Each week, our German correspondent slices and dices the latest rumblings, news, and quick-hit driving impressions from the other side of the pond. His byline may say Jens Meiners, but we simply call him . . . the Continental.
If Fiat and PSA get their way in the structuring of fuel-economy regulations, cars like the S-class will need to become more efficient or face stiff penalties
Last week, CEOs and board members of the member organisations of the VDA (Verband der deutschen Automobilindustrie) congregated in Berlin. Behind closed doors, the executives spoke about the challenges facing the industry right now. There is uneasiness about an apparent mood swing on electrics. “While the hype was overblown, the negative reporting we see right now is just as exaggerated,” my confidant tells me.
A permanent source of fretfulness, I am told, is the discussion on the methods by which the ambitious emissions targets are calculated. According to current proposals, vehicles would be grouped by their weight and each of those weight-determined categories would need to see a yet-to-be-determined percentage improvement in efficiency. That doesn’t sit well with PSA and Fiat, who would like a single efficiency target averaged throughout each manufacturer’s lineup—allowing for inefficient supercars and SUVs to be offset by hybrids, EVs, and city cars. This, of course, means that the French and the Italians, who mostly sell minicars and subcompacts, would have to do very little to meet the overall targets, while German premium automakers would be scrambling to get consumption of, say, an S-class down to the level of a Fiat Panda or face huge penalties. “Each country has different interests, but we are surprised that German politicians suddenly follow other countries’ line of argument,” says my source. “We feel it would be a fatal mistake to apply the same limit to every car and brand.”
Topics of conversation also included the global standardization of testing procedures, which is woefully inadequate; the upcoming noise emissions standards, which threaten to silence those performance cars we all love; and the sometimes-bumpy relationship between automakers and suppliers.
Letter Games
Mercedes-Benz’s styling team is keen to point out the stylized “G” in the headlights of the Ener-G-Force concept to be unveiled at the Los Angeles auto show at the end of the month. I heard the same when the C-class was face-lifted last year: “Did you notice the ‘C’ in the headlight?” Yes, now that you mention it. And I can’t wait to see the headlights of the next GLK . . .
Driving the A3 Sportback
My colleague Thomas Weber drove the Audi A3 Sportback at its launch in Monte Carlo this week—the very location used for the launch of the original Sportback, which I remember well. Back then, Audi used Wally yachts to shuttle us to our dinner location.
The Sportback is more successful than the three-door A3 in most markets; this time around, it’s been changed significantly, although it looks more similar to the three-door than before. While the previous A3 Sportback featured a longer rear overhang, this one has a longer wheelbase than the base model. Weber says there is lots of room for rear-seated passengers, and an “elegant and remarkably clean” dashboard. “We are taking full advantage of this platform, which also is the basis for the new Golf and the Seat Léon.” Heiko Pabst von Ohain, the A3′s product manager, told Weber: “But everything you see and feel is Audi. There is not a single shared visible part.”
Weber was impressed with the engine portfolio, which is growing to include engines we like. A 184-hp, 2.0-liter TDI now is available in European markets. The chassis is “sporty and well balanced” and the steering is “sensitive and precise.” His impressions corroborate my experience with the three-door A3 and the Golf MkVII. In Germany, the A3 Sportback costs €900 more than a standard A3. What about the U.S. market? Says Pabst von Ohain: “There will be an A3 sedan; the sedan will definitely come to the U.S., while there is no final decision yet on the Sportback.”
When Ford Went Front-Wheel Drive
Fifty years ago, automotive history was written with the first front-wheel-drive Ford. The car was a compact sedan, developed in Detroit as the Cardinal to fend off the challenge posed by imports like the Volkswagen Beetle and the Renault Dauphine. (Fun fact: Cardinals, the birds, feed on Beetles, the insects.) Then Ford decided to sell it on both sides of the Atlantic; but when small-car sales nose-dived in the early 1960s, the project of a U.S.-market Cardinal was put to bed. The Cardinal was sent to Cologne, Germany, where it was launched as the Taunus 12M. It was powered by a V-4 engine and available with a large number of body variations. Originally, it was supposed to be manufactured in Louisville, Kentucky, on the production line of the Edsel.
Manufactured by Ford Cologne, it became an instant success. But it quickly became target of a Nader-like campaign about its supposedly inadequate roadholding abilities, and it actually was put together in a mediocre way. After four years, it was replaced with a successor on a similar architecture, but for the 1970s, Ford reverted to rear-wheel drive.
The Cardinal experience was traumatic for Ford, and it explains why the company was woefully late to launch a front-wheel-drive car in the 1970s. The first-generation Fiesta, code-named Bobcat, was under intense fire from within the company, and the program was on the verge of being killed off several times. The larger Escort remained on a rear-wheel-drive platform until 1980 (Project Erika), and in the mid-size segment, it took Ford until 1983, and Ford of Europe until 1993, to switch to front-wheel drive. Read full story »
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/caranddriver/blog/~3/ymvQvaEMdW0/
José Froilán González Oscar González Aldo Gordini Horace Gould Jean Marc Gounon
No comments:
Post a Comment