So which carmaker is the world’s cleanest? Not sure? Well, an independent survey released last week has found that BMW has most improved its average fuel efficiency and CO2 emission rate. Indeed, it’s done so to an extent which will embarrass other carmakers.

The study, began from 1990-2005 by Environmental Defense, a US-based non-profit environmental advocacy group, which shows BMW has improved fuel economy by 14 per cent and carbon emissions by 12.3 per cent.

The next best reduction was Toyota’s 3 per cent. The C02 performance of every other leading carmaker deteriorated.

BMW has made much of the fact that the report covers a period when its US sales increased fourfold.

The Americans, of course, buy more big X5 SUVs than the rest of the world combined. The report, Automakers’ Corporate Carbon Burdens, studied the impact of 12 major carmakers’ product strategies on fuel efficiency and overall automotive carbon emissions.

BMW improved fuel economy on several key models, including the 3 Series, 5 Series, 7Series, Z4 M Coupe, M5 Sedan and X5 SUV. Of course, the group’s Mini Cooper accounted for almost half of BMW’s overall fuel economy improvements.

BMW Australia spokesman Toni Andreevski says the group has made further substantial improvements to fuel consumption and emissions since the end of the survey period.

“Already in 2007, one-third of new BMWs sold in Europe have a CO2 rating of no more than 140g per kilometre,” he says. “Basically it is a great result that shows that we can continue to optimise current engines. It also shows petrol and diesel engines that outperform existing hybrid technology at comparable costs.”

With its latest diesel and lean-burn direct-injection petrol engines, (the latter is no good for Australia because of the high sulphur content of our petrol) BMW has taken its own hybrid direction. This week at the Frankfurt motor show, it showcased its new dual-mode hybrid that returns a claimed 20 per cent economy improvement on the highway and in town.

BMW’s other more vaunted green gambit is the Hydrogen 7, the first hydrogen-powered luxury sedan. Driven in Germany last year by carsguide, the Hydrogen 7 emits primarily vapour when running on a non-petrol engine.

Toyota rated second best, reducing CO2 3 per cent overall, a result in part due to its introduction of the Prius hybrid, but mainly to improvements made to the best-selling Corolla.

The report also rated the overall ‘carbon burden’ that carmakers placed on the environment, derived from factors including vehicle emissions and the number sold. GM came out on top, with a 6.5per cent reduction in overall carbon burden, though its carbon emissions rose by 3 per cent. Toyota, while low in CO2, grew its carbon burden by 125 per cent because of an increase in overall sales.

Snapshot: Carbon savings

BMW: reduced 12.3 per cent
Toyota: reduced 3 per cent
Volkswagen: up 1.3 per cent
Subaru: up 1.6 per cent
General Motors: up 3per cent
Mitsubishi: up 4 per cent
Honda: up 4.4 per cent
Ford: up 4.7 per cent
DaimlerChrysler: up 4.8 per cent
Nissan: up 9.2 per cent
Hyundai: up 17 per cent
Kia: up 30 per cent

Written By:Paul Pottinger
Published on:www.carsguide.com.au
Source: US Environmental Defense group

OTTAWA — Could it really be so – that GM’s Hummer is more than 40 per cent greener than Toyota’s Prius? That Ford’s F-Series pickup is greener? That GM’s Silverado pickup is greener? That Dodge’s Ram pickup is greener? That Cadillac’s DTS, a full-sized luxury sedan with a V8 engine, is greener? Could it be, in fact, that seven different luxury-class automobiles are all greener – and that three of them are Cadillac models?

Well, indeed, it really could be. And, if so, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s new-car incentive program is a huge environmental mistake.

Oregon-based CNW Marketing Research Inc. has conducted the world’s most comprehensive analysis of the “life cycle” energy requirements of more than 100 makes and models of cars and trucks. Given the thousands of parts and processes in the manufacturing and operation of cars, it was a complex task and took the company two years to complete. Volvo once tried to do it – and gave up in frustration (though it does publish “life cycle” analysis for its own makes).

CNW identified 4,000 “data points” for each car, ranging from the energy consumed in research and development to energy consumed in junkyard disposal. It calculated the electrical energy needed to produce each pound of parts. It calculated greenhouse gas emissions. It calculated mileage, too – adjusting for the differences between rush-hour Tokyo and rural America.

The company describes this exercise as “dust to dust” analysis. CNW has now published its second annual report, a 400-page production.

To keep it relatively free of technical jargon, the company expresses energy requirement as the dollar cost of energy for every mile across a vehicle’s anticipated years of use – “U.S. dollars per lifetime mile.” Thus it reports the lifetime energy requirement of a Hummer as $1.90 a mile; the lifetime energy requirement of a Prius as $2.86 a mile.

It reports by model name and by category. For 22 models of economy cars, the average lifetime energy cost is $0.85. For six models of pickup trucks, it’s $2.58. For 14 models of smaller-sized sports utility vehicles, it’s $2.07; for nine models of larger-sized SUVs, it’s $3.98. For 10 models of gas-electric hybrids, it’s $3.65.

Compare the SUVs against the hybrids and you get a sweep in favour of conventional technology. The best-rated smaller SUVs are more than twice as eco-friendly as the hybrids: Dodge’s Durango, $1.57; Ford’s Explorer, $1.61; Chevrolet’s TrailBlazer, $1.61; Jeep’s Grand Cherokee, $1.80.

More remarkably, one of the larger SUVs, Ford’s Expedition, beats the hybrids with an eco-cost of $3.54.

CNW found wide differences, however, within classes of vehicles. For 18 models of luxury cars, the average energy cost is $4.45. Yet the best of these luxury cars are superior, in lifetime energy use, to hybrids.

The luxury cars that rival hybrids: Lincoln’s Town Car, $2.66; Acura’s RL, $2.80; Cadillac’s CTS, $3.19; BMW’s 5 Series, $3.19; Mercedes-Benz’s E-Class, $3.48; Toyota Land Cruiser 80 series, $3.49; Cadillac’s STS (Seville), $3.56; Cadillac’s DTS (DeVille), $3.65.

CNW’s assessment of the hybrids has irritated some of the car companies.

Toyota says that CNW credited Prius with only half its 200,000 lifetime miles. CNW says that Prius owners drive less than 7,500 miles a year – meaning that these cars will be scrapped long before they use their expected lifetime mileage (in 26 years). CNW says that hybrids fare poorly because of increased complexity. Honda’s conventional Accord gets rated at $2.18; its Accord Hybrid gets rated at $3.29 – an environmental cost 50 per cent higher.

Take the batteries, for example. Toyota buys 1,000 tonnes of nickel a year from Ontario (mined and smelted in Sudbury). This nickel gets shipped to Wales for refining, then to China, for further processing, and then to Toyota’s battery plant in Tokyo – a 10,000-mile trip, mostly by petrol-gulping container ships and diesel-powered locomotives.

Toyota, however, still has some of the greenest vehicles on earth. The Scion has the lowest energy cost of all at 48 cents a mile. The Corolla, at 72 cents, and the Echo (Yaris), at 77 cents, are also in the best-on-earth class. Low-energy competitors include Dodge’s Neon (64 cents) and Saturn’s Ion (67 cents). Cars with the highest energy requirement include the Rolls Royce ($10.97) and the equally elegant German-made Maybach ($15.83).

In his March budget, Mr. Flaherty made fuel efficiency – gas mileage alone – the sole basis for the environmental rating of new cars. He will reward high-mileage cars (with rebates from $1,000 to $2,000) and punish low-mileage cars (with surcharges from $1,000 to $4,000). The program could well be a phenomenal waste of energy. Junk it, Mr. Flaherty. It’s not fit for the road.

BMW officials say the 260-horsepower Hydrogen 7 is “autobahn fast” and it certainly seems so from behind the wheel. But this is what you would expect from a luxury sedan powered by a 6.0-litre V-12 engine.

The surprise is what comes out of the tailpipe: essentially nothing. Hydrogen 7 emissions are cleaner than the air you breathe.

A hydrogen car? It’s real and it’s here. BMW won’t discuss the cost of the 50 Hydrogen 7 cars it is now putting on the road, or how much it spent to develop them. But it is safe to say the one I am now driving is valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The technology in the Hydrogen 7 and the very philosophy behind it – what BMW calls “Efficient Dynamics” – is very real, though, despite the price. So real, in fact, that BMW plans to put a small fleet of these hydrogen-powered 760Li cars on North American roads this year.
The idea is to gather real-world feedback about the Hydrogen 7 from selected consumers, opinion leaders, politicians and the like. They will drive the car for free starting this year. Each will take a Hydrogen 7 for periods ranging from four weeks to four months.

In markets where a liquid hydrogen fuelling station is not available – and there are only two such filling stations in North America, one in Washington, D.C., the other in Los Angeles, and perhaps a few dozen in the rest of the world – the cars will be fuelled at BMW’s mobile hydrogen fuelling stations.

BMW officials insist that their Hydrogen 7 is nothing less than an environmental-friendly luxury sedan that also is a joy to drive.

The bi-fuel Hydrogen 7 is in essence a BMW 760i that, at the push of a button mounted on the steering wheel, is capable of alternating between gasoline and liquid hydrogen. The heart of it all is an internal-combustion engine that runs on liquid hydrogen or gasoline.

The car itself? The Hydrogen 7 looks exactly like a standard 7-Series, aside from three small “Hydrogen” nameplates. Also, a small opening on the hood allows hydrogen vapours to escape.

In hydrogen mode, the 260-hp engine runs a bit louder, but even this is barely noticeable. What matters is that, from a driving dynamics point of view, there is no perceptible lag when the engine switches from gasoline to hydrogen.

Unfortunately, during our test drive the dual-fuel system temporarily fails, leaving us planted at the side of the road for a few brief moments. Eventually, the 7 starts up but from then on will run only in gasoline mode.

Still, there is smart engineering at work here. Unlike some auto makers, who are promising futuristic fuel cell systems, BMW has chosen to focus on using hydrogen to power a relatively conventional internal combustion engine.

By going bi-fuel with the Hydrogen 7, a buyer would be able to run on conventional gasoline when unable to find a hydrogen pump. A car capable of running on both gasoline and hydrogen is a more practical solution in a world where the development of a hydrogen-refuelling infrastructure is not yet even in its infancy.

The Hydrogen 7 is the latest and purest expression of what the BMW Group’s drivetrain development division calls “Efficient Dynamics.”

Professor Burkhard Goschel, head of development at BMW, says Efficient Dynamics is a philosophical approach that “resolves the apparent conflict between reducing consumption and emissions on the one hand and enhancing performance and agility on the other.”

In truth, Efficient Dynamics is what might be called a “big picture” approach to powering vehicles.

It means that the seemingly incompatible issues of environmental compatibility and consumption are resolved not in isolation from each other, but together and in the larger context of legal and statutory requirements, social acceptance and customer demands.

“Not everything that is technically feasible is also economical and ecological,” Prof. Goschel says. “And, most importantly, it doesn’t necessarily convince the customer. An intelligent drive where power can be called up at any time and which provides more spontaneity for less consumption is a realistic development proposition.”

The Hydrogen 7 has a range of about 200 kilometres on hydrogen and an additional 500 km on gasoline. A 30-millimetre-thick, 200-kilogram cryogenic fuel tank holds 170 litres of liquid hydrogen at minus 254 degrees Celsius. BMW says the insulation is equivalent to the thickness of 17 metres of Styrofoam.

One compromise here is the large tank. It uses half of the trunk space. Rear seats are moved up 114 mm to accommodate the tank. Expected advances in tank technology will resolve these issues over time.

Another ingenious development is the BMW-developed coupling system that allows the car to be filled with liquid hydrogen at a conventional filling station with fuel stored in above-ground tanks. The on-board tank can be filled in eight minutes and is designed to keep hydrogen cold for up to 17 hours. After that, it safely vents away as water vapour

JEREMY CATO
Globe and Mail Update

I won’t get into typical misconceptions, biases and the ever-popular chauvinistic areas. I won’t even use my involvement with driving schools and thousands of new drivers. Instead, let’s look at some scientific evidence and detailed research into the topic.

The U.S. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in Washington D.C., researchers at Oxford University in England and the World Health Organization (WHO) have all come to the same conclusion — male and female drivers are different.

We’re not talking about subjective areas and generalizations such as who is the better driver, but instead are looking into the fundamental differences between the genders and what that means to performance at the wheel.
Insurance companies keep extensive actuarial databases upon which they base rates. At the most basic level, insurance rates are based on risk; put another way, those with the highest exposure to risk and likelihood of being involved in a claim pay more. Gender remains a factor for most insurance companies when setting rates and statistics from the IIHS provide the necessary proof.

Statistics from 2004, the latest for which complete data are available, show that more men than women, particularly in the 16-24 age group, were involved in fatal vehicular crashes. But in comparison with one and three decades ago, the gap is closing fast.

The IIHS also says that while the data show male drivers were in more crashes, the number of crashes involving women has not only increased, but when crashes were matched in terms of severity, female deaths were much more prevalent.

The Social Issues Research Centre at Oxford University recently completed an analysis of “the social and psychological differences between men and women that are relevant to their driving behaviour.” The study concludes that men and women exhibit different driving behaviours that affect their attitudes, safety and insurance risk.

The authors say there are many factors behind these differences, ranging from neurochemical structures and hormonal processes “shaped by evolution” to “socialization” practices. Cut through all the scientific jargon and the Oxford study says men are more likely to take risks, exhibit aggression and seek thrills.

It also says these differences exist across the globe as evidenced by higher accident statistics such as those reported by IIHS, more expensive and frequent insurance claims, and higher conviction rates for dangerous or drunk driving.

The researchers say the differences between the genders, with respect to driving, are rooted in the fact that basic human thought processes have changed little from those required by our “hunter-gatherer-based ancestors.”

The Oxford study states the difference between male and female driving can be explained, at least in part, by the fact that “much of neural circuitry of the human brain evolved to meet the requirements of societies and cultures very different from our own.”

The authors note that “our 21st century skulls contain essentially ’stone-age’ brains,” and goes on to say: “Stone-age man did not drive. But the legacy of his hunting, aggressive and risk-taking — past qualities that enabled him to survive and mate, thereby passing on his genes to future generations — are still evident in the way in which he typically drives his car.”

Meanwhile, the Department of Gender and Women’s Health at the World Health Organization has called for the development of gender-differentiated policies in “relevant areas” based on the fundamental differences between male and female drivers.

I would argue that the insurance industry has already accomplished that goal. Gender-differentiation is taken into account in setting rates based on age, sex and experience.

Halifax-based Richard Russell runs a driving school.

RICHARD RUSSELL
From Thursday’s Globe and Mail

BMW F1 Sauber Wind Tunnel

Fortunately, BMW is taking a first step into the hydrogen future with its Hydrogen 7 cars. Based on production 7 Series sedans, these prototypes employ conventional internal-combustion engines converted for operation on either liquid hydrogen or conventional gasoline. This approach not only uses available technology (speeding the advance of hydrogen generation, storage, and infrastructure), it also delivers a dynamic experience familiar to today’s drivers, especially those who already drive BMWs.

Although there is just a handful of Hydrogen 7’s in the country at the moment, they are actually considered production models. Some are in private hands, while others are being utilized institutionally. Among the lucky few who can be seen tooling around in a Hydrogen 7 is Governor Schwarzenegger of California. Despite our considerably lower profile, we were able to get some seat time in one of these Sevens recently and took it cruising through the bustling streets of Manhattan.

Aside from the reflective foil graphics on the exterior, there is almost nothing to give away the Hydrogen 7 as anything other than a your average, run-of-the-mill 760Li. Strip away the stickers and only the large hydrogen fuel filler port and modest bulge in the hood (to provide clearance for the hydrogen injection valves) distinguish it as something truly uncommon.

Even inside, there are no obtrusive screens, buttons or levers. The few unique controls are integrated into the steering wheel and dashboard as though BMW had already built 100,000 of them. The rear seating area gives up 4.5 inches of legroom compared to a conventional 760Li, making room for the 30-gallon hydrogen fuel tank between the back seats and the trunk. Otherwise, the cabin is sumptuously appointed with walnut and leather and Alcantara.

Starting this car is no different than starting any other BMW. By default, the Hydrogen 7 starts up under gasoline power. Once it reaches operating temperature, it can be switched over to hydrogen propulsion. The switchover is virtually seamless, handled at the mere pressing of the H2 button on the right side of the steering wheel. Other than a slight hiccup during the transition, which could be easily mistaken for a typical misfire, driving on hydrogen feels mostly like driving any other large BMW.

The Hydrogen 7 uses BMW’s 6.0-liter V12 engine as the basis. Pure hydrogen, however, is a different animal than gasoline, burning up to ten times faster than conventional fuels. Accordingly, the engine management system has been programmed to deal with the unique properties of liquid hydrogen, and the resulting output is lower than a normal gasoline V12. And in order to make the car’s performance more predictable, the engine delivers the same output in gasoline mode as it makes in H2 mode. The result is 260 hp at 5100 rpm and 287 lb-ft of torque at 4300 rpm.

Around town, it gets off the line like any other 7, but once under way it seems to lack the mid-range potency required to squirt safely through the last few amber rays of a rapidly-changing traffic light. Some of this is due to the weight- pulling over 5000 pounds of technology is a lot for just 260 horses these days. Nevertheless, BMW claims the Hydrogen 7 will get to 62 mph in nine and a half seconds and will pull to an electronically limited top speed of 143 mph.

Ride and handling are like pretty much any other full-tilt Seven. Aluminum is used extensively in the front suspension to keep weight down, but springs from BMW’s in-house Security 7 model help deal with the added mass that comes with having dual fueling systems.

Our time in BMW’s zeppelin was brief, but it made a significant impression. Suddenly the thought of dwindling fossil fuel supplies and reducing greenhouse gases isn’t sounding so bleak. Just as it did a quarter century ago, technology is overcoming the next major obstacle on the road to more responsible motoring.

May 11, 2007

Bryan Joslin at The Car Lounge

George Bourque of Fairfield is one of those who’s driving around on tires filled with pure nitrogen, the same stuff that NASCAR racers use.

Bourque, an engineer, said he has seen a 1 to 1.5 mile-per-gallon increase since he began filling his tires with nitrogen, which is touted as maintaining tire pressure longer and resisting heat buildup on hot summer days.

“I analyze everything,” he said.

Nitrogen has been used for years in the tires of race cars, large commercial trucks, aircraft and even the space shuttle.

But it is finding its way into the mainstream at a growing number of automotive and tire retailers. Nationwide, fewer than 10 percent of tire dealers offer nitrogen, but the number is growing, said Bob Ulrich, editor of Modern Tire Dealer magazine in Akron, Ohio. Most dealers charge $10 to $12 per tire for the nitrogen fill-up, he said. The dealers generally offer free lifetime refills.

Bourque got his tires — filled with nitrogen — in Waterville, Maine at Tire Warehouse, which has 50 tire dealerships across New England. The nitrogen was part of an installation package when Bourque bought a set of tires.

Skeptics will question how much can be gained by filling tires with pure nitrogen when the air we breathe is 78 percent nitrogen.

The differences are subtle, but important, said Steve McGrath, Tire Warehouse’s vice president of marketing in Keene, N.H.

Nitrogen molecules are bigger than oxygen molecules, so nitrogen seeps out more slowly from tires than air; nitrogen resists heat buildup better than air, which contains moisture; and nitrogen reduces oxidation, which can damage the tire from the inside out, proponents say. Nitrogen is an inert gas, so there are no safety or environmental issues.

Those advantages are important in vehicles equipped with tire pressure monitoring systems, which are sensitive to changes in tire pressure, McGrath said.

With or without nitrogen, proper inflation is the key to improving gas mileage. Motorists can improve gas mileage by 3.3 percent simply by keeping their tires properly inflated, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

In the real world, though, only 1 in 5 motorists check tire pressure regularly, according to the Rubber Manufacturers Association. Nitrogen, therefore, could have an advantage for those who don’t check their tire pressure regularly.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no opinion on nitrogen, but it does encourage motorists to keep their tires properly inflated, both for safety and to boost gas mileage, said spokesman Rae Tyson. Severely underinflated tires are dangerous, especially for sport utility vehicles and light trucks, Tyson noted.

Tire experts at Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, neither endorse nor object to the use of nitrogen in tires.

“Nitrogen is certainly safe to use in tires, and theoretically it does offer some benefits,” spokesman Douglas Love said from Yonkers, N.Y.

For Bourque, his tire pressure remains constant — 40 pounds for his fully loaded truck — even on hot days when tire pressure normally fluctuates.

His gas mileage was about 19 mpg when he purchased his five-cylinder 2005 Chevrolet Colorado. Now, with the engine broken in and new tires filled with nitrogen, he gets 20.5 to 22 mpg depending on whether he runs the air conditioner, he said.

Marty Mailhot, manager of the Tire Warehouse in Topsham, said the idea is catching on with consumers, who are purchasing nitrogen for tires for cars, trucks, motor homes and lawn tractors. He has even tried it on footballs and inflatable tubes pulled behind boats.

He has a retort for those who pooh-pooh the notion of paying for nitrogen when there’s plenty of free air for the taking.

“I say, ‘Why are you drinking that bottled water when there’s a pond out back?’” he said.

Associated Press posted at Fox News