer each give you £1000 towards your new car.

Anyone else spotted the deliberate mistake yet? If you're driving around in a £2000 "banger", what is the likelihood you're financially in a position to buy a brand new car, even with a couple of grand lining your pockets? The cheapest new car on sale in the UK at the moment is the Perodua Kelisa which starts at about £4600. Incredible value undoubtably but very possibly worse than virtually any ten year old car worth about £2000. I recently drove an 11 year old Honda Civic 1.5 VTEC, which uses lean burn technology to achieve a very respectable 44mpg on the combined cycle, and still offers good performance, unquestionable reliability and a large dealer network, yet second hand costs around a grand. Even if you were then loony enough to want to trade this in for a Kelisa, you'd still have to find an extra £2600 from somewhere. So you'd then take out a loan, which is exactly what put us in the economic mess we're currently facing in the first place.

Would you trade Civic for Kenari? Are you reading this from a padded cell? (Perodua image: Parker's)

And remember, that's if you wanted the very cheapest new car on sale. Unless you've been saving like a magpie for the last five years and are vaguely financially secure (and yet somehow still manage to have a 10+ year old car instead of a newish one anyway), then I really can't see how the cashback offer is going to benefit many people. The gulf is even greater if you want to trade that ten year old BMW compact for a shiny new 1-series (even with the additional £1260 BMW are offering on a 116i Sport), or even a rusty old Clio for a brand new airconditioned one that's safer than houses. Manufacturer participation is optional, and some have declined to take part reasoning that it will offer neither themselves nor their potential customers any benefit.

I only hope the sceme will be useful to those who really can benefit from it before the whole thing is declared a massive failure and pulled. Hopefully in the meantime it won't take too many of the good decade-old cars off the road like the Civic above, because for some of us, those are the cars we can actually afford.

If you do want to read more about the scrappage scheme, there's a useful FAQ here: http://www.ukscrappage.co.uk/

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)

Murray's Models - new T.25 in miniature

Gordon Murray's hotly anticipated revolutionary city car, codenamed the T.25, has been revealed in more detail in a series of models. The dioramas, revealed on Murray's website, illustrate some of the important features of Murray's new Mini and the reduction in environmental impact compared to other small cars.


If the amorphous green toy is anything to go by, the T.25 will be smaller even than the current king tiddler, the smart ForTwo, yet the car will apparently be safe enough to achieve a four-star Euro NCAP crash rating. Given that the four-seat Toyota iQ has just achieved the full five stars, and the smart has received four, this doesn't seem an unachievable feat. Some of the other figures are impressive too. The T.25 will apparently need only 20% of the factory space that a normal car requires, and twelve times as many body in whites can be transported in a shipping container as compared to the same for an average car. Lifetime CO2 from production to destruction is projected to be 40% lower, and the car will produce a tonne less of CO2 emissions per year.



The pictures also illustrate how there will be several variations on the same platform, and how three cars can fit into the average parking space.

The whole project is fascinating, and I join the rest of the automotive world in anticipation of viewing the finished product. Unfortunately at this stage, there is no word as to when this might be.

All images © Gordon Murray

Bike hire hits London in 2010

Following the lead taken by cities like Paris and Barcelona, Transport for London has revealed plans for introducing a cycle hire scheme. The move is being used as a way of promoting healthy and environmentally friendly transport, and alleviating congestion both on roads and on the tube.

TfL plan to introduce 400 cycle stations with 10,500 docking points, and 6,000 bicycles up for hire. The high number of docking points should allow users to drop their bike off pretty much anywhere they like, and the scheme is aimed not just at residents and commuters, but also for the millions of tourists who visit the capital every year. A small poll on the TfL site reveals that commuting will still be the most popular single use for the bikes, but currently almost half the respondents will use the bikes for multiple activities.

I wouldn't normally cover non-car related stories on Tarmac, but as I'm soon to be a bicycle user myself, the news is particularly significant. Although I'm not a resident of London, the potential success of the scheme could open the floodgates for other cities around the country to launch similar initiatives, which would be great news. This is the sort of positive action councils should be taking in order to encourage people onto other methods of transport, rather than simply trying to discourage them from driving, as methods like congestion charging do.

The action in London is also a positive step to reducing congestion and emissions under their new mayor. After the huge legal battle previous Mayor Ken Livingstone has recently lost against Porsche, the sports car maker has donated the £375,000 payout to charity. Porsche argued that the proposed £25 a day charge was disproportionate and unfair, and were even able to prove that it would result in increased emissions in the capital. Maybe the cycle scheme should use Porsche bikes?...

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...