Judge: “Bailiff, read the charges.”

Bailiff: “Mr. Axel Turner is charged with operating a motor vehicle without Automatic Emergency Braking, endangering the lives of other motorists, and reckless disregard for distracted pedestrians.”

Judge: “How does the defendant plead?”

Turner: “Not guilty, or maybe nolo contendere. There are extenuating circumstances, your honor.”

Judge: “Okay, I’ll humor you…for a minute. Let’s hear it.”

Turner: “Your honor, I love cars.”

Gasp from the courtroom

Judge: “Order in the court!”

Turner: “I love cars because they’re complicated mechanical beasts that you can harness and enjoy on an open country road.”

Judge: “I fail to see what ‘loving’ cars has to do with the charges against you, Mr. Turner.”

Turner: “I believe that the only way you can really enjoy a car is if you shift it yourself.”

Judge: “You mean, like the old-fashioned ‘stick shifts’?”

Turner: “That’s right! Without a manual transmission, you’re just along for the ride.”

Judge: “Surely all those stick-shift cars are now in museums, or simply removed from the highways by federal decree.”

Turner: “Actually, it was the insurance companies’ fault. You can’t buy a manual-transmission car anymore. So I converted mine.”

Judge: “Converted it? Just what do you mean, Mr. Turner?”

Turner: “I pulled out the Dual-clutch Regenerative Automated Transmission and found an old six-speed manual at a metal recycling center, and then more or less engineered the whole thing myself.”

Judge: “Modifying a vehicle to subvert state and federal motor vehicle standards is also a crime, Mr. Turner. You’re digging a deeper hole for yourself.”

Turner: “I didn’t touch any of the safety systems. Honest! But now I’ve got a brand new Audi RS1 Quattro with a real manual transmission. How cool is that?”

Judge: “By replacing the perfectly good D.R.A.T. with an old-fashioned – and I might add, probably illegal – manual transmission, you must have affected the operation of the Automatic Emergency Braking system.”

Turner: “Only to a point, your honor. When the AEB detects a collision, I just need to depress the clutch pedal so the engine doesn’t stall.”

Judge: “I believe the whole point of AEB is to protect drivers who are not paying attention, so they do not have to take any action. Mr. Turner, I can see no reason not to charge you with one or more crimes. Do you have anything more to say?”

Turner: “I just want to have fun driving my car. I want to search out deserted roads and clip the apexes on the curves as I match revs and downshift manually, then hear the engine RPM climb as I accelerate toward the next curve. That’s what driving is all about. Not downloading videos while your car drives for you.”

Judge: “Automatic Emergency Braking is about saving lives, Mr. Turner, and your anti-social actions cannot be condoned. If you had shown contrition, I might have suggested that you join some type of antiquities club where you could drive old-fashioned stick-shift cars on a private course, although I don’t see the point in that either. No, I believe you’re a hardened case. I find you guilty and sentence you to 6 months in a psychological readjustment center where, after treatment, you may come to see the error of your ways.”

Judge pounds his gavel.

Judge: “Next case!”

Bailiff: “Mr. Landon Niere is next, your honor. He’s charged with willfully walking in front of oncoming vehicles with a ‘Can you see me now?’ sign around his neck.”
Judge: “Do you have a death wish, Mr. Niere?”

Niere: “Just doing my civic duty for all these drivers, making sure their Automatic Emergency Braking systems are working….”

If you could get the same fuel economy from a larger car as you would in a smaller car, which would you choose? For most people, the choice is obvious. As much as I like smaller cars, there’s something to be said for having more room for people and cargo, and maybe a bit less intimidation from tractor-trailers on the highway.

The relationship between MPG and size used to be clear cut – if you wanted to get high mileage, you bought a small car. But with each generation of fuel efficiency advances that are being engineered into midsize and larger cars, small cars lose some of their efficiency luster.

A Tale of Three Fords

The most fuel-efficient Ford Fusion sedan – excluding hybrids – has a 1.5L EcoBoost four-cylinder engine. With its 6-speed automatic transmission, this Fusion model gets a combined EPA rating of 29 mpg. Compare that to two Ford Focus models. The most fuel-efficient Focus gets 31 mpg combined. A more “standard” Focus is rated at 30 mpg.

So two miles per gallon separates these cars. The Fusion has 100 cu. ft. of passenger volume; the Focus sedan has 90 cu. ft. The Fusion’s trunk is 3 cu. ft. larger. For a family of three or four people, that’s a big difference.

What difference will 2 mpg make over the course of a year? If you drive 15,000 miles a year, and gasoline stays at around $2.00/gallon (today’s AAA national average is $2.03), the larger Ford sedan will cost you $66.60 more per year, or put another way, just $5.55 a month – about the cost of a Venti Frappuccino at Starbuck’s.

A Handful of Hyundais
Things get even more interesting when comparing midsize and small Hyundai sedans.

The most fuel-efficient Hyundai Accent is rated at 30 mpg EPA Combined. The thriftiest non-hybrid Sonata, with a new 1.6L turbo-four, is rated at 32 mpg. So you can have extra room and save money at the pump, too. Even the non-turbo, four-cylinder Sonata gets only 1 mpg less than the much smaller Accent.

A Smattering Of Small Cars
Here’s another look at some small cars and their EPA ratings.

None of these examples presents a compelling case for downsizing. I could certainly argue that a Fiat 500 would be a whole lot more fun to drive than a Ford Fusion, but looking at things rationally, the Fiat and other small cars don’t add up.

Expensive Efficiency
One of the reasons for this disparity in favor of larger cars is that automakers are applying their newest fuel-saving features to this class of vehicle. Notable examples include small turbocharged engines – 1.5 and 1.6L four cylinders – and wide-ratio transmissions, plus stop/start technology and aerodynamic aids. Since small cars have much lower profit margins, automakers seem to be saving these expensive new technologies for larger cars, at least for now.

There’s a real irony here. To borrow the old hot-rodder saying: Fuel economy costs money. How efficient do you want to be?

Surprise, surprise! Going “green” is just fine as long as it doesn’t impact your wallet. That’s one of the findings of the Public Policy Institute of California, based on a broad-reaching opinion poll of Golden State consumers, arguably the most environmentally aware consumers in the nation.

According to PPIC’s president, Mark Baldassare, “The belief in climate change and support for state and federal action in climate change remains very strong in California today.” Dig a little deeper in the study’s findings, however, and you can detect a few caveats.

Asked if state and federal governments should require oil companies to produce transportation fuels with lower emissions, more than three-quarters of Californians – 76% – said yes. But of those who answered positively, only 37% favored this move if it would mean an increase in gasoline prices. A similar split occurred when asked about requiring a large portion of California’s electricity to come from renewable energy sources.

It seems that “green” in the abstract is far more appealing than a green reality of potentially higher costs.

Desire vs. Costs

Let’s bring this idea into focus with fuel-efficient cars. A recent study of U.S. drivers by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates LLC found that 74% of respondents would consider buying a hybrid-electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle.

And yet last year, pure electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles accounted for only 0.6% of total new-car sales. Even traditional hybrids made up only 490,000 of the 15.6 million vehicles sold in 2013.

Future Increases

Just last month, a Consumer Federation of America survey reported that 83% of respondents support the federal government’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards calling for the equivalent of a 54.5-mpg average by 2025.

But costs were not factored into the survey questions.

These 2025 CAFE standards should result in average incremental cost increases of $1,540, according to the federal government. By another estimate, from engineering firm AVL Group, that figure could be $2,566. The AVL Group analysis also noted a big disparity among different types of vehicles. For full-size light-duty trucks, for example, they estimate that costs could jump by $4,542.

Impact on Car Sales

Green usually costs more, even though it can save money in the long run. Just how far-sighted the buying public will be when faced with increasingly expensive green vehicles remains to be seen.

While I’ve never (openly) referred to legal as “the sales prevention department,” like any creative person, I do harbor a bit of resentment when my carefully crafted copy is neutered after legal review. Believe me, I understand their motivation. Automakers’ legal departments review all copy – in ads, brochures, videos and websites – to help prevent litigation based on language and unfounded claims. But still…

So that got me wondering – what if the Jordan Motor Car Company of the 1920s had legal review of their famous “Somewhere West of Laramie” ad, which Advertising Age cited as one of the top 100 ads of the 20th century? Here’s what the marked-up copy might have looked like:

And after legal review (and much hair-pulling and heated discussions), here’s how the copy might have read:

SOMEWHERE out West, there’s a woman who knows what I’m talking about. She knows what to do with eleven hundred pounds of vehicle when it’s running well. The truth is – the Playboy was built for her. Built for the woman whose face is warmed by the sun when the day is done. She loves the blend of the wild and the tame. There’s something special about that car – like fun and pleasant memories. It’s a big thing for the country yet a graceful thing for the city. Step into the Playboy when the hour grows late. Then start for the country with the spirit of the woman who rides into a Western sunset.

Does it stink after legal review? Well, not horribly. But is it poetry? Definitely not.

We live in a sanitized age, with all sorts of protections “for our own good.” Personally, I’m happy to have most of those protections, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t pine for the spirit of the lass who rides into the red horizon of a Wyoming twilight.

When Henry Ford built the sprawling Rouge River Plant in the 1920s, cargo ships would unload huge blocks of iron ore at one end of the facility, and brand-new Model A Fords would drive out the other end. Of course, it helped that Ford owned forests, mines, ships and even a rubber plantation at the time. The automotive material world has changed a lot in 90+ years, but locking in a supply chain is still key, especially if you’re introducing innovative new materials.

The aluminum-intensive 2015 Ford F-150 shown at the recent North American International Auto Show in Detroit represents a dramatic gamble that could reset the status quo in the pickup truck market. But while the engineering story is intriguing, so is the supplier/OEM arrangement between Ford and Alcoa.

One Every 41 Seconds

Keep in mind that we’re not talking about a low-volume Jaguar, Land Rover or Audi model – all early adopters of aluminum bodies. Ford sold more than 760,000 F-Series trucks last year. On average, a new F-Series pickup truck is made every 41 seconds. And the F-Series has been America’s best-selling vehicle (not just truck) for 32 years. So any change in the F-Series is big news.

Multiple Benefits

Let’s back up a minute, and consider the potential benefits of a significantly lighter, aluminum-bodied F-Series pickup:

   • Improved fuel efficiency. Highway mileage may approach 30 mpg – an astounding figure for a full-size pickup
   • Improved handling and vehicle dynamics
   • Quicker acceleration
   • Shorter stopping distances
   • Rust- and corrosion-resistant bodies

As Ford president and CEO Alan Mulally told Time Magazine recently (1/13/14), “Everything becomes more efficient once you take the weight out.” Yes, there are downsides, or at least “unknowns,” such as cost and repairability. But Ford is not about to make a multi-million dollar mistake on the F-Series.

Don’t Think “Aluminum Foil”

Ford is quick to note that they are using “high-strength, military-grade aluminum alloy” for the F-Series body. And the fully boxed frame is still steel. In fact, 77% of the frame is made of high-strength 70,000-psi steel to improve durability. And as you would expect, this innovative pickup has been thoroughly torture-tested. 

A disguised F-150 competed in the 2013 Baja 1000 off-road race. A fleet of pickups with the new aluminum-alloy beds went into service with a mining company, energy utility and construction firm, covering 300,000 miles in two years.

“We put the truck through some of our testing longer and further than we have ever done before,” notes Ford development manager Peter Frantzeskakis. When the F-150 goes on sale later this year, it will have covered more than 10 million test miles.

Doubling in 10 Years

But back to the supplier/OEM partnership that’s behind this innovative truck. According to the financial services company Motley Fool (1/22/14), Alcoa, the aluminum-alloy supplier to the 2015 F-150, “will be a long-term beneficiary of growth” as the industry moves to greater use of this alloy. “Alcoa is one of Ford’s key partners for the aluminum body,” Motley Fool’s website notes, “and this gives it almost guaranteed growth as Ford’s new pickups go into production.”

Alcoa predicts that demand for aluminum used in light-duty vehicles will nearly double in the next 10 years.

 Others To Follow?

Can we expect Chrysler/Ram and GM to follow suit with their own aluminum-bodied trucks? That may not be easy. According to Bloomberg News, the price for spot-market aluminum is skyrocketing. Of course, Ford has a long-term contract, so that’s not an issue. Alcoa’s Marketing Director, Randall Scheps, noted during the recent Autoline Supplier Symposium (1/17/14), “Bring us in early; bring us in 3 years ahead of time.” In short: Materials suppliers need 3 year’s notice in order to meet automakers’ demands.

So while Ford may not have cornered the market on high-grade aluminum-alloy, as Henry Ford tried to do with some suppliers decades earlier, the company has obviously made a very canny move to ensure that no one else can duplicate its efforts for several years.

One Ford official told CarKnack that the new F-Series was “Ford’s moon shot” – that was the scale of this program. They may, indeed, be right in calling the vehicle “the reinvention of America’s favorite truck.”

Now, is there a lesson here for carbon-fiber?

Just how much fuel does a plane, train, ship or car use to haul us around? The answer is surprisingly difficult to ferret out. You can find BTUs per passenger kilometer and other techy figures, but searching for good ole “MPG” – or calculating it – takes some digging and a good bit of math. I think I’ve got it sussed in this blog.

Gallons Used

First, try to swallow this figure: We used 569 million gallons of petroleum to travel by air, land and sea in 2010 – the latest figure available from the Energy Department. And that’s only civilian use; not the military. That’s one heck of a lot of oil.

On Land, Sea and Air

But let’s get back to the main question – which mode of transportation uses those millions of gallons most efficiently? Based purely on miles per gallon, cars look pretty good.

According to the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (these organizations never have short names, do they?), the average miles per gallon of 2012 model-year cars was 23.5 mpg – not a bad figure.

Commercial airliners and passenger trains get less than a half mile per gallon. Amtrak trains average 0.46 mpg. Airline “fuel economy” varies widely, from 0.28 to 0.55 mpg, depending on type of plane and distance traveled. (FYI: The venerable Boeing 737-300, on a 500 mile flight – say New York to Cincinnati – is one of the most efficient at 0.54 mpg.) The 0.42 mpg figure used in the chart is an average calculated by the Wall Street Journal in 2010.

Ships are incredibly inefficient. The Cunard Line’s QE2 – admittedly one of the fastest cruise ships – uses 1 gallon of fuel to travel just 49 feet. (By the way, container ships are a bit better, mostly because they travel at much slower speeds than cruise ships.)

The Heavy Users

It’s no surprise that it takes a heck of a lot of fuel to lift a big airliner into the sky and fly at about 500 mph. But if we look at which mode of transport uses the most fuel, period, that would be cars and trucks. Of that 569 million gallons cited earlier, cars and trucks use over 85%. Planes use about 8%, ships about 5% and trains only 2%. So the federal government’s push to increase automobile fuel economy is well placed.

Seat MPG

About now, the transportation geeks are howling: “You can’t carry a couple of hundred people in a car!” That’s true, so let’s insert one more figure into the mix – occupant capacity.

The average commercial airline carries about 150 people, so a fully loaded plane can be rated at 63 Seat Miles per Gallon. That sounds more palatable, doesn’t it? Applying the same math to ships, say the Cunard Line’s QE2 with 1,777 passengers and 1,016 crew, brings its Seat MPG up to 25 – not too shabby.

Put five people in a car that gets “average” fuel economy, and you come up with a Seat MPG of 119 – now we’re talking.

But Amtrak definitely trumps them all. With an average of 238 seats, an Amtrak passenger train can boast 141 Seat MPG.

All Aboard?

Are all planes full? Most of the flights that I’ve been on are. I don’t know about cruise ships, but I’ve also been on plenty of packed Amtrak trains here in the NE Corridor. My point is, planes and trains do a pretty good job of actually achieving these calculated Seat MPG figures.

Cars? Not so much. Most cars I see, even on interstates, have maybe two people in them. That’s not very efficient in the scheme of things, and this reality starts to chip away at cars’ fuel economy advantage.

Future Improvements

But wait, there’s change in the wind. By federal mandate, cars will be getting more and more fuel-efficient over the next 10 to 15 years. Planes have made big efficiency gains as well, in some cases posting a 40% increase in the last 15 years.

Ships and trains can’t seem to match these figures. Slippery hull designs and fuel-efficient engines haven’t yielded dramatic improvements in sea-going vessels. And intercity trains can only inch ahead slightly with the latest engineering tricks – perhaps 3 to 5% increases by some estimates. That may be due to weight. Even the newer Amtrak Acela weighs 4,100 pounds per passenger seat.

The future efficiency champ may well be the car. In fact, according to one analysis for the Cato Institute, by 2030 the average car will use less energy per passenger mile than Amtrak.

Now we just have to convince more people to ride along in these hyper-efficient future cars.

Notes:

• I did not try to calculate the fossil-fuel equivalent of electric vehicles, including what may be the most efficient form of transportation – intracity rail. This is all about petroleum users.

• For calculations on ship fuel economy, I assumed 1 metric ton of bunker fuel equals approximately 273 gallons.

Sources:

Amtrak Annual Report 2012

The Wall Street Journal, August 12, 2010

Transportation Energy Data Book 2012

Testimony of Randal O’Toole, Cato Institute, September 20, 2012

The recent crash of an Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 at SFO may hold a lesson for automakers moving inexorably toward the autonomous car. As the New York Times (July 15, 2013) noted in its analysis of this accident, there is “a lingering argument about pilots relying too much on automation.”

Fully automated cars, on the other hand, may be a long way off. But what about cars that can accelerate to cruising speed, brake when confronting an obstacle, stay in their lane of travel, and even parallel park, all with minimal input from the driver? These features are available right now, and not just on high-priced luxury models.

Familiarity Breeds Contempt

Today, most of these “dynamic driver assistance systems” are quite new, and few drivers have become inured to their abilities. Given a few years, however, the situation could be quite different.

Once you own a car with a blind spot monitor, do you even have to look that closely before you change lanes…or do you just let the system warn you when there’s a vehicle alongside? If an adaptive cruise control system uses radar and cameras to scan the road ahead, either braking when confronting a slow-moving car or accelerating back up to speed when the road is clear, do you really have to pay close attention to the road? Given the “freedom” of this system, why not take a moment to text someone? (Of course that’s a satirical statement!)

Technology Will Save You

To be fair, every single automaker that offers these systems has literally page upon page of warnings and cautions in their owner’s manuals about how to use and not abuse these features. But what about human nature? If a machine seems to do a good job for us, why do we have to continue to do it?

Skills We’ll Lose

With my handy crystal ball in front of me, here are my predictions on driving skills the general public will begin to lose in the near future:

1. The ability to parallel park – let the parking assist system do it for you.

2. The ability to adjust exterior mirrors to prevent blind spots – why bother with mirrors at all if the blind spot monitor can “see” for you.

3. The ability to stay between the dotted lines on a highway – the camera/radar system will steer for you.

4. The ability to know when to use and when not to use cruise control – if adaptive cruise control works at any speed, might as well leave it on.

5. The ability to bring a car to a stop in the shortest possible distance – let ABS, brake assist and emergency brake-force distribution handle the job

Devil’s Advocate

You could easily argue that few people are good at parallel parking, very few people know how to adjust their mirrors, distracted drivers will always cross the dotted line, and simply, why not let semi-autonomous systems deal with difficult driving tasks? No one is going to step into a time machine and be required to manhandle a Marmon Wasp around the Indy 500, so let technology relieve us of the arduous task of driving.

The Slippery Slope

To me, it’s a slippery slope. I can appreciate ABS brakes and automatic headlights, but I really don’t want a car that tries to keep me centered in my lane. I want to be able to see a bicyclist on the side of the road and ease to the left to give him as much space as I deem safe while minimizing my time in the opposing lane. I want to be aware enough of the driving conditions to know when I should turn off the cruise control. I want to be able to drive, not “pilot,” my car.

A Matter of Control

I guess it boils down to this: I want control of my car. Will I make mistakes? Yes, we all do. But they won’t be mistakes caused by over-reliance on technology.

If The Graduate’s family friend were giving automotive investment advice today, instead of “plastics,” he might well suggest “hydraulics.” While gasoline/electric hybrid cars are still ascendant, hydraulic hybrids could well be the new frontier.

Consider: Earlier this year, PSA Peugeot Citroen and Bosch announced the joint development of a hydraulic hybrid powertrain for passenger cars with a claimed 45% fuel savings in urban driving. NRG Dynamix, a Michigan start-up, is currently soliciting automakers to consider its “Drop ‘N Hybrid®” hydraulic transmission, with a claimed 60% fuel savings shown in an experimental compact pickup truck. And Eaton, a major supplier to the automotive industry, is already offering its HLA® hydraulic launch assist system on commercial refuse trucks.

 A Long Time Coming

Eleven years ago, Ford showed off its Mighty F-350 Tonka concept pickup at the Detroit Auto Show. Look beyond the toy-truck motif and you’d see the debut of Eaton’s hydraulic launch assist. At the time, Ford said HLA could reduce fuel consumption by 25 – 35% in stop-and-go driving. Then-Group VP Richard Parry-Jones noted, “We believe this technology holds promise for making large trucks more fuel efficient and environmentally sound.” Although Ford did not go further with this technology, Eaton did.

European Push

But the most interesting automotive development is from Europe, where PSA Peugeot Citroen – a company not familiar to most Americans – is getting ready to launch a Prius-fighter. Keep in mind that in Europe, diesels are the popular choice for fuel efficiency. But more stringent emissions standards are forcing European automakers to consider alternatives. More and more of them are now offering some type of hybrid vehicle – like the Peugeot 3008 Hybrid 4 diesel/electric – but just as in the U.S., the Toyota Prius is king. And that doesn’t make the Europeans very happy.

Enter the hydraulic hybrid, an amazingly simple idea that switches out all the electric motors and batteries of a “typical” hybrid with a hydraulic pump/motor and a compressed air tank.

How It Works

Take a Prius Hybrid Synergy Drive system’s motor/generators and replace them with hydraulic pumps and motors, then for energy storage, switch out the battery pack and replace it with a compressed air tank. That’s the PSA Hybrid Air system in a nutshell. And in fact, Hybrid Air operates with the same types of driving modes.

 A gasoline engine drives the front wheels and it turns a pump that runs the hydraulic system. The power of hydraulics is used to compress air – actually pure nitrogen – in a storage tank. At low speeds, the gasoline engine can shut down completely, and the compressed air can power the hydraulic motor, which will drive the front wheels. In Air Power mode, it’s a zero-emissions vehicle.

 Higher speeds and cruising bring the gasoline engine back on line, and the hydraulic/air system plus gasoline engine can combine for maximum power. Hybrid Air even has regenerative braking, with the front wheels then powering the hydraulic pump to “charge” the air tank.

 PSA claims that in city driving, a Hybrid Air vehicle can run on compressed air alone up to 80% of the time. In the admittedly liberal European combined cycle, a Ford Fiesta-sized Hybrid Air car could get 81 mpg.

Advantages vs. Electric Hybrids

A Bosch spokesman admits that there are several issues to overcome before Hybrid Air is ready for production, but it does promise important benefits over gasoline/electric or diesel/electric hybrids:

• According to PSA development chief Guillaume Faury, the system only adds about 220-lb. of weight – much less than the motors and batteries of an electric hybrid
• It’s less costly to produce and, according to PSA, will be available in vehicles priced less than 20,000 euros (about $26k).
• All the materials involved are plentiful and easily recyclable – unlike batteries with their rare earth elements.
• All of the components use known, existing technologies, for easier and less costly vehicle maintenance.
• It’s a technology that can be adapted to all global markets and climates, with no adverse effects on range or driving dynamics.

Three Years From Now

PSA has filed 80 patents for this system, and is working toward a production target of 2016. Hybrid Air will likely appear in a vehicle based on the Peugeot 208, using a 3-cylinder gasoline engine along with the hydraulics and compressed air.

 Of course, Americans won’t be able to go down to their local Peugeot or Citroen dealer and check it out. But if this technology is as promising as it seems, we are sure to see some application in the U.S.

 Beyond that, it shows that alternatives to our current “alternate technology” are still out there, ready to be explored.

Hybrid technology is coming to the world-famous 24 Hours of Le Mans this month, and no matter whether the winner is Audi (as expected) or Toyota (which would be an upset), it represents a significant nod toward sustainability in motor racing. According to the race organizers, Automobile Club de l’Ouest (ACO), Le Mans is “performing its role as a racing laboratory more than ever.”

What’s most intriguing to me is not who wins or loses, but rather the transfer of technology in both directions – racecar to road car and road car to racecar.

Two Approaches on the Road
Audi, like its parent company VW AG, is big on diesels, or more specifically, modern turbocharged direct-injection (TDI) diesels. In the U.S. market, Audi sells TDI A3 wagons and Q7 sport utilities. While the company has shown hybrid concepts, there are no hybrid Audi models available here.

Toyota, it goes without saying, is the hybrid king. In fact, it has sold over 3.5 million hybrid cars worldwide. In the U.S., Prius models account for about half of all hybrids sold. At the same time, Toyota has no diesel models in the U.S.

Audi’s Approach at Le Mans
Although you can be sure that both Audi and Toyota considered the ACO rules very carefully, it’s fair to say that the direction they took had as much to do with promoting their road cars as it did winning at Le Mans.

Audi has been victorious at Le Mans with turbo-diesels since 2006, and they hope to garner their 11th victory this month with their turbo-diesel/hybrid drivetrain. Just to cover their bets, however, Audi is also racing two “conventional” TDI racecars in the LMP1 (Le Mans Prototype Class 1) category. In fact, visually, the R18 Ultra (TDI) and the R18 e-tron quattro (hybrid) are identical.

The Audi hybrid racer uses a 510-horsepower, 3.7-liter TDI V6 engine to drive the rear wheels, and an electric motor to drive the front, giving the car sporadic all-wheel-drive traction. I say sporadic, because the ACO rules limit the front-drive boost from the electric motor to speeds above about 75 mph, and only for a few seconds.

Both Audi and Toyota use Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) to generate electricity during braking – basically, the same type of regenerative braking used on production electric vehicles, like the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt. However, rather than use a battery to store electrical energy, Audi’s KERS setup feeds electricity into a flywheel accumulator before it is released to the electric motor to power the front wheels.

Unlike the limited use of KERS in Formula One, the Audi and Toyota systems are totally automatic in operation – the driver cannot control them directly – and they are much more powerful.

Summing up Audi’s approach: Diesel rear-drive plus electric motor front-drive with a flywheel electric storage device.

Toyota’s Approach at Le Mans
Toyota has developed a purpose-built 3.4-liter V8 gasoline engine without turbocharging, and a rear-mounted (actually within the transmission casing) electric motor for its hybrid TS030 racecar. No info has been released on horsepower.

Because of the ACO rules, the operation of Toyota’s electric motor is not limited to any set speed. In other words, the race organizers figured the Audi’s all-wheel-drive advantage, particularly in case of rain, would be offset by giving Toyota broader use of its hybrid system throughout the race, not just coming out of curves after braking.

In a marked departure from its road-going hybrids, the Toyota racecar uses supercapacitors instead of batteries to store and release electrical energy. These capacitors can be charged and discharged much more quickly than batteries, and they can go through many cycles of operation without any degradation in performance.

Summing up Toyota’s approach: Gasoline rear-drive plus electric motor rear-drive with a capacitor electric storage device.

Rules & Advantages
The Circuit de la Sarthe at Le Mans is about 8.5 miles long, and has been modified so that no straightaway is longer than about a mile and a quarter. Top speeds still approach 200 mph, but there are plenty of curves and lots of braking to feed the KERS devices.

To be considered a hybrid by the ACO, an LMP1 racecar must be able to travel the entire length of pit lane at 37 mph under KERS electric power alone. Regulations also limit the amount of energy the KERS devices can deliver to about 100 horsepower for 6 seconds. Again, Audi’s AWD system can only operate above 75 mph; Toyota’s rear-drive system can run at any speed.

All LMP1 cars must weigh a minimum of 1,984 pounds. The Toyota’s naturally aspirated V8 is the maximum permissible displacement of 3.4 liters; the Audi’s 3.7-liter turbo-diesel is also the largest allowed. Gasoline hybrids are allowed to carry 19.3 gallons of fuel, while diesel hybrids can only carry 15.3 gallons. Of course, diesel fuel consumption should be much less.

As you can see, there are plenty of situations where pit stops, fuel economy and weather may determine the race.

More than anything, however, Le Mans is about endurance, and if both hybrids finish the race – driving about 3,100 miles in 24 hours – it will be a major accomplishment.

Technology Transfer
I’ll let the two companies’ execs say it best.

“Audi has always consciously selected championships and categories in racing that have a close relationship to production, and therefore have technical relevance for the Audi customer,” notes Head of Audi Motorsport Dr. Wolfgang Ullrich.

“Hybrid is a core technology of Toyota so it is important to demonstrate this in a motorsport arena,” says Toyota Motorsport President Yoshiaki Kinoshita. The team’s Technical Director, Pascal Vasselon, sums it up nicely: “For any given performance level, a hybrid powertrain will achieve this with less fuel, so it is an extremely relevant technology and one we are excited to be bringing to endurance racing.”

Racing does improve the breed, as has often been noted. From rearview mirrors to fuel injection, racecars have fostered innovation. In this case, however, road-going hybrids may be influencing racing more than the other way around.

What could be better for Southern California cruising than a brilliant white Range Rover Sport Supercharged? Green-shmeen, forget about fuel economy! Just listen to the roar of the engine when five hundred and ten supercharged horsepower come on song. Learn to play the exhaust note with your right foot – it’s a quiet cruiser, but gets serious when you do – and revel in this luxury SUV’s ability to power into just about any spot you choose.

Opening Up Doors
I was able to test-drive this high-end vehicle for a week when my family flew to the San Diego area for a combination of business and pleasure. It was quite an experience. For a mere $76,000, the Range Rover Sport can certainly open up doors – it did for us.

Here’s the story: After too many hotel breakfasts, I did a “Yelp” search for a nicer eatery. The Grand Del Mar, just a few miles north of San Diego, was recommended, so off we went – my wife, two teenage kids and me. It was Sunday morning, but we weren’t in our Sunday best. I had no idea that there’d be the equivalent of a maitre-d’ / bouncer at the Grand Del Mar guardhouse, keeping the riff-raff out.

Luckily, the Range Rover Sport was our ticket in. It was valet-parked right out front, next to a Porsche GT3 RS 4.0 and Maserati Gran Turismo Convertible. We felt like imposters, but our ride was perfectly at home. (By the way, our breakfast was delicious, but ran into three figures – such is the Range Rover lifestyle.)

Performance? Plenty
But back to the joys of piloting this 5,800-pound luxury/performance SUV. Acceleration was never an issue, whether from a standstill or merging onto a high-speed freeway. Handling was also surprisingly responsive, especially with the Terrain Response system in Dynamic Mode. Brakes? 15-inch front rotors and 14.3-inch rears with Brembo calipers were definitely up to the task.

Accommodations? Inviting
And then there’s the interior. Two-tone ivory-and-black leather with carbon-fiber trim was truly au courant. Beyond the gorgeous design, however, the quality of materials really stood out, and made that $76k price tag seem reasonable. The leather on the steering wheel, for instance, was glove-soft. And the brightwork around the center-console controls looked and felt nickel-plated.

Range Rover Sport technology was also appreciated. The navigation system’s real-time traffic updates helped us avoid some serious California tie-ups, and the Harman Kardon audio system was sublime. Turn up “I Love LA,” and sing along!

Limitations: Some
Is the Range Rover Sport everyone’s cup of tea? Of course not. I averaged 13.7 mpg on the first tank and a more respectable 16.2 mpg on the second – not bad considering the power and luxury of this beast, but still a bit shocking. If you can’t afford the gas, I guess you probably can’t afford the vehicle either. Ah well.

While it swallowed all of our luggage and other flotsam and jetsam that we acquired in our travels, my only real product complaint was the surprisingly tight rear headroom – my 6’ 2” son couldn’t grow much taller and still fit.

Quibbles: Darned Few
But none of these quibbles really matter when you’re California cruising in a Range Rover Sport Supercharged. You’ve got power, luxury, presence, and of course, the unique Land Rover heritage of go-anywhere capability – I couldn’t help but notice the old Range Rover vehicles used as props at San Diego’s Safari Park. Other luxury SUVs have a hard time matching that combination of capability and panache.

For those fortunate enough to have a fleet of vehicles to their name – family hauler, weekend sports car, and all-around do-anything-in-style SUV – the Range Rover Sport Supercharged is hard to beat.

When my first novel becomes a best-seller, I’ll give it serious consideration.