Cadillac’s Tiniest Car Is Also One Of Its Most Technologically Advanced
Five futuristic features in the new compact sedan
Long a purveyor of lumbering land barges, Cadillac has released its first compact sedan in more than 30 years: the ATS. Engineers designed the ATS to compete with BMW’s renowned 3-Series. To make it fast and agile, they replaced heavy steel components with aluminum, drilled “lightening holes” in structural parts, and slimmed down the fasteners that hold components together. Then they added the gadgetry, including seats that vibrate to deliver safety warnings and a capacitive navigation screen that pulses upon touch.
Feedback screen
With Cadillac’s CUE system, the driver controls the console’s central touchscreen as he would a smartphone—by sliding, tapping, and pinching. To let the driver feel what he’s doing, the capacitive screen delivers fingertip pulses when he presses a button or operates a slider. Meanwhile, natural-voice-recognition software makes it easy to give vocal commands.
Helpful vibrations
When the cameras and sensors mounted around the car detect that a driver is straying from his lane or veering toward an obstacle, motors in the seat-cushion vibrate on whichever side requires the driver’s attention. Threats from the front or rear trigger pulses in both sides of the cushion.
Quick-change suspension
Cadillac pioneered driver-adjustable magnetic suspension, which uses magnetically charged fluid (rather than mechanical shocks) to absorb blows from the road. Changing the stiffness of the suspension is just a matter of adjusting the strength of the magnetic field, which the driver can do by pressing a button.
Compressed power
A turbocharged, 272hp 2.0-liter four-cylinder pushes the ATS from 0 to 60 mph in 5.7 seconds while still getting 32 mpg on the highway. (The base model comes with a 2.5-liter four-cylinder; a 321hp, 3.6-liter V6 is also available.) Bose active noise cancellation quells unwanted sound from the engine compartment by transmitting a canceling frequency through the audio speakers.
Wind cheaters
Underbody panels run from front to rear, reducing aerodynamic drag and lift. Even the rear suspension’s lower control arms are shielded with composite pieces to make air flow more smoothly.
2013 CADILLAC ATS
0–60 MPH: 5.7 seconds (with 2.0-liter turbo four)
Price: From $35,795
Long a purveyor of lumbering land barges, Cadillac has released its first compact sedan in more than 30 years: the ATS. Engineers designed the ATS to compete with BMW’s renowned 3-Series. To make it fast and agile, they replaced heavy steel components with aluminum, drilled “lightening holes” in structural parts, and slimmed down the fasteners that hold components together. Then they added the gadgetry, including seats that vibrate to deliver safety warnings and a capacitive navigation screen that pulses upon touch.
Feedback screen
With Cadillac’s CUE system, the driver controls the console’s central touchscreen as he would a smartphone—by sliding, tapping, and pinching. To let the driver feel what he’s doing, the capacitive screen delivers fingertip pulses when he presses a button or operates a slider. Meanwhile, natural-voice-recognition software makes it easy to give vocal commands.
Helpful vibrations
When the cameras and sensors mounted around the car detect that a driver is straying from his lane or veering toward an obstacle, motors in the seat-cushion vibrate on whichever side requires the driver’s attention. Threats from the front or rear trigger pulses in both sides of the cushion.
Quick-change suspension
Cadillac pioneered driver-adjustable magnetic suspension, which uses magnetically charged fluid (rather than mechanical shocks) to absorb blows from the road. Changing the stiffness of the suspension is just a matter of adjusting the strength of the magnetic field, which the driver can do by pressing a button.
Compressed power
A turbocharged, 272hp 2.0-liter four-cylinder pushes the ATS from 0 to 60 mph in 5.7 seconds while still getting 32 mpg on the highway. (The base model comes with a 2.5-liter four-cylinder; a 321hp, 3.6-liter V6 is also available.) Bose active noise cancellation quells unwanted sound from the engine compartment by transmitting a canceling frequency through the audio speakers.
Wind cheaters
Underbody panels run from front to rear, reducing aerodynamic drag and lift. Even the rear suspension’s lower control arms are shielded with composite pieces to make air flow more smoothly.
2013 CADILLAC ATS
0–60 MPH: 5.7 seconds (with 2.0-liter turbo four)
Price: From $35,795
Innovations In Driving: Turbochargers
How everyday engines got their boost
The goal of most forms of racing technology is to allow cars to go faster. Obviously. But what isn’t necessarily so clear is that speed is usually achieved by enhancing efficiency, which is why so many technological advances originally developed for motorsports have trickled down to the most prosaic street cars on public roads. Thus, disc brakes provide more stopping power at the cost of less weight. Fuel injection allows gasoline to be delivered more accurately to the cylinders. Wings redirect airflow to provide more grip for cornering.
Turbocharging is a relatively new addition to this list. Not the technology itself, which dates back nearly a century. But for several decades, turbocharging was thought to be useful only for racing, and when it made the transition to the street-car world, it was found almost exclusively on high-horsepower sports cars. Now, mainstream manufacturers are incorporating turbo-charging as a way to make small, fuel-efficient engines viable—and rewarding, from a driving standpoint—powerplants for workaday sedans and no-nonsense econoboxes.
Turbochargers take advantage of a principle known as forced induction. Generally speaking, the more air that goes into the cylinders of an engine, the more power it produces. In a normally aspirated engine, air is sucked into the cylinders as the pistons move down, much like fluid is drawn into a syringe. Early on, engineers realized they could dramatically increase power by cramming more air into the combustion chamber. So during the 1920s and 1930s, they developed a component called a supercharger, which is an air compressor geared or attached by a belt to the engine. As the engine turned, the supercharger would turn even faster, and the super-charger would force far more air into the intake manifold than a normally aspirated engine could ever manage. Superchargers, colloquially known as blowers, are still standard equipment on the Top Fuel and funny cars that dominate drag racing.
The big knock on superchargers was that the act of spinning them robbed the engine of power. So instead of using the engine to turn the blower, some clever engineers came up with the bright idea of harnessing exhaust gases to spin a turbine that forced air into the intake manifold. Once upon a time, this was known as an exhaust gas turbine supercharger, but this mouthful was long ago shortened to turbocharger. Here’s a video showing how it works:
Conceptually, the turbocharger seems like a no-brainer—a something-for-nothing solution. But turbos come with their own baggage. First of all, they generate a lot of heat, and early turbos used to melt down if they weren’t cooled properly before the engine was shut off. Second, it takes a while for the turbine to spool up, which causes a pronounced delay, known as turbo lag, between the time you step on the pedal and the engine starts to deliver power. This meant turbos worked best with engines that ran at lower speeds and at relatively constant rates. So while superchargers reigned supreme in the racing world before World War II, turbochargers were fitted to plenty of high-flying airplanes. This Army Air Forces training film provides some technical details:
After the war, engine manufacturers realized that turbos were a good fit for the low-revving, heavy-duty engines found in commercial trucks. To promote this new technology, Cummins developed a turbocharged diesel for the Indianapolis 500, and it qualified on the pole in 1952. Indy proved to be a good venue for turbocharged engines since the high-speed nature of the track meant turbo lag wasn’t a showstopper. Turbos allowed venerable Offenhausen engines—whose basic architecture dated back to the Great Depression—to win Indy in 1968, and continue winning at the Brickyard until 1976. The following year, Renault introduced the first turbo-charged engine to Formula 1. Two years after that, Renault won its first Grand Prix, and by the end of the next decade, turbocharging was standard equipment in F1. Watch one of these beasts–good for up to 1,400 horsepower in qualifying trim–in action:
Lamentably, the qualities that made turbos so successful on the racetrack didn’t translate very well to daily drivers. GM marketed turbocharged versions of the Chevrolet Corvair and Oldsmobile Jetfire in the 1960s, but both were dismal failures. The Mercedes-Benz 300TD turbo diesel, introduced in 1978, is generally considered to be the first successful production vehicle to feature turbocharging, and even it was an acquired taste. But modern units are so sophisticated that neither turbo lag nor excessive heat are major issues. In fact, a lot of people could drive cars equipped with today’s turbocharged engines and fail to realize that they had a blower under the hood. Or realize that their motors contained technology that originally was proven on the race-track.
The goal of most forms of racing technology is to allow cars to go faster. Obviously. But what isn’t necessarily so clear is that speed is usually achieved by enhancing efficiency, which is why so many technological advances originally developed for motorsports have trickled down to the most prosaic street cars on public roads. Thus, disc brakes provide more stopping power at the cost of less weight. Fuel injection allows gasoline to be delivered more accurately to the cylinders. Wings redirect airflow to provide more grip for cornering.
Turbocharging is a relatively new addition to this list. Not the technology itself, which dates back nearly a century. But for several decades, turbocharging was thought to be useful only for racing, and when it made the transition to the street-car world, it was found almost exclusively on high-horsepower sports cars. Now, mainstream manufacturers are incorporating turbo-charging as a way to make small, fuel-efficient engines viable—and rewarding, from a driving standpoint—powerplants for workaday sedans and no-nonsense econoboxes.
Turbochargers take advantage of a principle known as forced induction. Generally speaking, the more air that goes into the cylinders of an engine, the more power it produces. In a normally aspirated engine, air is sucked into the cylinders as the pistons move down, much like fluid is drawn into a syringe. Early on, engineers realized they could dramatically increase power by cramming more air into the combustion chamber. So during the 1920s and 1930s, they developed a component called a supercharger, which is an air compressor geared or attached by a belt to the engine. As the engine turned, the supercharger would turn even faster, and the super-charger would force far more air into the intake manifold than a normally aspirated engine could ever manage. Superchargers, colloquially known as blowers, are still standard equipment on the Top Fuel and funny cars that dominate drag racing.
The big knock on superchargers was that the act of spinning them robbed the engine of power. So instead of using the engine to turn the blower, some clever engineers came up with the bright idea of harnessing exhaust gases to spin a turbine that forced air into the intake manifold. Once upon a time, this was known as an exhaust gas turbine supercharger, but this mouthful was long ago shortened to turbocharger. Here’s a video showing how it works:
Conceptually, the turbocharger seems like a no-brainer—a something-for-nothing solution. But turbos come with their own baggage. First of all, they generate a lot of heat, and early turbos used to melt down if they weren’t cooled properly before the engine was shut off. Second, it takes a while for the turbine to spool up, which causes a pronounced delay, known as turbo lag, between the time you step on the pedal and the engine starts to deliver power. This meant turbos worked best with engines that ran at lower speeds and at relatively constant rates. So while superchargers reigned supreme in the racing world before World War II, turbochargers were fitted to plenty of high-flying airplanes. This Army Air Forces training film provides some technical details:
After the war, engine manufacturers realized that turbos were a good fit for the low-revving, heavy-duty engines found in commercial trucks. To promote this new technology, Cummins developed a turbocharged diesel for the Indianapolis 500, and it qualified on the pole in 1952. Indy proved to be a good venue for turbocharged engines since the high-speed nature of the track meant turbo lag wasn’t a showstopper. Turbos allowed venerable Offenhausen engines—whose basic architecture dated back to the Great Depression—to win Indy in 1968, and continue winning at the Brickyard until 1976. The following year, Renault introduced the first turbo-charged engine to Formula 1. Two years after that, Renault won its first Grand Prix, and by the end of the next decade, turbocharging was standard equipment in F1. Watch one of these beasts–good for up to 1,400 horsepower in qualifying trim–in action:
Lamentably, the qualities that made turbos so successful on the racetrack didn’t translate very well to daily drivers. GM marketed turbocharged versions of the Chevrolet Corvair and Oldsmobile Jetfire in the 1960s, but both were dismal failures. The Mercedes-Benz 300TD turbo diesel, introduced in 1978, is generally considered to be the first successful production vehicle to feature turbocharging, and even it was an acquired taste. But modern units are so sophisticated that neither turbo lag nor excessive heat are major issues. In fact, a lot of people could drive cars equipped with today’s turbocharged engines and fail to realize that they had a blower under the hood. Or realize that their motors contained technology that originally was proven on the race-track.
Invisibility, No Brake Lights, Ads Everywhere: The Future Of Self-Driving Cars
Car designer Chris Bangle has spent years designing forward-thinking vehicles, so now, with self-driving cars just legalized in California, we decided to pick his brain on what's next for the automobile that no longer needs its master.
Today's self-driving cars mostly look like the human-commanded variety; they just act automatically. But as they become more viable for mass consumption--by 2020, Bangle believes--they'll need to be streamlined. Here are some thoughts assembled from Chris Bangle Associates S.R.L. about what the car--if there is a "car"--might look like when it's ubiquitous, in 2050.
There are three main categories that a discussion about self-driving cars can fit into, Bangle says.
YOU INSIDE OF CARS
It's the future. All that stuff in your car's cabin? You'd think we wouldn't need it, freeing us from the tyranny of the steering wheel forever. Theoretically, Bangle says, seating position could change several ways, making it closer to the way a bus is designed, for instance. But that doesn't necessarily mean everything we associate with driving will be done away with. As an example: "Do you have to wear seatbelts in a taxi? Yes. Do you drive the taxi? No."
There's also the matter of how far into the future we're talking about. A still-drivable self-driving car--in other words, one that functions both ways--might act as a stopgap toward a full-fledged driverless vehicle, but in the meantime, designers won't be taking anything out that's necessary for traditional driving.
CARS RELATIVE TO CARS
Self-driving cars (fully self-driving ones, since we've made that distinction) might not rely as heavily on "optical signals," Bangle says. Headlights, brake lights, other forms of automatic communication--those were created for humans, and if the humans deem them unnecessary, we might go without.
Bangle also points to the so-called "invisible Mercedes," which uses LED lights to blend into its environment. If we're not there to cause the accidents between cars, and if the cars can handle the driving on their own, why not put the cars out of our vision entirely?
CARS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Some of this category ties into our already-changing attitudes about cars. Younger demographics are less interested in cars, Bangle points out. If we make those cars self-driving, they might be seen by consumers as the same as an automated taxi, even if they own the deeds to those taxis. If that happens, we might want something else out of our cars: we don't care what a taxi looks like, after all, so maybe a point-a-to-point-b machine would be enough. Ownership in general gets "put into question" with self-driving cars, he says: what does a parking space mean when the car parks itself?
As Bangle sees it, that mindset might also have effects in advertising. Maybe car owners could earn money for featuring a company's logo. When we're not in control of cars, our sense of ownership could dwindle, at least psychologically. If that happens, we might be more open to using them for advertisements.
Those shifting attitudes don't make Bangle particular upset. The field could use "some new references," he says. "I think self-driving cars can do that. They'll make us think again."
Parking Software Lets Drivers Buy And Sell Info About Available Spaces
Financial incentives are more likely than simple goodwill to result in reliable information.
Rather than hunting for an empty parking spot, or even getting out and letting your empty car hunt for you, a new system relies on good old-fashioned capitalism to find open spaces. With TruCentive, drivers can buy and sell information about available spots.
It’s not the first software system designed to crowdsource free parking — even Google was in the game at one point with its now-defunct Open Spot. But it is the first system to give people incentives for providing information, instead of relying on their goodwill. Baik Hoh and colleagues at Nokia Research Center in Palo Alto believe incentivizing information will make it more reliable, even when it comes from the unreliable mobile masses.
The team started with incentives for providing any parking info at all. Then they assigned value to parking spots according to likely demand. A spot in Manhattan during rush hour would be worth more than a spot at a suburban mall on a weekend, for instance. The more intrinsically valuable the spot, the more money someone can earn by providing information about it. Finally, information providers will also get a bonus if someone actually parks in the available spot. It’s not totally clear how the money would be exchanged, but NewSci says payment could work through something like Facebook credits, wherein people pay real money for virtual credits that can be used to purchase services. It could also conceivably work through PayPal.
The system was presented at the IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference in Anchorage last week. Hoh and colleagues say they tried it out with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing service, and it seems feasible. Now if they would just bring it to downtown during baseball games.
Rather than hunting for an empty parking spot, or even getting out and letting your empty car hunt for you, a new system relies on good old-fashioned capitalism to find open spaces. With TruCentive, drivers can buy and sell information about available spots.
It’s not the first software system designed to crowdsource free parking — even Google was in the game at one point with its now-defunct Open Spot. But it is the first system to give people incentives for providing information, instead of relying on their goodwill. Baik Hoh and colleagues at Nokia Research Center in Palo Alto believe incentivizing information will make it more reliable, even when it comes from the unreliable mobile masses.
The team started with incentives for providing any parking info at all. Then they assigned value to parking spots according to likely demand. A spot in Manhattan during rush hour would be worth more than a spot at a suburban mall on a weekend, for instance. The more intrinsically valuable the spot, the more money someone can earn by providing information about it. Finally, information providers will also get a bonus if someone actually parks in the available spot. It’s not totally clear how the money would be exchanged, but NewSci says payment could work through something like Facebook credits, wherein people pay real money for virtual credits that can be used to purchase services. It could also conceivably work through PayPal.
The system was presented at the IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference in Anchorage last week. Hoh and colleagues say they tried it out with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing service, and it seems feasible. Now if they would just bring it to downtown during baseball games.
Innovations in Driving: Headlights
Once upon a time, drivers had only a ball of wax and a wick to light their way
This past summer, I flew to France to cover the 24 Hours of Le Mans for PopSci. As it happened, I went directly to the track for the first evening of practice after arriving from the airport. When the session ended at midnight, I then had to try to find my hotel, which was about 60 kilometers from the circuit.
Under normal circumstances, it would have been a pleasant hour-long drive on secondary roads that meandered left and right – and up and down – through rolling French countryside. But at that particular moment, it was pitch-dark and raining lightly, and I had to deal with an unfamiliar rental car and torturously complicated directions that took me through several villages and at least nine roundabouts. I was hustling up a mild incline when, all of a sudden, the road seemed to end, and I couldn’t see anything other than an inky void waiting to swallow me up. I experienced an instant of sheer, unadulterated terror before my headlights fixed upon a reflective sign, and I realized that the road was about to crest a hill and bend to the right. This happened several more times that night, nearly giving me a heart attack on each occasion.
The next morning, when I made the drive back to Le Mans in daylight, I realized that there wasn’t anything intrinsically terrifying about the road. This got me to wondering about headlights, which are one of those things that you never really think about – until you realize that your life depends on them.
Many of the fixtures of early automobiles were taken directly from the horse-drawn carriages that preceded them. The first cars were equipped with lamps containing candles. These illuminated the bodywork at night but didn’t throw much useful light and were obviously inadequate once cars started going faster. Oil-fueled lamps came next, but they were soon superseded by acetylene torches. In 1904, Carl Fisher and James Allison formed Prest-O-Lite, whose hissing acetylene contraptions – mounted in front of parabolic mirrors that reflected beams of light – soon dominated the nascent industry. (Part of the immense fortune they earned was used to build the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.) But acetylene lights were dirty and smelly, not to mention prone to exploding. (This Swedish video shows a bicycle lamp in action:)
So in 1912, Cadillac introduced headlights powered by a pioneering electrical system developed by Delco. Electric headlights have been the standard ever since.
A lot of the innovations that we think of as modern actually date back nearly a century. High-low bulbs have been the norm since the 1920s. Retractable headlights were introduced on Gordon Buehrig’s stunning coffin-nose Cord 810 in 1936. Adaptive headlights, which turn to follow the road, debuted on the Czech-built Tatra in 1935. Sealed-beam headlights – still the norm to this day – date from 1939. Halogen lights first appeared back in 1962, moving from the world of rally racing to street cars. These days, it’s hard to do better than the bright, white light thrown by high-intensity discharge (HID) xenon lamps, which were popularized in the 1990s. (Here’s a visual comparison of the effectiveness of halogen and HID lights:)
Federal statistics show that half of all fatal car accidents occur at night, when only one-quarter of all driving is done. This suggests that driving at night is twice as dangerous as driving during the day. But in fact, these numbers are skewed by two major factors. First, people are much more lax about wearing seat belts at night than they are during the day. Second, and far more important, driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs is much more common after dark. Take away these two variables, and there’s not a tremendous disparity between daylight and nighttime fatalities. This is a testament to how well modern headlights work. And it’s why, as I found in France, we freak out when we can’t see the road ahead as well as we’re accustomed to seeing it.
This past summer, I flew to France to cover the 24 Hours of Le Mans for PopSci. As it happened, I went directly to the track for the first evening of practice after arriving from the airport. When the session ended at midnight, I then had to try to find my hotel, which was about 60 kilometers from the circuit.
Under normal circumstances, it would have been a pleasant hour-long drive on secondary roads that meandered left and right – and up and down – through rolling French countryside. But at that particular moment, it was pitch-dark and raining lightly, and I had to deal with an unfamiliar rental car and torturously complicated directions that took me through several villages and at least nine roundabouts. I was hustling up a mild incline when, all of a sudden, the road seemed to end, and I couldn’t see anything other than an inky void waiting to swallow me up. I experienced an instant of sheer, unadulterated terror before my headlights fixed upon a reflective sign, and I realized that the road was about to crest a hill and bend to the right. This happened several more times that night, nearly giving me a heart attack on each occasion.
The next morning, when I made the drive back to Le Mans in daylight, I realized that there wasn’t anything intrinsically terrifying about the road. This got me to wondering about headlights, which are one of those things that you never really think about – until you realize that your life depends on them.
Many of the fixtures of early automobiles were taken directly from the horse-drawn carriages that preceded them. The first cars were equipped with lamps containing candles. These illuminated the bodywork at night but didn’t throw much useful light and were obviously inadequate once cars started going faster. Oil-fueled lamps came next, but they were soon superseded by acetylene torches. In 1904, Carl Fisher and James Allison formed Prest-O-Lite, whose hissing acetylene contraptions – mounted in front of parabolic mirrors that reflected beams of light – soon dominated the nascent industry. (Part of the immense fortune they earned was used to build the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.) But acetylene lights were dirty and smelly, not to mention prone to exploding. (This Swedish video shows a bicycle lamp in action:)
So in 1912, Cadillac introduced headlights powered by a pioneering electrical system developed by Delco. Electric headlights have been the standard ever since.
A lot of the innovations that we think of as modern actually date back nearly a century. High-low bulbs have been the norm since the 1920s. Retractable headlights were introduced on Gordon Buehrig’s stunning coffin-nose Cord 810 in 1936. Adaptive headlights, which turn to follow the road, debuted on the Czech-built Tatra in 1935. Sealed-beam headlights – still the norm to this day – date from 1939. Halogen lights first appeared back in 1962, moving from the world of rally racing to street cars. These days, it’s hard to do better than the bright, white light thrown by high-intensity discharge (HID) xenon lamps, which were popularized in the 1990s. (Here’s a visual comparison of the effectiveness of halogen and HID lights:)
Federal statistics show that half of all fatal car accidents occur at night, when only one-quarter of all driving is done. This suggests that driving at night is twice as dangerous as driving during the day. But in fact, these numbers are skewed by two major factors. First, people are much more lax about wearing seat belts at night than they are during the day. Second, and far more important, driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs is much more common after dark. Take away these two variables, and there’s not a tremendous disparity between daylight and nighttime fatalities. This is a testament to how well modern headlights work. And it’s why, as I found in France, we freak out when we can’t see the road ahead as well as we’re accustomed to seeing it.
Innovations in Driving: Shock Absorbers
The long road to the modern car's smooth ride
The term “shock absorber” is a misnomer. Contrary to the seemingly self-evident meaning of the words, shock absorbers don’t absorb shock. They dampen the oscillations of the springs. Which is why the British name for them – dampers – makes much more sense.
After a spring is deflected, it bounces back past its original position and continues to oscillate until its energy is dissipated by a natural phenomenon known as hysteresis. A heavy-duty spring used in an automobile’s suspension would continue to oscillate for a long, long time if that motion weren’t controlled. Therefore, shock absorbers are fitted to dampen the oscillation. (Technically, shock absorbers transform the kinetic energy produced by suspension travel into thermal energy that’s dissipated by hydraulic fluid.) That’s why the classic shade-tree test of shock absorber efficiency is to push down hard on one of the four corners of your car and see how long it continues to bounce up and down. (Actually, a rep from a prominent shock absorber manufacturer says this is a dumb idea. See:)
The first cars – horseless carriages, really – weren’t fitted with shock absorbers. But as speeds rose, so did the need for suspension damping. Early shock absorbers, which persisted into the 1930s, tended to be so-called friction dampers. Frenchman Maurice Houdaille is credited with inventing the first shock absorbers to take advantage of the excellent cushioning qualities of hydraulic fluid. He received his first patent in 1907, and his products eventually became standard equipment on the immensely popular Model A Ford in 1927.
Among American manufacturers, Monroe was the 800-pound gorilla. The company introduced its first hydraulic shock in 1926. In 1951, the Monro-Matic debuted and established the industry standard for the telescopic shock that’s used to this day. This consists of a tube with a piston that moves up and down through a chamber filled with hydraulic fluid that’s often augmented with nitrogen. The movement of the piston draws in or displaces fluid though holes known as orifices. The size and placement of the orifices determine the damping characteristics of the shock absorber. (Here’s a good illustration of how the process works:)
Depending on how sophisticated the unit is, a damper can be adjusted for high- and low-speed performance in both bump (the piston going up) and rebound (the piston coming back down). For a variety of reasons, tuning shock absorbers is something of a black art, but it’s a critical skill for success in the racing world, where springs tend to be incredible stiff, so adjusting damper settings is one of the few ways engineers can dramatically change the handling characteristics of a car. In fact, it’s not uncommon to have a guy who does nothing but shock tuning, and many teams have their own shock dynamometers to test dampers.
The term “shock absorber” is a misnomer. Contrary to the seemingly self-evident meaning of the words, shock absorbers don’t absorb shock. They dampen the oscillations of the springs. Which is why the British name for them – dampers – makes much more sense.
After a spring is deflected, it bounces back past its original position and continues to oscillate until its energy is dissipated by a natural phenomenon known as hysteresis. A heavy-duty spring used in an automobile’s suspension would continue to oscillate for a long, long time if that motion weren’t controlled. Therefore, shock absorbers are fitted to dampen the oscillation. (Technically, shock absorbers transform the kinetic energy produced by suspension travel into thermal energy that’s dissipated by hydraulic fluid.) That’s why the classic shade-tree test of shock absorber efficiency is to push down hard on one of the four corners of your car and see how long it continues to bounce up and down. (Actually, a rep from a prominent shock absorber manufacturer says this is a dumb idea. See:)
The first cars – horseless carriages, really – weren’t fitted with shock absorbers. But as speeds rose, so did the need for suspension damping. Early shock absorbers, which persisted into the 1930s, tended to be so-called friction dampers. Frenchman Maurice Houdaille is credited with inventing the first shock absorbers to take advantage of the excellent cushioning qualities of hydraulic fluid. He received his first patent in 1907, and his products eventually became standard equipment on the immensely popular Model A Ford in 1927.
Among American manufacturers, Monroe was the 800-pound gorilla. The company introduced its first hydraulic shock in 1926. In 1951, the Monro-Matic debuted and established the industry standard for the telescopic shock that’s used to this day. This consists of a tube with a piston that moves up and down through a chamber filled with hydraulic fluid that’s often augmented with nitrogen. The movement of the piston draws in or displaces fluid though holes known as orifices. The size and placement of the orifices determine the damping characteristics of the shock absorber. (Here’s a good illustration of how the process works:)
Depending on how sophisticated the unit is, a damper can be adjusted for high- and low-speed performance in both bump (the piston going up) and rebound (the piston coming back down). For a variety of reasons, tuning shock absorbers is something of a black art, but it’s a critical skill for success in the racing world, where springs tend to be incredible stiff, so adjusting damper settings is one of the few ways engineers can dramatically change the handling characteristics of a car. In fact, it’s not uncommon to have a guy who does nothing but shock tuning, and many teams have their own shock dynamometers to test dampers.
Innovations in Driving: The Automatic Transmission
How a new gear-shifting system made cars easy to drive and harder to fix
I defy anyone who isn’t a mechanical engineer or who doesn’t work in the transmission industry to make sense of this schematic. There are, of course, plenty of things about cars that are hard to understand. Wiring looms, for example. The innards of limited-slip differentials. How the with a bicycle, a car is fitted with several gears offering various ratios to maximize the efficiency of the engine. The only fundamental difference between the two is that, in a car, a so-called friction clutch is used to briefly disengage one gear from the engine before the next gear is selected. Naturally, manual transmissions contain lots of slick complications – synchromesh cones, for instance, to allow shifting without matching revs and double-clutching. But it’s essentially the same system about which automotive pioneer Rene Panhard once declared (in French), “It’s brutal, but it works.”
Many drivers don’t want – or don’t know how – to shift gears manually. And especially before synchomesh was commonplace, only a small percentage truly mastered the technique. So as early as Panhard’s time, at the beginning of the 20th century, manufacturers began experimenting with various methods to make the process of shifting gears easier. Crude first appeared on the 1940 Oldsmobile. During World War II, the tranny was used in American tanks that saw action in the European Theater. After the war, GM’s “battle-tested” Hydra-Matic was an immense hit with consumers. (Here’s an exhaustive history of the Hydra-Matic’s development.) Ford brought out its first automatic, actually created by Borg-Warner, in 1950, and Chrysler belatedly followed suit in 1954. Before long, manual transmissions were an endangered species here in the States, though they remained the norm overseas. In fact, it wasn’t until 1962 that Mercedes-Benz became the first foreign automaker to develop its own automatic transmission in-house.
Unlike manual gearboxes, automatic transmissions don’t contain individual gears. On the contrary, they’re built around what are known as planetary gearsets that can be configured to produce multiple gear ratios. Instead of a friction clutch, a hydraulic torque converter is used to swap ratios. Automatic transmissions also entail the use of components such as stators, clutch packs, lockup clutches, bands, pumps, turbines, etc. Fortunately, you don’t have to understand how the technology works to use it. But for the technically inclined, here are some insights to the inner workings of an automatic transmission.
I defy anyone who isn’t a mechanical engineer or who doesn’t work in the transmission industry to make sense of this schematic. There are, of course, plenty of things about cars that are hard to understand. Wiring looms, for example. The innards of limited-slip differentials. How the with a bicycle, a car is fitted with several gears offering various ratios to maximize the efficiency of the engine. The only fundamental difference between the two is that, in a car, a so-called friction clutch is used to briefly disengage one gear from the engine before the next gear is selected. Naturally, manual transmissions contain lots of slick complications – synchromesh cones, for instance, to allow shifting without matching revs and double-clutching. But it’s essentially the same system about which automotive pioneer Rene Panhard once declared (in French), “It’s brutal, but it works.”
Many drivers don’t want – or don’t know how – to shift gears manually. And especially before synchomesh was commonplace, only a small percentage truly mastered the technique. So as early as Panhard’s time, at the beginning of the 20th century, manufacturers began experimenting with various methods to make the process of shifting gears easier. Crude first appeared on the 1940 Oldsmobile. During World War II, the tranny was used in American tanks that saw action in the European Theater. After the war, GM’s “battle-tested” Hydra-Matic was an immense hit with consumers. (Here’s an exhaustive history of the Hydra-Matic’s development.) Ford brought out its first automatic, actually created by Borg-Warner, in 1950, and Chrysler belatedly followed suit in 1954. Before long, manual transmissions were an endangered species here in the States, though they remained the norm overseas. In fact, it wasn’t until 1962 that Mercedes-Benz became the first foreign automaker to develop its own automatic transmission in-house.
Unlike manual gearboxes, automatic transmissions don’t contain individual gears. On the contrary, they’re built around what are known as planetary gearsets that can be configured to produce multiple gear ratios. Instead of a friction clutch, a hydraulic torque converter is used to swap ratios. Automatic transmissions also entail the use of components such as stators, clutch packs, lockup clutches, bands, pumps, turbines, etc. Fortunately, you don’t have to understand how the technology works to use it. But for the technically inclined, here are some insights to the inner workings of an automatic transmission.
Innovations in Driving: Anti-Lock Brakes
How the modern braking system came to be
Like many of the lessons taught in driver-education classes in days of yore, the exhortation to “pump the brakes” when skidding on a slick or snowy road wasn’t entirely correct. The problem that this technique was supposed to address was brake lockup. Although it may seem counterintuitive, a locked wheel, i.e. a wheel that isn’t turning, doesn’t stop nearly as effectively as one that’s turning slowly. Also, if the tires are skidding, you lose all directional control, which means that you can no longer can steer the car. So Job One, when confronted with locked wheels, is to release the brake to allow the tires to start turning again. Only then do you reapply the brake. Although this sounds vaguely like pumping the brakes, the technique is far more subtle and requires a much more delicate touch.
Of course, nobody talks about pumping the brakes anymore because modern cars are equipped with anti-lock braking system. ABS units automatically apply and release the brakes a dozen times or more a second, causing the signature shudder in the brake pedal when they’re engaged. If your car is equipped with ABS, the correct response to an emergency is to stand on the brake pedal as hard as you can. In controlled situations – on a racetrack, for example – a skilled driver can often stop more quickly using a technique known as threshold braking. But in a panic situation, it’s safer simply to bury the brakes and let the ABS sort things out. Not only will this prevent the car from skidding, but it will also allow it to turn, which means you can steer to avoid obstacles.
Like so many other forms of automotive technology, anti-skid braking was pioneered by the aviation industry. In the 1950s, mechanical systems began appearing in appreciable numbers in airplanes, where the systems were lifesavers during high-speed and short-runway landings. In the early 1970s, Chrysler, Ford and General Motors brought out the first generation of automotive ABS units. In the beginning, they were fitted primarily to high-end models – Imperials, Continentals, Caddys and so on. But they gradually filtered down to less exclusive cars, and they’re now standard equipment on virtually every passenger vehicle on the road.
ABS systems incorporate four basic components – wheel sensors, valves, pumps and electronic control units. When the sensors detect lockup, the ECU activates the pump and increases or restricts the flow of hydraulic fluid through the valves to the brake calipers. Here’s an excellent promotional video from Bosch:
Pretty straightforward, when you think about it. And smart engineers quickly realized that the same basic technology could be applied to other handling issues. Take wheelspin caused by abrupt acceleration. When the sensors detect one or two wheels spinning faster than the others, the ECU can increase brake pressure – or reduce spark to the engine – to bring traction under control.
Traction control was popularized in the ’80s and ’90s. It inevitably led to more sophisticated systems that dealt with the loss of directional stability prompted by, say, turning too fast into a corner or inadvertently throwing the car into a skid when trying to avoid an obstacle. Electronic stability control is now so effective that it’s been banned from almost all forms of racing. Here’s an Insurance Institute of Highway Safety take on ESC:
Among enthusiasts, stability control is often derided as a hated symbol of the nanny state, mandated primarily to take the fun out of driving. So techniques to turn off the stability control are exchanged on online forums like methods of jailbreaking iPhones among hackers.
As with anything of this nature, your mileage may vary. Not that defeating the stability control will void the car’s warranty. But the health of the car’s occupants are another matter altogether.
Like many of the lessons taught in driver-education classes in days of yore, the exhortation to “pump the brakes” when skidding on a slick or snowy road wasn’t entirely correct. The problem that this technique was supposed to address was brake lockup. Although it may seem counterintuitive, a locked wheel, i.e. a wheel that isn’t turning, doesn’t stop nearly as effectively as one that’s turning slowly. Also, if the tires are skidding, you lose all directional control, which means that you can no longer can steer the car. So Job One, when confronted with locked wheels, is to release the brake to allow the tires to start turning again. Only then do you reapply the brake. Although this sounds vaguely like pumping the brakes, the technique is far more subtle and requires a much more delicate touch.
Of course, nobody talks about pumping the brakes anymore because modern cars are equipped with anti-lock braking system. ABS units automatically apply and release the brakes a dozen times or more a second, causing the signature shudder in the brake pedal when they’re engaged. If your car is equipped with ABS, the correct response to an emergency is to stand on the brake pedal as hard as you can. In controlled situations – on a racetrack, for example – a skilled driver can often stop more quickly using a technique known as threshold braking. But in a panic situation, it’s safer simply to bury the brakes and let the ABS sort things out. Not only will this prevent the car from skidding, but it will also allow it to turn, which means you can steer to avoid obstacles.
Like so many other forms of automotive technology, anti-skid braking was pioneered by the aviation industry. In the 1950s, mechanical systems began appearing in appreciable numbers in airplanes, where the systems were lifesavers during high-speed and short-runway landings. In the early 1970s, Chrysler, Ford and General Motors brought out the first generation of automotive ABS units. In the beginning, they were fitted primarily to high-end models – Imperials, Continentals, Caddys and so on. But they gradually filtered down to less exclusive cars, and they’re now standard equipment on virtually every passenger vehicle on the road.
ABS systems incorporate four basic components – wheel sensors, valves, pumps and electronic control units. When the sensors detect lockup, the ECU activates the pump and increases or restricts the flow of hydraulic fluid through the valves to the brake calipers. Here’s an excellent promotional video from Bosch:
Pretty straightforward, when you think about it. And smart engineers quickly realized that the same basic technology could be applied to other handling issues. Take wheelspin caused by abrupt acceleration. When the sensors detect one or two wheels spinning faster than the others, the ECU can increase brake pressure – or reduce spark to the engine – to bring traction under control.
Traction control was popularized in the ’80s and ’90s. It inevitably led to more sophisticated systems that dealt with the loss of directional stability prompted by, say, turning too fast into a corner or inadvertently throwing the car into a skid when trying to avoid an obstacle. Electronic stability control is now so effective that it’s been banned from almost all forms of racing. Here’s an Insurance Institute of Highway Safety take on ESC:
Among enthusiasts, stability control is often derided as a hated symbol of the nanny state, mandated primarily to take the fun out of driving. So techniques to turn off the stability control are exchanged on online forums like methods of jailbreaking iPhones among hackers.
As with anything of this nature, your mileage may vary. Not that defeating the stability control will void the car’s warranty. But the health of the car’s occupants are another matter altogether.
A Mechanical Road Crew for Filling Potholes Quickly and Cheaply
A quarter of America’s major metropolitan roads have stretches in substandard condition, and drivers pay the consequences—potholes alone cost car owners an average of $335 a year in tires, repair and maintenance. The standard method for fixing potholes is to send three workers and a hotbed truck to toss in an asphalt mix and give it a few thumps with a shovel or boot. The process can take as little as two minutes, but the fix is only temporary. One study found that about half of repaired potholes had returned four years later.
The new Python 5000 pothole-filling machine, from Python Manufacturing, mends holes in just 30 to 60 seconds. A single operator drives the machine to the repair site, parks, and then uses a joystick to deploy the machine’s four-foot tool-equipped arm. First, an air jet blasts debris and water out of the hole. Next, it’s sprayed with tack oil, which helps the finished patch stick to the surrounding road. Finally, the operator uses the truck’s tool arm to fill the hole with an asphalt mix, rake it, and pack it down with a roller. The roller applies the same amount of force as a standard road-paving machine, so the patches the Python makes often last until it’s time to repave the entire road. The company estimates that over five years, owners of the $290,000 Python could save $125.61 per ton of pothole repair—or about 40 percent over the standard method. So far, road crews in California, Colorado and Virginia are using the machines.
The new Python 5000 pothole-filling machine, from Python Manufacturing, mends holes in just 30 to 60 seconds. A single operator drives the machine to the repair site, parks, and then uses a joystick to deploy the machine’s four-foot tool-equipped arm. First, an air jet blasts debris and water out of the hole. Next, it’s sprayed with tack oil, which helps the finished patch stick to the surrounding road. Finally, the operator uses the truck’s tool arm to fill the hole with an asphalt mix, rake it, and pack it down with a roller. The roller applies the same amount of force as a standard road-paving machine, so the patches the Python makes often last until it’s time to repave the entire road. The company estimates that over five years, owners of the $290,000 Python could save $125.61 per ton of pothole repair—or about 40 percent over the standard method. So far, road crews in California, Colorado and Virginia are using the machines.
Test Drive: The 2013 Audi Allroad
For those who want the flexibility and power of a Subaru, but just a bit more ritzy
For those who want something more active than a wagon but smaller than a SUV, there aren't a lot of choices. There's the Subaru Outback and the Volvo XC, and, well, that’s pretty much it. While the Subaru is a great all-arounder and gives off an insouciant LL Bean Nor’eastern vibe, sometimes the consumer wants more luxury than a Subie. Which brings us to the Audi Allroad, Audi’s all new for 2013 A4-derived sport wagon. The Allroad, which was last on sale in the States in the mid-2000s, combines, Audi says, “what premium buyers are looking for in a capacious and rugged crossover with the refinement of an executive sedan.” Sure. Why not.
WHAT'S NEW
While this is an all-new for 2013 model, it’s built on the latest A4 platform and powered by Audi’s tried-and-true 2.0 TFSI turbocharged, direct-injected, four-cylinder engine that produces 211 hp and 258 lb-ft of torque, and is mated to an eight-speed automatic transmission. Audi has supersized the Allroad’s proportions from the A4 Avant; the Allroad is half an inch wider and about an inch and a half higher, giving it 7.1 inches of ground clearance. That should be tall enough whatever is thrown at most suburban dwellers.
The Allroad has a taller profile as well, with a 58” height augmented by standard 18-inch wheels. While you can option 19-inch wheels and tires, these are all-season sports tires and you’ll lose some of the Allroad’s off-road raison d’etre. Audi added some attractive exterior cladding in the form of matte-finished lower bumpers and wheel arches, a new grille, stainless steel skid plates and side sills as well as contrasting body trim and aluminum raised roof rails, which all contribute to the Allroad's outdoorsiness.
THE DRIVE
If you’ve spent anytime behind the wheel of an A4 Avant, you know what you’re getting into. The turbocharged four-banger is perfectly adequate for the Allroad and, mated to the eight-speed automatic, delivers great gas mileage--20 city, 27 highway--for a wagon with a 3,891-pound curb weight. The Allroad has a new electromechanical steering system that saves weight, improves fuel economy and gives the vehicle a firm and not-too-ponderous drive. There's an acceptable amount of feedback in the wheel, which is what you want in a comfy daily driver. Also, like an Audi should be, the driver can feel free to mash the gas--the Allroad pushes you along from 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, again not too shabby for a big vehicle. Inclement weather is where the Allroad shines, with full time Quattro all-wheel drive and the raised command position, the Allroad feels a lot more like a shorter Q5 than a taller A4.
2013 Audi Allroad Stands Still: Audi
WHAT'S GOOD
The Allroad is new for 2013, and the model it is based on, the A4, was just refreshed for the model year. We like the interior, an improvement for Audi, with a utilitarian yet luxe feel to it. Opt for the Audi Connect system, which turns the car into a Wi-Fi hot spot and has all kinds of Google search connectivity baked into the system. We especially like the new exterior of the Allroad, which is an experiment in body cladding gone right. For an experiment in body cladding gone wrong, see the 2001-2005 Pontiac Aztek.
WHAT'S BAD
Like a lot of German cars, we wish most of the options were standard. When spending close to $40,000 on a family car, we think it should come with a backup camera and power liftgate standard. Also, Audi, for those of us who enjoy a sportier drive, where’s the DSG?
THE PRICE
The Allroad starts at $39,600 for the Premium, $42,900 for the Premium Plus and $48,800 for the Prestige. That said, with options, the Allroad starts to get mighty expensive. Nicely equipped and you’re looking at 46K, which is a lot more than Audi’s proper mini-SUV, the Q5, which starts at $35,600. Some other models to consider are the Volvo XC70 and XC90, the Acura TSX Sportwagon and, the granddaddy of them all, the Subaru Outback. All weirdly great cars in their own special ways.
THE VERDICT
The Allroad looks great, drives like a charm, and is in that sweet spot between a crossover and a wagon. While the price tag may be a bit daunting to some, especially compared to the other models in its class, the Allroad presents a compelling premium buy in a segment that is dwindling in size. With the Allroad, the choice doesn’t come down luxury or utilitarianism--why not have both?
For those who want something more active than a wagon but smaller than a SUV, there aren't a lot of choices. There's the Subaru Outback and the Volvo XC, and, well, that’s pretty much it. While the Subaru is a great all-arounder and gives off an insouciant LL Bean Nor’eastern vibe, sometimes the consumer wants more luxury than a Subie. Which brings us to the Audi Allroad, Audi’s all new for 2013 A4-derived sport wagon. The Allroad, which was last on sale in the States in the mid-2000s, combines, Audi says, “what premium buyers are looking for in a capacious and rugged crossover with the refinement of an executive sedan.” Sure. Why not.
WHAT'S NEW
While this is an all-new for 2013 model, it’s built on the latest A4 platform and powered by Audi’s tried-and-true 2.0 TFSI turbocharged, direct-injected, four-cylinder engine that produces 211 hp and 258 lb-ft of torque, and is mated to an eight-speed automatic transmission. Audi has supersized the Allroad’s proportions from the A4 Avant; the Allroad is half an inch wider and about an inch and a half higher, giving it 7.1 inches of ground clearance. That should be tall enough whatever is thrown at most suburban dwellers.
The Allroad has a taller profile as well, with a 58” height augmented by standard 18-inch wheels. While you can option 19-inch wheels and tires, these are all-season sports tires and you’ll lose some of the Allroad’s off-road raison d’etre. Audi added some attractive exterior cladding in the form of matte-finished lower bumpers and wheel arches, a new grille, stainless steel skid plates and side sills as well as contrasting body trim and aluminum raised roof rails, which all contribute to the Allroad's outdoorsiness.
THE DRIVE
If you’ve spent anytime behind the wheel of an A4 Avant, you know what you’re getting into. The turbocharged four-banger is perfectly adequate for the Allroad and, mated to the eight-speed automatic, delivers great gas mileage--20 city, 27 highway--for a wagon with a 3,891-pound curb weight. The Allroad has a new electromechanical steering system that saves weight, improves fuel economy and gives the vehicle a firm and not-too-ponderous drive. There's an acceptable amount of feedback in the wheel, which is what you want in a comfy daily driver. Also, like an Audi should be, the driver can feel free to mash the gas--the Allroad pushes you along from 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, again not too shabby for a big vehicle. Inclement weather is where the Allroad shines, with full time Quattro all-wheel drive and the raised command position, the Allroad feels a lot more like a shorter Q5 than a taller A4.
2013 Audi Allroad Stands Still: Audi
WHAT'S GOOD
The Allroad is new for 2013, and the model it is based on, the A4, was just refreshed for the model year. We like the interior, an improvement for Audi, with a utilitarian yet luxe feel to it. Opt for the Audi Connect system, which turns the car into a Wi-Fi hot spot and has all kinds of Google search connectivity baked into the system. We especially like the new exterior of the Allroad, which is an experiment in body cladding gone right. For an experiment in body cladding gone wrong, see the 2001-2005 Pontiac Aztek.
WHAT'S BAD
Like a lot of German cars, we wish most of the options were standard. When spending close to $40,000 on a family car, we think it should come with a backup camera and power liftgate standard. Also, Audi, for those of us who enjoy a sportier drive, where’s the DSG?
THE PRICE
The Allroad starts at $39,600 for the Premium, $42,900 for the Premium Plus and $48,800 for the Prestige. That said, with options, the Allroad starts to get mighty expensive. Nicely equipped and you’re looking at 46K, which is a lot more than Audi’s proper mini-SUV, the Q5, which starts at $35,600. Some other models to consider are the Volvo XC70 and XC90, the Acura TSX Sportwagon and, the granddaddy of them all, the Subaru Outback. All weirdly great cars in their own special ways.
THE VERDICT
The Allroad looks great, drives like a charm, and is in that sweet spot between a crossover and a wagon. While the price tag may be a bit daunting to some, especially compared to the other models in its class, the Allroad presents a compelling premium buy in a segment that is dwindling in size. With the Allroad, the choice doesn’t come down luxury or utilitarianism--why not have both?
Drivers of Progress
Five technologies that will shape the cars of the future
1. THE INTELLIGENT COCKPIT
When J.D. Power released its annual customer-satisfaction survey in June, the issue that most irked American car buyers was not wind noise, inadequate acceleration or anything else related to the actual process of driving. It was unsatisfactory voice recognition. Drivers now expect cars to be rolling information-technology bubbles, and automakers are remaking the driving experience accordingly.
So far, car companies have had trouble keeping up with computing advances. While Apple issues a new iPhone annually, General Motors needs to finalize in-dash hardware and software years before a car reaches the market. But automakers could soon cede much of the software development to the same engineers who write smartphone apps. Today you can connect your phone to your car using a USB cable; the vehicle’s software will load your music and your contacts. Soon the smartphone will become the car’s computer, hosting the software that now runs in-dash applications. The smartphone is “a powerful free computer the customer is bringing into the car,” says David Bloom, an engineer at the BMW Group Technology Office. And it will make the cockpit—the navigation screen, the gauges, the voice that tells you “left turn ahead”—just as easy to customize and update as a smartphone is today.
To prevent a flood of digital information from becoming a deadly distraction, engineers have begun to rethink the way cars communicate with their drivers. Earlier this year, for example, Audi unveiled a concept for an augmented-reality system that projects information about the terrain (points of interest, names of buildings) onto the windshield, overlaying it on the scenery ahead.
Automobiles can also send information to their drivers using tactile feedback. The 2013 Cadillac XTS sedan uses vibrating motors in the seats to warn drivers of dangers such as the movement of cars through blind spots. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and AT&T Research Labs have collaborated to design a prototype steering wheel that uses vibrations to convey instructions from the navigation system. As the car nears a turn, 20 tiny motors buzz at an increasing frequency in a clockwise or counterclockwise pattern, letting the driver know which direction to go. Kevin Li, an engineer at AT&T who worked on the prototype, says that the brain “stitches together” these discrete vibrations, creating the illusion of a continuous line of motion. The engineering team has been in touch with automakers, and Li says the haptic steering wheel could be deployed right away.
2. CHEAP CARBON FIBER
Five times stronger than steel yet two thirds the weight, carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP) has for two decades been the chassis material of choice for racecars. But carbon fiber has always been time-consuming and labor-intensive to manufacture, so it hasn’t been economical for passenger vehicles. Increasingly efficient manufacturing methods are bringing down the cost. Next year, BMW will begin selling its i3 electric city car, the first mass-produced automobile with a carbon-fiber chassis. The four-seat i3 chassis, which BMW calls the “Life module,” weighs just 265 pounds, or 50 percent less than a steel structure. (CFRP is also 30 percent lighter than the most advanced extruded aluminum.)
A BMW joint venture has invested $100 million in a Washington State factory that manufactures carbon-fiber “tows”—bundles of 50,000 carbon-fiber filaments, each filament 1/10 the width of a human hair. Those tows are thicker than the 6,000-filament bundles used in previous aerospace and auto applications, so it takes fewer of them to weave into the carbon-fiber fabric that undergirds CFRP. In BMW’s process, workers ship the tows from Washington to Germany, where they’re woven into a fabric, then pressurized and impregnated with liquid plastic. CFRP can then be molded into structural components in less than 10 minutes—a process that once took hours.
The i3’s carbon-fiber chassis saved enough weight to offset the mass of the car’s hefty lithium-ion battery pack. In fact, BMW engineers were able to reach 100 miles of driving range using a smaller, less expensive battery than competitors (21 kilowatt-hours versus the Nissan Leaf’s 24-kilowatt-hour pack). By next year, the automaker plans to begin building more than 1 million carbon-fiber structural parts annually. Joerg Pohlman, managing director of BMW’s Washington venture, says that while carbon fiber still costs more than aluminum, he is “absolutely confident” that BMW can slash costs to a par with aluminum once it begins building cars in volume. “You will see composite structures in normal passenger cars in much less than 10 years,” he says. That’s a development that could make cars faster, more efficient and more crash-resistant than ever before.
3. ULTRACAPACITORS
Drive an electric car slowly around town, and the charge remaining in the lithium-ion battery will decrease with perfect predictability. But hard acceleration is hell on batteries. Hit the highway, and the remaining driving range will drop precipitously.
Pairing batteries with ultracapacitors could fix that. Unlike batteries, which store energy chemically, ultra-capacitors hold a charge in an electromagnetic field between two electrodes coated in porous activated carbon. This allows them to absorb electricity as quickly as an outlet can dispense it and discharge it just as fast. In a car, that translates into fast recharging and powerful acceleration.
Unlike batteries, ultra-capacitors can absorb electricity as quickly as an outlet can dispense it and discharge it just as fast.Right now, the best ultracapacitors hold only about 5 percent as much energy as a comparably sized lithium-ion battery—not enough to power an electric car, but enough to work in a supporting role. Carmakers such as Peugeot are already experimenting with ultracapacitors for regenerative braking and start-stop systems, which save fuel by cutting the engine at red lights before starting up again as soon as the driver touches the gas pedal. The next logical step is to add ultracapacitors to electric cars to handle the tasks that put excessive strain on batteries. Joel Schindall, a professor of electrical engineering at MIT, is researching ways to use nanotubes to improve ultracapacitors. “The best solution,” he says, “is a hybrid where the battery is optimized for total energy storage, while the ultracapacitor satisfies the peak power demands during acceleration.” Schindall and other scientists are working to create ultracapacitors that can store more energy by improving electrode materials on the molecular level. If they succeed—if ultracapacitors can one day approach the charge-carrying capacity of lithium-ion batteries—they could solve one of the more vexing problems facing electric vehicles: slow recharge times. The fastest fast-charge station takes 30 minutes to recharge an empty battery. (Any more current begins to damage the electrodes.) Ultracapacitors, by contrast, could soak up a full charge in a matter of minutes.
4. CAR-TO-CAR COMMUNICATION Today’s high-end cars can correct your steering when you veer out of a lane, brake automatically to keep you from hitting other vehicles, and determine when you’re about to fall asleep. Cadillac is even expected to unveil hands-free cruise control in the next two years. For networks of autonomous or semiautonomous cars to work, however, vehicles must be able to communicate with and react to one another. The technology that will enable them to do so could soon be ready for production.
One afternoon in May members of a European Union–funded research project called SARTRE dispatched a convoy consisting of a tractor-trailer followed by three Volvo automobiles on a public highway in Spain. The vehicles, which were separated by just 20 feet, traveled together at 50 miles per hour; only the truck had a driver.
SARTRE is the first real-world test of a “road train”— a convoy of cars autonomously following a human-operated lead vehicle (most likely a truck or bus) driven by a professional. (See a trial run of it in the video below.) The trailing automobiles could be passenger cars on a long journey. By reducing wind resistance and traveling at a steady speed, these convoys could improve fuel economy and reduce tailpipe emissions by 20 percent. They could also make road trips vastly more pleasant. Once in the convoy, explains Eric Chan, the project’s chief engineer, the “drivers” of the following cars “could relax and read a book.”
The Volvos in the SARTRE test detect lane markers and other vehicles using the same cameras and radar/lidar sensors already available in production vehicles. Engineers added custom software to fuse together the data gathered by those sensors (and a processor to run it) as well as antennas that allow the cars to communicate via Wi-Fi. But SARTRE engineers stress that all of the technology involved is available off the shelf today. In fact, the biggest remaining challenges are legal and psychological. Regulators will have to change traffic laws to account for driverless vehicles. Carmakers will have to equip those vehicles with the software necessary for joining road trains. Finally, drivers will have to be convinced that the system is safe. (SARTRE engineers say that road trains could actually reduce traffic fatalities.) Those three steps are great enough that road trains realistically won’t be deployed for another decade.
5. TINY INTERNAL COMBUSTION Fuel economy standards are set to rise to 54.5 mpg by 2025. That prospect has carmakers adding turbochargers and computer-controlled direct injection to ever-smaller engines in order to wring every last mile out of a gallon of gas. The 2012 BMW 328i, for example, runs on a turbocharged four-cylinder engine (the first four-cylinder from BMW since 1999) that is more efficient and produces more torque than the six-cylinder it replaced. Ford is expected to put a turbocharged three-cylinder in the Fiesta in the near future. But turbochargers and direct injection can only do so much: To approach triple-digit mileage, engineers will have to fundamentally rethink internal combustion. Plenty of them have already started.
The Scuderi Group, a company in Massachusetts, is testing a prototype engine that devotes separate pistons to the compression and the power strokes, setting in motion a series of changes that increase mileage by up to 50 percent. The Michigan-based firm EcoMotors is perfecting an opposed-piston, opposed-cycle (OPOC) engine, in which a pair of pistons moving horizontally share a combustion chamber. The added efficiency could push a compact car to 100 mpg. EcoMotors says they could have their engine in production in five to seven years.
1. THE INTELLIGENT COCKPIT
When J.D. Power released its annual customer-satisfaction survey in June, the issue that most irked American car buyers was not wind noise, inadequate acceleration or anything else related to the actual process of driving. It was unsatisfactory voice recognition. Drivers now expect cars to be rolling information-technology bubbles, and automakers are remaking the driving experience accordingly.
So far, car companies have had trouble keeping up with computing advances. While Apple issues a new iPhone annually, General Motors needs to finalize in-dash hardware and software years before a car reaches the market. But automakers could soon cede much of the software development to the same engineers who write smartphone apps. Today you can connect your phone to your car using a USB cable; the vehicle’s software will load your music and your contacts. Soon the smartphone will become the car’s computer, hosting the software that now runs in-dash applications. The smartphone is “a powerful free computer the customer is bringing into the car,” says David Bloom, an engineer at the BMW Group Technology Office. And it will make the cockpit—the navigation screen, the gauges, the voice that tells you “left turn ahead”—just as easy to customize and update as a smartphone is today.
To prevent a flood of digital information from becoming a deadly distraction, engineers have begun to rethink the way cars communicate with their drivers. Earlier this year, for example, Audi unveiled a concept for an augmented-reality system that projects information about the terrain (points of interest, names of buildings) onto the windshield, overlaying it on the scenery ahead.
Automobiles can also send information to their drivers using tactile feedback. The 2013 Cadillac XTS sedan uses vibrating motors in the seats to warn drivers of dangers such as the movement of cars through blind spots. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and AT&T Research Labs have collaborated to design a prototype steering wheel that uses vibrations to convey instructions from the navigation system. As the car nears a turn, 20 tiny motors buzz at an increasing frequency in a clockwise or counterclockwise pattern, letting the driver know which direction to go. Kevin Li, an engineer at AT&T who worked on the prototype, says that the brain “stitches together” these discrete vibrations, creating the illusion of a continuous line of motion. The engineering team has been in touch with automakers, and Li says the haptic steering wheel could be deployed right away.
2. CHEAP CARBON FIBER
Five times stronger than steel yet two thirds the weight, carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP) has for two decades been the chassis material of choice for racecars. But carbon fiber has always been time-consuming and labor-intensive to manufacture, so it hasn’t been economical for passenger vehicles. Increasingly efficient manufacturing methods are bringing down the cost. Next year, BMW will begin selling its i3 electric city car, the first mass-produced automobile with a carbon-fiber chassis. The four-seat i3 chassis, which BMW calls the “Life module,” weighs just 265 pounds, or 50 percent less than a steel structure. (CFRP is also 30 percent lighter than the most advanced extruded aluminum.)
A BMW joint venture has invested $100 million in a Washington State factory that manufactures carbon-fiber “tows”—bundles of 50,000 carbon-fiber filaments, each filament 1/10 the width of a human hair. Those tows are thicker than the 6,000-filament bundles used in previous aerospace and auto applications, so it takes fewer of them to weave into the carbon-fiber fabric that undergirds CFRP. In BMW’s process, workers ship the tows from Washington to Germany, where they’re woven into a fabric, then pressurized and impregnated with liquid plastic. CFRP can then be molded into structural components in less than 10 minutes—a process that once took hours.
The i3’s carbon-fiber chassis saved enough weight to offset the mass of the car’s hefty lithium-ion battery pack. In fact, BMW engineers were able to reach 100 miles of driving range using a smaller, less expensive battery than competitors (21 kilowatt-hours versus the Nissan Leaf’s 24-kilowatt-hour pack). By next year, the automaker plans to begin building more than 1 million carbon-fiber structural parts annually. Joerg Pohlman, managing director of BMW’s Washington venture, says that while carbon fiber still costs more than aluminum, he is “absolutely confident” that BMW can slash costs to a par with aluminum once it begins building cars in volume. “You will see composite structures in normal passenger cars in much less than 10 years,” he says. That’s a development that could make cars faster, more efficient and more crash-resistant than ever before.
3. ULTRACAPACITORS
Drive an electric car slowly around town, and the charge remaining in the lithium-ion battery will decrease with perfect predictability. But hard acceleration is hell on batteries. Hit the highway, and the remaining driving range will drop precipitously.
Pairing batteries with ultracapacitors could fix that. Unlike batteries, which store energy chemically, ultra-capacitors hold a charge in an electromagnetic field between two electrodes coated in porous activated carbon. This allows them to absorb electricity as quickly as an outlet can dispense it and discharge it just as fast. In a car, that translates into fast recharging and powerful acceleration.
Unlike batteries, ultra-capacitors can absorb electricity as quickly as an outlet can dispense it and discharge it just as fast.Right now, the best ultracapacitors hold only about 5 percent as much energy as a comparably sized lithium-ion battery—not enough to power an electric car, but enough to work in a supporting role. Carmakers such as Peugeot are already experimenting with ultracapacitors for regenerative braking and start-stop systems, which save fuel by cutting the engine at red lights before starting up again as soon as the driver touches the gas pedal. The next logical step is to add ultracapacitors to electric cars to handle the tasks that put excessive strain on batteries. Joel Schindall, a professor of electrical engineering at MIT, is researching ways to use nanotubes to improve ultracapacitors. “The best solution,” he says, “is a hybrid where the battery is optimized for total energy storage, while the ultracapacitor satisfies the peak power demands during acceleration.” Schindall and other scientists are working to create ultracapacitors that can store more energy by improving electrode materials on the molecular level. If they succeed—if ultracapacitors can one day approach the charge-carrying capacity of lithium-ion batteries—they could solve one of the more vexing problems facing electric vehicles: slow recharge times. The fastest fast-charge station takes 30 minutes to recharge an empty battery. (Any more current begins to damage the electrodes.) Ultracapacitors, by contrast, could soak up a full charge in a matter of minutes.
4. CAR-TO-CAR COMMUNICATION Today’s high-end cars can correct your steering when you veer out of a lane, brake automatically to keep you from hitting other vehicles, and determine when you’re about to fall asleep. Cadillac is even expected to unveil hands-free cruise control in the next two years. For networks of autonomous or semiautonomous cars to work, however, vehicles must be able to communicate with and react to one another. The technology that will enable them to do so could soon be ready for production.
One afternoon in May members of a European Union–funded research project called SARTRE dispatched a convoy consisting of a tractor-trailer followed by three Volvo automobiles on a public highway in Spain. The vehicles, which were separated by just 20 feet, traveled together at 50 miles per hour; only the truck had a driver.
SARTRE is the first real-world test of a “road train”— a convoy of cars autonomously following a human-operated lead vehicle (most likely a truck or bus) driven by a professional. (See a trial run of it in the video below.) The trailing automobiles could be passenger cars on a long journey. By reducing wind resistance and traveling at a steady speed, these convoys could improve fuel economy and reduce tailpipe emissions by 20 percent. They could also make road trips vastly more pleasant. Once in the convoy, explains Eric Chan, the project’s chief engineer, the “drivers” of the following cars “could relax and read a book.”
The Volvos in the SARTRE test detect lane markers and other vehicles using the same cameras and radar/lidar sensors already available in production vehicles. Engineers added custom software to fuse together the data gathered by those sensors (and a processor to run it) as well as antennas that allow the cars to communicate via Wi-Fi. But SARTRE engineers stress that all of the technology involved is available off the shelf today. In fact, the biggest remaining challenges are legal and psychological. Regulators will have to change traffic laws to account for driverless vehicles. Carmakers will have to equip those vehicles with the software necessary for joining road trains. Finally, drivers will have to be convinced that the system is safe. (SARTRE engineers say that road trains could actually reduce traffic fatalities.) Those three steps are great enough that road trains realistically won’t be deployed for another decade.
5. TINY INTERNAL COMBUSTION Fuel economy standards are set to rise to 54.5 mpg by 2025. That prospect has carmakers adding turbochargers and computer-controlled direct injection to ever-smaller engines in order to wring every last mile out of a gallon of gas. The 2012 BMW 328i, for example, runs on a turbocharged four-cylinder engine (the first four-cylinder from BMW since 1999) that is more efficient and produces more torque than the six-cylinder it replaced. Ford is expected to put a turbocharged three-cylinder in the Fiesta in the near future. But turbochargers and direct injection can only do so much: To approach triple-digit mileage, engineers will have to fundamentally rethink internal combustion. Plenty of them have already started.
The Scuderi Group, a company in Massachusetts, is testing a prototype engine that devotes separate pistons to the compression and the power strokes, setting in motion a series of changes that increase mileage by up to 50 percent. The Michigan-based firm EcoMotors is perfecting an opposed-piston, opposed-cycle (OPOC) engine, in which a pair of pistons moving horizontally share a combustion chamber. The added efficiency could push a compact car to 100 mpg. EcoMotors says they could have their engine in production in five to seven years.
Wind-Powered Car Travels At Twice the Speed of the Wind
A couple of years back, Rick Cavallaro and his wind-powered car--Blackbird--silenced an online debate about whether its possible for a wind-powered vehicle to move downwind faster than the speed of the wind itself by going out and outrunning the wind. Now, Cavallaro and company have reconfigured their car to travel upwind and proved that it’s possible to travel upwind at more than twice the speed of the headwind, setting what has to be a record for upwind terrestrial sailing.
That’s not quite as big of a bombshell as the downwind run back in 2010, in which a lingering and sometimes vitriolic physics debate was quashed when Cavallaro recorded downwind speeds at 2.86 times the speed of the wind. But this time he’s managed to log 2.01 times the speed of the wind going upwind--still a significant feat.
And also a counter-intuitive feat, though when you really think about it the physics are the same as a sailboat tacking upwind. The turbine blades act as sails, turning to create power. Rather than having a keel to counteract the push of the headwind and maintain the proper upwind direction, Blackbird’s transmission and wheels have been designed to do that job.
That’s not quite as big of a bombshell as the downwind run back in 2010, in which a lingering and sometimes vitriolic physics debate was quashed when Cavallaro recorded downwind speeds at 2.86 times the speed of the wind. But this time he’s managed to log 2.01 times the speed of the wind going upwind--still a significant feat.
And also a counter-intuitive feat, though when you really think about it the physics are the same as a sailboat tacking upwind. The turbine blades act as sails, turning to create power. Rather than having a keel to counteract the push of the headwind and maintain the proper upwind direction, Blackbird’s transmission and wheels have been designed to do that job.
Headlights That See Through a Downpour by Tracking and Hiding Raindrops
Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have figured out how to thwart the weather when you’re behind the wheel by looking straight through the rain drops or snow that create that white-out effect when headlights meet heavy precipitation at night. By detecting and tracking individual rain droplets or snow as they fall through a car’s headlight beams, they've created a system that can “dis-illuminate” them by adjusting the headlight beams to only shine around them rather than on them.
The system works out to roughly 13 feet in front of the headlights, the range in which heavy snow or rain reflecting headlights can obscure a driver’s vision. A digital projector illuminates incoming raindrops for a few milliseconds, long enough for a camera mounted on the side of the projector to capture their positions and trajectories. Software then calculates exactly where those raindrops are headed and sends a signal to the headlights, which adjust so that the light rays that would hit that raindrop are switched off.
In other words, in the middle of a downpour (and while moving) the system tracks raindrops in real time and adjusts light rays just as quickly as those raindrops can fall. The system isn't perfect--in heavy rain accuracy is at 70 percent (that is, it removes 70 percent of the rain from view) at roughly 18 miles per hour. At 60 miles per hour, that drops to just 15 or 20 percent. But even 20 percent is a fairly good bump in visibility--certainly better than zero percent. The next step is to make the the system better at accounting for car movements that aren't simply straight forward (presumably compensating for turning or lane changes and the like).
The system works out to roughly 13 feet in front of the headlights, the range in which heavy snow or rain reflecting headlights can obscure a driver’s vision. A digital projector illuminates incoming raindrops for a few milliseconds, long enough for a camera mounted on the side of the projector to capture their positions and trajectories. Software then calculates exactly where those raindrops are headed and sends a signal to the headlights, which adjust so that the light rays that would hit that raindrop are switched off.
In other words, in the middle of a downpour (and while moving) the system tracks raindrops in real time and adjusts light rays just as quickly as those raindrops can fall. The system isn't perfect--in heavy rain accuracy is at 70 percent (that is, it removes 70 percent of the rain from view) at roughly 18 miles per hour. At 60 miles per hour, that drops to just 15 or 20 percent. But even 20 percent is a fairly good bump in visibility--certainly better than zero percent. The next step is to make the the system better at accounting for car movements that aren't simply straight forward (presumably compensating for turning or lane changes and the like).
Can the All-Electric Ford Focus Get Traction?
Later this year, Ford will roll out the Focus Electric, Detroit’s first direct competitor to the Nissan Leaf. Like the Leaf, the Focus Electric is an all-electric five-door hatchback with a 600-plus-pound lithium-ion battery, a driving range of close to 100 miles on a charge, and a price tag north of $35,000. Unlike the Leaf, the Focus Electric is not a purpose-built EV; it looks almost identical to the gas-powered Focus, which is manufactured on the same Michigan assembly line. How will the Focus Electric compare? We drove one of the first road-ready specimens to find out.
THE TEST
We spent an afternoon in New York assessing the Focus Electric’s highway acceleration, hill-climbing power and agility while weaving through dense city traffic.
THE RESULTS
The Focus accelerates quickly, grips the road firmly, and handles precisely even on sharp, fast turns that would shake the less-sporty Leaf. The interior is equipped with plush, finely grained seats that are a major upgrade over the Leaf’s entry-level upholstery, and the cabin is nearly silent. Because Ford installed a 6.6-kilowatt onboard charger, the Focus charges twice as fast as the Leaf. But unlike its gas-powered, best-selling brethren, the Focus Electric is far from a mass-market car. Analysts expect Ford to build no more than 2,500 Focus Electrics in the first year—just enough to comply with zero-emissions regulations in California. (In contrast, Nissan could build as many as 60,000 Leafs this year.) It’s priced like a boutique item, too. The Focus Electric starts at $39,200: $4,000 more than the Leaf and $20,900 more than a gas-powered Focus. In fact, the biggest problem with the Focus Electric is how hard Ford has made it to buy one.
Range: 76 miles
Horsepower: 143
Charge time: 4 hours
Price: $39,200 (plus delivery)
THE TEST
We spent an afternoon in New York assessing the Focus Electric’s highway acceleration, hill-climbing power and agility while weaving through dense city traffic.
THE RESULTS
The Focus accelerates quickly, grips the road firmly, and handles precisely even on sharp, fast turns that would shake the less-sporty Leaf. The interior is equipped with plush, finely grained seats that are a major upgrade over the Leaf’s entry-level upholstery, and the cabin is nearly silent. Because Ford installed a 6.6-kilowatt onboard charger, the Focus charges twice as fast as the Leaf. But unlike its gas-powered, best-selling brethren, the Focus Electric is far from a mass-market car. Analysts expect Ford to build no more than 2,500 Focus Electrics in the first year—just enough to comply with zero-emissions regulations in California. (In contrast, Nissan could build as many as 60,000 Leafs this year.) It’s priced like a boutique item, too. The Focus Electric starts at $39,200: $4,000 more than the Leaf and $20,900 more than a gas-powered Focus. In fact, the biggest problem with the Focus Electric is how hard Ford has made it to buy one.
Range: 76 miles
Horsepower: 143
Charge time: 4 hours
Price: $39,200 (plus delivery)
Ford's Fastest Mustang Ever: A 200 mph Muscle Car
Detroit automakers have recently been locked in a competition straight out of the 1960s: a race to create the fastest and most powerful muscle car. This summer, Ford takes the lead with the 650-horsepower Mustang Shelby GT 500. To break the 200mph mark, engineers departed from the muscle-car tradition of throwing a truck engine under the hood and calling it a day. Instead they redesigned the engine with lightweight materials, refined the car’s aerodynamics, and installed driver-assistance systems that allow anyone to drive the Shelby as it’s designed to be driven—aggressively.
650-HORSEPOWER ENGINE
The Shelby’s 5.8-liter engine is the most powerful V8 in production. It’s also 102 pounds lighter than its 5.4-liter predecessor. Engineers switched to an aluminum engine block, ditched the two-piece iron driveshaft in favor of a one-piece carbon-fiber unit, and replaced the heavy sleeves that guard the cylinder walls with a protective layer of atomized metal alloy.
DRAG RACING ASSIST
The key to quick off-the-line acceleration is to rev the engine as high as possible before engaging the clutch, without crossing the threshold where the tires will lose traction. The Shelby’s launch control finds this sweet spot electronically. The driver presses a button to select an rpm limit, floors it, drops the clutch, and hangs on as the car begins its four-second sprint from 0 to 60 mph.
HIGH-SPEED STABILIZERS
To keep the car glued to the road as it approaches 200 mph, designers added a front splitter, a horizontal scoop below the grille that directs air underneath the car. By creating an area of low pressure beneath the car (and consequently an area of higher pressure above the car), the Shelby generates 33 percent more aerodynamic downforce than its predecessor.
ADJUSTABLE STEERING AND SUSPENSION
Computerized systems let drivers customize the Shelby’s performance. With the car’s electronic steering-assist system, drivers can choose Comfort mode to engage a hydraulic system that makes the steering soft and easy. Or they can select Sport mode, which tightens the steering for quick, precise turns. With the optional adjustable dampers, the driver can modify the suspension with the press of a button, stiffening it for flat cornering on smooth pavement or softening it for comfortable driving on rough roads.
THE 2013 FORD MUSTANG SHELBY GT 500
Price: From $54,200
Engine: 5.9-liter V8
Max. power: 650 hp
0-60 time: 4 seconds
Top speed: 202 mph
650-HORSEPOWER ENGINE
The Shelby’s 5.8-liter engine is the most powerful V8 in production. It’s also 102 pounds lighter than its 5.4-liter predecessor. Engineers switched to an aluminum engine block, ditched the two-piece iron driveshaft in favor of a one-piece carbon-fiber unit, and replaced the heavy sleeves that guard the cylinder walls with a protective layer of atomized metal alloy.
DRAG RACING ASSIST
The key to quick off-the-line acceleration is to rev the engine as high as possible before engaging the clutch, without crossing the threshold where the tires will lose traction. The Shelby’s launch control finds this sweet spot electronically. The driver presses a button to select an rpm limit, floors it, drops the clutch, and hangs on as the car begins its four-second sprint from 0 to 60 mph.
HIGH-SPEED STABILIZERS
To keep the car glued to the road as it approaches 200 mph, designers added a front splitter, a horizontal scoop below the grille that directs air underneath the car. By creating an area of low pressure beneath the car (and consequently an area of higher pressure above the car), the Shelby generates 33 percent more aerodynamic downforce than its predecessor.
ADJUSTABLE STEERING AND SUSPENSION
Computerized systems let drivers customize the Shelby’s performance. With the car’s electronic steering-assist system, drivers can choose Comfort mode to engage a hydraulic system that makes the steering soft and easy. Or they can select Sport mode, which tightens the steering for quick, precise turns. With the optional adjustable dampers, the driver can modify the suspension with the press of a button, stiffening it for flat cornering on smooth pavement or softening it for comfortable driving on rough roads.
THE 2013 FORD MUSTANG SHELBY GT 500
Price: From $54,200
Engine: 5.9-liter V8
Max. power: 650 hp
0-60 time: 4 seconds
Top speed: 202 mph
Test Drive: The 2012 Toyota Prius C
A cheaper, smaller Prius with crazy pants gas mileage
Recently Bloomberg ran a report stating that Toyota is on track to sell over 250,000 Prius-branded vehicles in the United States in 2012. If you live anywhere on the coasts or in any urban and/or quickly gentrifying area, you might think Toyota has hit that saturation point already. In California, it seems that every other car on the road is a Prius--including most of the taxicabs. Toyota wants more from the Prius than the standard "Lift back" and the family cruiser Prius V (for versatility). Now, with the introduction of the Prius C--the C is for City--Toyota has created a smaller, less expensive, entry level Prius for the masses. Beware all other compact cars, hybrid or not: the gauntlet has been thrown down.
WHAT'S NEW
The C is all-new to the Prius line-up for 2012 and comes equipped with a 1.5-liter, four-cylinder, Atkinson cycle engine with 73 horsepower and 82 lb.-ft of torque coupled to a 60 hp/45 kW electric engine and mated to a CVT transmission. The C produces a total of 99 horsepower, considerably less than the 134 total horsepower in the Prius Lift back. That makes it kind of the baby version of the regular, aggressively designed five-door hatchback Prius. It’s shorter by about 20 inches, lighter by about 500 pounds, and is a lot more nimble than the Lift back In order to get to market quickly and at a compact car price, Toyota took a lot of the underpinnings from the tried and true Yaris, shrank the Hybrid Synergy Drive system along with the battery pack down, and presto wham mo, the Prius C.
2012 Toyota Prius Dashboard: Toyota
WHAT'S GOOD
We like the fact that Toyota has gone the extra mile to gamify the driving experience by measuring your savings in gallons and dollars as well as the driver’s overall eco footprint. Knowing how much money I saved while driving the C brought out the miser in me--in a good way. We also like the way the C looks, all bulbous angles with a firm, hard stance and nicely laid out interior. It’s also a lot tougher looking than the Lift back and goes a long way to appealing to the "kids" who’ll buy the car.
The Drive: While the C won’t win any awards for its sporty drive--it makes the larger and more powerful Prius Lift back feel like driving a 3 Series--the C is serviceable enough in the city and on congested highways to make you forget you’re in a car with a 0-60 time of about 11.5 seconds. The C’s power plant labors under the constraints of full throttle, with a loud gasp and an emphysemic wheezing for power. On any sort of twisty road, the C seems nonchalant, as if it doesn't want to be thrown around at all. That said, we did average close to 50 mpg even with the dreaded affliction of "car journo-itis," wherein you must mash the gas at every opportunity, much to the chagrin of say, the car journo’s wife.
We came to realize after a few days that sportiness is not the point of driving the C. The C is meant to cajole you into relaxation, where the aim and goal is to get there, safely and on time with a maximum feeling of restfulness and maximum savings for your wallet. It’s not a driver’s car, it’s a consumer’s car for those who study Zen. And with four-dollar-a-gallon gas, it’s a small good thing to be meditative about the journey.
2012 Toyota Prius Interior: Toyota
WHAT'S BAD
The engine is as buzzy as a hive of wasps, the road noise and NVH (noise, vibration, and harshness) is as loud as a Sleigh Bells concert, and the seats are lacking in bolsters and padding. We know, of course, that this is an inexpensive compact car, but we wish a little more mind was paid to the ride quality.
THE PRICE
The C starts at $18,950, which is $4,570 less than the Prius Lift back The C has the same pricing and model conventions as its big brother--there is the One at $18,950, the Two at $19,900, Three at $21,635 and a fully loaded Four at $23,230, which is about $290 less than the base Prius Two Lift back The C cross-shops with the Honda Insight at $18,500, the two-seat Honda CR-Z at $19,695 and its sibling, the Prius Lift back at $23,520.
THE VERDICT
The highest rated city fuel economy of any vehicle without a plug (53 mpg city and 46 mpg highway): check. A low starting MSRP of $18,950: check. A brand name Prius: check. The Prius C is a great alternative to the basic economy car and presents a stylish, safe alternative with amazing gas mileage. While we’d save our pennies for a Prius Lift back some would be hard-pressed to spend the extra $4,500 or so. With good reason, too: the C, while not perfect, gets the point that sometimes driving is about the what’s missing, rather than what you want.
Recently Bloomberg ran a report stating that Toyota is on track to sell over 250,000 Prius-branded vehicles in the United States in 2012. If you live anywhere on the coasts or in any urban and/or quickly gentrifying area, you might think Toyota has hit that saturation point already. In California, it seems that every other car on the road is a Prius--including most of the taxicabs. Toyota wants more from the Prius than the standard "Lift back" and the family cruiser Prius V (for versatility). Now, with the introduction of the Prius C--the C is for City--Toyota has created a smaller, less expensive, entry level Prius for the masses. Beware all other compact cars, hybrid or not: the gauntlet has been thrown down.
WHAT'S NEW
The C is all-new to the Prius line-up for 2012 and comes equipped with a 1.5-liter, four-cylinder, Atkinson cycle engine with 73 horsepower and 82 lb.-ft of torque coupled to a 60 hp/45 kW electric engine and mated to a CVT transmission. The C produces a total of 99 horsepower, considerably less than the 134 total horsepower in the Prius Lift back. That makes it kind of the baby version of the regular, aggressively designed five-door hatchback Prius. It’s shorter by about 20 inches, lighter by about 500 pounds, and is a lot more nimble than the Lift back In order to get to market quickly and at a compact car price, Toyota took a lot of the underpinnings from the tried and true Yaris, shrank the Hybrid Synergy Drive system along with the battery pack down, and presto wham mo, the Prius C.
2012 Toyota Prius Dashboard: Toyota
WHAT'S GOOD
We like the fact that Toyota has gone the extra mile to gamify the driving experience by measuring your savings in gallons and dollars as well as the driver’s overall eco footprint. Knowing how much money I saved while driving the C brought out the miser in me--in a good way. We also like the way the C looks, all bulbous angles with a firm, hard stance and nicely laid out interior. It’s also a lot tougher looking than the Lift back and goes a long way to appealing to the "kids" who’ll buy the car.
The Drive: While the C won’t win any awards for its sporty drive--it makes the larger and more powerful Prius Lift back feel like driving a 3 Series--the C is serviceable enough in the city and on congested highways to make you forget you’re in a car with a 0-60 time of about 11.5 seconds. The C’s power plant labors under the constraints of full throttle, with a loud gasp and an emphysemic wheezing for power. On any sort of twisty road, the C seems nonchalant, as if it doesn't want to be thrown around at all. That said, we did average close to 50 mpg even with the dreaded affliction of "car journo-itis," wherein you must mash the gas at every opportunity, much to the chagrin of say, the car journo’s wife.
We came to realize after a few days that sportiness is not the point of driving the C. The C is meant to cajole you into relaxation, where the aim and goal is to get there, safely and on time with a maximum feeling of restfulness and maximum savings for your wallet. It’s not a driver’s car, it’s a consumer’s car for those who study Zen. And with four-dollar-a-gallon gas, it’s a small good thing to be meditative about the journey.
2012 Toyota Prius Interior: Toyota
WHAT'S BAD
The engine is as buzzy as a hive of wasps, the road noise and NVH (noise, vibration, and harshness) is as loud as a Sleigh Bells concert, and the seats are lacking in bolsters and padding. We know, of course, that this is an inexpensive compact car, but we wish a little more mind was paid to the ride quality.
THE PRICE
The C starts at $18,950, which is $4,570 less than the Prius Lift back The C has the same pricing and model conventions as its big brother--there is the One at $18,950, the Two at $19,900, Three at $21,635 and a fully loaded Four at $23,230, which is about $290 less than the base Prius Two Lift back The C cross-shops with the Honda Insight at $18,500, the two-seat Honda CR-Z at $19,695 and its sibling, the Prius Lift back at $23,520.
THE VERDICT
The highest rated city fuel economy of any vehicle without a plug (53 mpg city and 46 mpg highway): check. A low starting MSRP of $18,950: check. A brand name Prius: check. The Prius C is a great alternative to the basic economy car and presents a stylish, safe alternative with amazing gas mileage. While we’d save our pennies for a Prius Lift back some would be hard-pressed to spend the extra $4,500 or so. With good reason, too: the C, while not perfect, gets the point that sometimes driving is about the what’s missing, rather than what you want.