If you too have been questioning why today cars are so large and heavy, and wondered what could they do for us and the environment if they were simpler and lighter, here some facts and food for thought from Mercedes-Benz.

One evening, the engineer of the German company discussed about the enormous developments in diesel technology over the past 20 years. They questioned: “How might one make this progress directly tangible, in isolation from the equally profound changes in the safety and comfort of the car as a whole?” The answer to that question is this factory-tuned car of a different kind: this Mercedes-Benz 190 D BlueEFFICIENCY.

From the outside it looks just like a quarter-century-old Mercedes 190, tens of thousands of well-preserved examples of which can still be seen on Germany’s roads. Pressing the accelerator tells a different story: equipped with the ultra-modern OM651 common-rail engine developing 150 kW / 204 hp, the Mercedes 190 D BlueEFFICIENCY shows the full potential of this new four-cylinder diesel engine. With a maximum torque of 500 Nm between 1600 and 1800 rpm, this experimental car has more than twice the torque of the most powerful model in the old W 201-series. The 190 E 2.5-16 Evolution II, which was presented in 1990 and produced 502 times as a homologation model for the Group A DTM touring cars, “only” manages 245 Nm.

Consequently, it can accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h in 6.2 seconds, or 11.9 seconds faster than a 190 D of the time. At that time (1983) the original Mercedes-Benz 190d caused a sensation on its 1983 introduction with its newly developed, fully encapsulated “whisper-diesel”.

The differences between the two diesel generations are even more impressive when it comes to fuel consumption: despite the significant increase in output from 72 to 204 HP, the 1988 engine was burning 7.3 litre to cover100 km according to the DIN standards. The new engine, in the old body would only need 4.6 litre (if the same DIN standards are applied). Fuel consumption could further be cut dramatically by a smaller diesel engine engineered to deliver some 160 HP, taking advantage of the remarkable 385 kilograms weight advantage of the 190D over the C 250  CDI BlueEFFICIENCY.

Which are the main differences?

The C-Class model is 16 centimetres longer, and around nine centimetres wider and higher than a 190 - this is due to the higher standard of comfort and safety standards.

The Mercedes-Benz 190 was ahead of its time in terms of safety technology. Nonetheless, customers at the time enjoyed nothing like the extensive array of passive and active safety systems to be found as standard in the current C series. These include seven airbags, the adaptive AGILITY CONTROL suspension and numerous assistance systems such as ESP® and ADAPTIVE BRAKE.

However, do these “innovations” justify 385 more kilograms?

They do not.  Mercedes-Benz suggests only a couple of areas adding to the weight. Such as multi-adjustable seats or electrically adjustable or just the heated exterior mirrors.

Real progress has been made in the area of aerodynamics. The Cd, coefficient of drag, has gone down from 0.34 to 0.27, despite the bigger wheels.

An Embarassing Comparison?

When I received the first set of official pictures of the Audi A5 Sportback, the first thought that came to my mind was how far (or, indeed, how close) the new “5 door coupé” from Audi  is from the new Porsche Panamera. The two cars are very different in many ways, starting from their selling prices to their fuel consumption and performance via their overall dimensions. You cannot compare them when the time comes to buy one.

Yet, they have a lot in common. They are both luxury cars, they both fit in the new trend of  “dynamic, coupé-like, four seater, authoban-cruisers” with that fastback design and rear hatch.

In this respect it is impossible not to make a few considerations on their design and style, and eventually ask some questions. Ultimately the question is “How embarrassing is a comparison between the design, style, elegance, appeal of these two cars?”; soon to be part of the VW Group, probably under the new name of “Auto Union”.

It took decades to come to the decision in favour of a four-door Porsche, and the substantial, although unpredictable success (now turned into a predictable problem) of the Porsche Cayenne.

In the meantime many studies have been done again and again, and several prototypes or one-offs have been built to gain experience and consideration in view of what is now the Porsche Panamera.

On the contrary, Audi executives have been very quick at approving a completely new platform for the middle-class premium models and approve a wide range of offering taking advantage of the relevant investments. This is to say that time was not wasted after the new Audi 4 and 5 series platform was launched.

Now, if I look at these two cars and compare the time they required to mature the decision, as well as their design and engineering, it seems very clear (at least to me) that the speed of decision making and action do a lot of good to a new car design, when the fundamentals (read: the right people and know-how)  are nicely in place.

In the case of the Porsche Panamera, it is as obvious that it is a rather attractive car, developed with great acumen by experienced professionals. Yet, is also obvious that the Porsche management has been unable to go for a more innovative concept for the role and look of their “flagship” and is now delivering that sort of “four door 911″ Porsche has been considering since the 1970ies.

In the case of Audi, there is no need to say how nicely balanced, modern and convincing is the intuitive and spontaneous the design of the A5 Sportback in its emotional, yet refined, simplicity.

A much more innovative, dynamic, and trend setting sort of car.

The contrast between past and future is clear. Insn’t it?

Overall dimensions comparison chart:

A streetcar “called Desire” in San Francisco.

Built in 1923, streetcar 952 came to San Francisco from New Orleans, by way of Chattanooga. Photographed in front of the Ferry Building around Christmastime. 

This photo has notes. Move your mouse over the photo to see them.

From Scorpione I have just got the link to a very interesting transcipt of a ABC radio broadcasting. I think all those who loves cars and would like to drive them in a better environment where private and public transportation integrated and enhance each other, should read it.

Here some excerpt from the manuscript and the link http://www.abc.net.au/rn/rearvision/stories/2006/1749886.htm to the full text:………

Annabelle Quince: And am I right in thinking there was a time when that railway network was literally one of the biggest railway networks in the United States?

Jonathan Richmond: Oh, absolutely. In terms of suburban railways, it was one of the biggest in the world, huge. We’re talking about 1100 miles. It was a big, big system.……………..For example, the Pacific Electric cars ran at night, brought freight downtown instead of trucks, and during the daytime, they carried passengers. And that was not uncommon in a lot of American cities at the turn of the century, or when these lines were first being used.

…………………..

Martha Olsen: In 1925 General Motors and most all the auto companies in the US began to understand that the fantastically growing market for new automobiles was going flat. They weren’t selling as many new cars as they had in the past. And when they were looking at their markets, they understood very significantly that the more street cars and more cities were structured around street cars, the more difficult it was going to be to convince people to try to use an automobile in the city.

……

Martha Olsen: National City Lines was a company that was basically formed with the money from General Motors; it was owned and ostensibly led by a group of three brothers from northern Minnesota that had a small bus company, but essentially the money came from General Motors, and General Motors subsidiaries. It began in the mid-’30s, 1935, they began buying up systems in the Midwest and in the southeast. Then more systems came for sale and General Motors pulled in some other companies to help fund this venture. They went to Standard Oil, California, Phillips Petroleum, Firestone Tyre, Mack Truck, and pretty soon these companies were investing in buying up streetcar systems through the Midwest and coming out into the west.

……………….

Jonathan Richmond: Yes it did have an impact; it certainly accelerated the process at which rail stopped being existent, and it brought in the General Motors diesel bus.

Martha Olsen: Now Los Angeles is the pre-eminent automobile city. It’s a place where you don’t go, it’s very difficult to get anywhere without getting on a major freeway. What is ironic is that it was built on a rail system, it was built for a rail system, and it was organised and structured around a system that is now a ghost in that place.

I am calling on my readers from the U.S.A. for help. If they share my point of view, they could help filling the holes in this commentary and try to send it to their President or his staff. Just to qualify myself just let me say that I anticipated the dramatic Fiat crises foru to five years earlier in a report for the annual publication of the Brithsi Guild of Motoring writers as well as the failure of the Fiat-GM alliance when it was announced in a number of printed magazines published around the world.

Today it is time to take position on the North American car industry.

First, I wish to thank you President Obama for his courageous decision on the dramatic developments of the American car industry. Second just check with his administration and members of the Congress if they are considering some of the following strategic policies as a way to steer private and public transportation developments of the Nation.

If one of the two most troubled Bigs in Detroit has to fold down and let die, this is GM not Chrysler. This has nothing to do with Fiat and their alliance under discussion.

The reason is simple: to rescue the gigantic GM requires so much time, so much money and such a change in company culture (intended from Saturn but never achieved due to Detroit’s influence) that I consider it an impossible mission in the medium or long term. All the money being put into GM can only gain them some time and see if and how they can survive.

Chevrolet 2009 Spark for Europe.

However, the risk is just too high and the best result that can be hoped for, these days, is a GM that survives by downsizing itself. Eventually it may survive by downsizing to what current Chrysler standards and that – most probably – at the cost of scarifying Chrysler. It is a better deal to save Chrysler and work to make it stronger and possibly a bigger player. Being smaller, it is much nimbler and reactive, it needs less money to recover, and it can prosper again, much faster than GM. They could well be back to profitability with production at high, if not full speed, by 2011. Timing in the current circumstance is absolutely crucial.

However, the American car industry is not just about GM and Chrysler, there is Ford, and there are all the companies that produce in America cars for the Americans (and some export markets). They are also fighting to keep the industry and the economy running and deserve attention. In addition, there are the car buyers, car dealers, car sales and service business. In other words: the market and the oil companies. The environment and the need to save energy.

Well, now America has a great chance to design a new policy, a real policy, for private and public transportation, for the conservation of energy, and of the environment, based on the experience gained by other nations.

The administration can positively drive the market and the car industry towards more sensible, safe and efficient passenger cars by letting the free market organise itself with medium term plans, by simply announcing today that in three years (or five, if this is actually needed) the price of gasoline will be increased by 50% (or similar) and that a couple of years later the price will be increased another 50% (or similar) as a consequence of a tax on fuel. The income would be invested in the expansion or updating of the private and public transport infrastructure and for incentive to replace old big cars with new, fuel-efficient, passenger cars, buses, subways and trains.

This will give American drivers the time to make plans and prepare themselves for the near future, and, at the same time, will steer the design and engineering of new American cars in a clear, unquestionable direction (rather than zig-zagging according to the oil price, decided by forces that no nation seems to be able to control). Towards much more fuel efficient cars, and the use of additional energy sources such as diesel, LPG, CNG, hybrids and electricity.

Mercedes-Benz E 320 CDI                    Ford Mondeo SW Turbodiesel

The fuel budget for the average American family will be unchanged if the gasoline is twice the price but their cars need half the fuel. We all know that American too can have top cars with double mileage. (Have you seen and driven a diesel powered Audi, BMW or Mercedes-benz recently? That is just the beginning.) The announcement of such a policy will only make the development consistent and will accelerate the expansion of the car or MPV to choose from while monster SUV will disappear or replaced by smaller ones. Chrysler, Ford and GM will be convinced that there is only one way to move ahead.

Audi 2008 A4                                                       BMW 3 Series Touring

As soon as the Detroit’s big are ready with the new cars, the Administration could well launch an incentive plan for scrapping old gas-guzzlers, to be replaced with modern, nimbler safer and cleaner American cars. Just as many European countries are doing right now and have been doing in the past.

Lancia 2008 Delta                                               Alfa Romeo 2008 MiTO

Passenger cars should complete (not be) the transportation system on wheel of a nations, not just be the only options. If more people commute to work on comfortable and attractive public transportation, there will be less cars on the road and driving them selectively might return us some freedom and contribute to the environment. Airplanes are all right but can the U.S.A. prosper without a proper and efficient railways system, now that bullet trains are operating in Japan, China and throughout Europe? Can metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles prosper without an efficient metro system the like of New York? Building a railway network these days is easier and faster that it used to be when the Nation was still in the making.

How can such a dynamic and powerful nation as the U.S.A. do without these vital infrastructures serving all citizens? The rich and the poor.

I think Americans can do a lot better than serving as police force for the entire world and it is time to put public money in something useful for their own people. Perhaps some of you, my American readers, remembers that there used to be a very fast and efficient “Tram” (or train) serving the Los Angeles – San Diego communities. It was bought over (I am told by an American fellow) by GM, Firestone (or Goodyear?) and Esso (or Shell?) only to be stopped, in favour of land consuming highways and millions of car doing millions of miles day after day.

Now, how wrong am I? Please do not hesitate to make your point. I am eager to read your comments.

In the cat-and-mouse game, it is just too easy to guess who are the cat and the mouse when it comes to car drivers and oil companies. The price of gasoline goes up and down on Russian Mountains according to rules that even powerful nations seems to be in control of. Thus, as soon as car drivers moved towards smaller and more fuel-efficient car, to keep their own budget under control and fuel consumption was quickly cut by several percentage points, the gas price at fuel station went down again and again. Now gasoline is again affordable and the mood is switching again to SUV and bigger cars. The come back would be a lot swifter without the world financial disaster that is freezing economies and shopping decisions.

Nevertheless, the business show must go on and the Geneva Motor Show will be sending many messages or just signal about the way the world car industry is going to react and redesign its future through new strategies. The Geneva Show itself is sending its own message. At a time when an increasing number of carmakers are cancelling their exhibitions at major motor show and quite a number of motor-show are cancelling themselves (even the Tokyo Motor Show is reportedly under question), the Geneva Show is going to be as good and as interesting as ever, filled with attractive new ideas, propositions and announcement, even though its overall surface will not be expanded once more but somewhat reduced. This is in itself good news. It will prove that growth is not the only way to go and that smaller (if not small) can be beautiful.

Back to the cat-and-mouse, oil-companies-and-car-drivers, game it will be interesting to see how many smaller cars (and SUV) will be unveiled at the show and compare their number with extreme cars, going in the two opposite directions: small and very fuel efficient versus supercars that fly over the financial crises and the fuel price.

The series of first announcements and teasers is very promising (to be update, on regular base).

I have known Christopher “Chris” Bangle since he was at Opel at the time when he designed the interior of the Opel Junior show-car. Through the years we have talked several times. I cannot consider him a friend. We never met for other reasons than our jobs and in our roles, but through the years I have been appreciating more and more what he was doing at Fiat, when he was there and at BMW.

He did performed many task and he was very successful in achieving revolutionary tasks. I know it is not elegant to quote myself but, for a time, allow me to repeat here what I wrote (in Car Styling issue 99) back in 1994 after Chris left Fiat to join BMW in 1992.

I prefer to use those words to make sure you do not get the impression that I am trying to please him and his millions of supporters. «Probably the best thing Bangle has done for Fiat, and an accomplishment for which he will be remembered was not to set the leitmotiv for the Fiat Coupé”, but to transform the company’s design culture into a lively, international and progressive one. Bangle managed to establish a direct and positive link between top manager Paolo Cantarella and the designers. This created an enthusiasm and confidence that soon engulfed everyone»

 Incidentally, let me stress here that in the same 1992 year, another talented designed joined the company, that was the man who at 42, replaces Bangle: Adrian Von Hooydonk.

At BMW, Bangle did (and in this he was supported by a very intelligent and honest top management) even more of the same and actually accomplished what he had only started doing at Fiat. He really changed the design culture of the entire company, proving how important it is to approach all aspects of design, as a critical and strategic “human science”, where research methods and tools, cultural input and influence, selection and decision process can go hand in hand with human perception of balance and beauty, with cultural and marketing analysis, with understanding of conflicting needs and the drive to discover new frontiers.

Three BMW design without and with Chris Bangle:Corona Doehring, colour and trim; Oliver Heilmer, interior; and Christopher Weil (with glasses), exterior.

 Now, whereas the question about the ultimate reason for BMW and Chris Bangle to part remains to be asked and answered at the proper time, my opinion is that the move might just be right and good for both. On one side Bangle has given to BMW the essence of his talent, vision, spirit, discipline, trust and enthusiasm. Everything he had to give. Now he could only deliver more of the same but hardly something different and further advanced.

In recent times his “added value” could not be as high as it has been in the past and probably he would now resist (that is a natural attitude) the further and revolutionary changes that the present challenges require from the BMW Group, as well from the industry at large.

It is now up to Adrian van Hooydonk, who has grown and matured at BMW with Chris Bangle to put fresh adrenaline into BMW’s design future. His own and that of his team. Adrian is ready for the job and with his broad understanding of design (his background is from product and industrial design) and engineering (a natural with some training) he should grant BMW design organisation and products a bright future.

The change might also be good, very good, for Chris Bangle who is still a young and enthusiastic designer and a rare design manager who can contribute a unique experience and thousand of design principles, product concepts, and ideas to many different areas of design around the entire world.

I am sure he is going to do it and we could only regret that he is stepping out of the automotive world. Perhaps, we shall not regret it entirely. Staying away from car companies  – at least some of them and for some time – is probably part of his BMW contract but it is also good for him and the industry to establish a certain distance. After this distance has been built, Bangle will be able to see cardesign from a different perspective and probably decide to come back with even newer, fresher and more innovative ideas. Much like Walter De Silva, Bangle is an outstanding design manager and not just a good designer. Bangle and De Silva have developed a special “design know-how” and culture, and a special talent, that give them the ability to drive, orientate and get the best from the young and upcoming talents, as well as support and re-assure the company top management. Eventually, I would love to see Chris Bangle continue the work of Lorenzo Ramaciotti at Fiat these days, may be in three to five years time.