These are the cars we want to buy

Finally there is hope for the future of plugin-hybrids and electric cars. Gone are those ridiculous plastic boxes with four wheels that you wouldn't be caught dead in - if you could fit in them at all, that is. We're finally seeing cars that are actually functional, and even good looking to a certain degree, running (mainly) on electricity.

Volvo has recently announced a new, roomy family saloon (a V60?) with plugin-hybrid technology to be on the market in 2012, and Mitsubishi have presented their PX-MiEV concept, which is a smaller, plugin-hybrid version of the Mitsubishi Outlander. No info yet on whether it will go into mass production or not, but still: These are the cars we want to buy, that will let us combine a family life with a low- or no-emission car.

Audi A4 Clean Diesel

Forget about those slow, boring "eco-cars" for a minute. I've said it before, environmentally friendly cars don't necessarily need to be boring: Audi has just revealed the new A4 3.0 TDI Clean Diesel, featuring some fancy schmancy catalytic converter that keeps down the emission of those nasty little particles.

This baby will do 0-100 km/h in only 6.2 seconds, numbers worthy a sports car. And the best part? The fuel consumption is only 0,67 liters/km combined. Nothing less than impressive, if you ask me.

Suck on that Volkswagen and Volvo!

Photo: Raptor Alpha

Backwards into the future

Green cars are very fashionable at the moment, and all car manufacturers with a bit of self respect are struggling to deliver cars that employ some sort of technology to keep that Co2 emission down.

Unfortunately some manufacturers seem willing to sacrifice every little bit of fun in order to achieve this. Volvo is one example of this, with their DRIVe models, that are powered by tiny diesel engines barely able to get the cars up to motorway speed, not to mention how long it takes them to get there... Another ugly example are the new Bluemotion models from Volkswagen. A VW Passat with a 105 hp diesel engine? Oh, VW, no!

Not since the mid 80's have I seen cars move this slowly from 0-100 km/h, and I wish I would never have to see it again. The Passat clocks in at an embarrassing 12,5 seconds, and the Volvo V70 at an astonishingly slow 13,5 seconds! I would have been sound asleep after those 13,5 seconds of trying to get the piece of junk moving.

I'm sorry, but there are clearly better ways to keep the Co2 down, even on combustion engines powered by fossile fuel, and preferably while keeping the fun up. BMW have demonstrated this with their "EfficientDynamics", and Saab have proven that downsizing doesn't have to mean boring. Plus, let's not forget there are other fuels out there that are waiting to be used by car manufacturers: E85, biogas, electricity...

Driving environmentally friendly does not have to be ridiculously boring!

Volvo and Geely?

So, Saab was bought by Koenigsegg, a luxury sports car manufacturer extraordinaire. Volvo, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be as lucky, as it appears they are in the process of being bought by Chinese car manufacturer Geely, who are best known for their fine selection of metal death traps, or "death vessels" as China Car Times calls them, and their embarrassing and poor copies of well known car models.

I'm guessing acquiring Volvo is a way to improve the safety of these cars by utilizing Volvo's technology. It's harder to see what Volvo could possibly get out of this marriage. Not much, I'd say.

Too little, too late, Audi

Apparently Audi are aiming to launch a Q5 hybrid in 2011. That's two years from now, and way too late to jump on the hybrid-wagon. Who will buy a car with old hybrid technology when there are plugin-hybrids available or right around the corner that will take you to and from work on battery power alone (in a time when fuel prices will probably be soaring again, like they did in 2008)?

Volvo seems to have understood this, and have abandoned their plans for a V70 hybrid, focusing on launching some kind of plugin hybrid model in the V70 size range in 2012.

So, Audi, could we hope for a Q5 plugin-hybrid, or will it be a hopelessly outdated hybrid with marginally lower fuel consumption than its diesel counterpart?

Photo: Captain Nandu Chitnis, Master Mariner

Volvo V70 "trifuel"

Finally Volvo have announced the details around their new, and I must say very desirable, V70 offering: A V70 2,5 FT that is converted for gas/lpg (but still under the original warranty), giving it the following advantages:

• Choose between petrol, E85 or gas - whichever is cheapest or at hand!
  
• Powerful engine (231 bhp should be enough for most people).
• A reasonably roomy, yet environmentally (and wallet-) friendly estate car.
• Looks good, both exterior and interior.
  

What more can a guy ask for?

I'll tell you: If Volvo could only supply me with a V70 2,5 FT AWD with this brilliant gas conversion I would go straight out and buy one.

VW makes same mistake as Volvo

Volkswagen seem to be going down the same path as Volvo with their compact suv, Tiguan. In the interest of keeping CO2-emissions to a minimum, VW are announcing a front-wheel drive version of the Tiguan, with a Bluemotion-sticker on it... The result is, granted, a bit better than the Volvo XC60, in terms of fuel consumption and emissions, but assuming it's powered by the 110 hp diesel engine this could make for an extremely boring ride.

Also, my question still remains: Who is going to buy such a car? If you want a suv you'll probably want four-wheel drive as well. Buying a car like this with front-wheel drive is like buying a Porsche 911 with a 1,2 liter engine from Fiat.

Volvo's new DRIVe models - impressive or not? Not.

Volvo has just presented no less than 7 new cars with the DRIVe sticker on the back. The DRIVEe models are basically optimized for low fuel consumption, for instance using start/stop technology, and Volvo promises that both the V70 and S80 will use under 5 l/100 km (ECE, mixed). Here are the numbers for all seven cars:

Volvo C30, 3.9 l/100km, 104g CO2/km
Volvo S40, 4.0 l/100km, 107g, CO2/km
Volvo V50, 4.0 l/100km, 107g, CO2/km
Volvo V70, 4.9 l/100km, 129g, CO2/km
Volvo S80, 4.9 l/100km, 129g CO2/km
Volvo XC60, 6.0 l/100km, 159g CO2/km
Volvo XC70, 6.0 l/100km, 159g CO2/km

The smaller cars, C30, S40 and V50, are powered by a 1,6 liter diesel engine. The larger ones, V70, S80, XC60 and XC70, are powered by a 2,4 liter diesel engine.

This looks decent enough, although the V70 and S80 are really no better than a regular BMW 520d. And what's the deal with front-wheel drive versions of the XC60 and XC70? The XC stands for Cross Country, damnit! And I'd like to know what's so cross country about a front-wheel drive car. Plus, they the fuel economy isn't really that much better than its' FOUR-wheel drive competitors.

The C30 is about the same size as a standard Mini Cooper D, and has the same fuel consumption. Yaaawn.

The only thing that actually manages to impress me a bit are the S40 and V50. Tiny as they may be, they're still a family sedan and a family saloon, and although the engine is probably hazardously boring, the fuel consumption figures are pretty nice.

Photo: lander2006

Volvo misleading customers

I've noticed a poster that has popped up around where I live, with a picture of a Volvo XC60, and the text, translated from my language, "The most fuel efficient car in its segment". Well, now, is it really? I've already written about the XC60 and how it's competitors are light years ahead when it comes to fuel efficiency, so the answer is obviously no. If anything, it's the least fuel efficient car in its segment, and nothing to brag about at all. Granted, there's a new version coming, in around 4 months (!), with a newly developed diesel engine that is bound to be better than the current one. Also, this particular version of the XC60 will be a front-wheel drive, and it is expected to have a fuel consumtion of 0,6 liters/10 km.

That would all be fairly impressive, if it wasn't for the fact that this car lacks the 4WD that all of its competitors have, with only slightly higher fuel consumption. In other words, Volvo are not directly competing against all these cars (Audi Q5, BMW X3, Land Rover Freelander, Mercedes GLK) with this one.

I understand the financial situation Volvo's in, but misleading your customers is really never a good idea.

The small SUV segment - Will Volvo make it?

We've got some really interesting small SUV's coming this fall, all competing within the same "premium" segment: Audi Q5, Mercedes GLK and Volvo XC60. I've already expressed my frustration with the Volvo and its hopelessly outdated engines. This frustration isn't getting any better after looking up some numbers:

Audi Q5 2.0 TDI (170 hp/350 Nm) - Fuel consumption: 6,7 l/100km CO2: 175 g/km
BMW X3 2.0d(177 hp/350 Nm) - Fuel consumption: 6,5 l/100km CO2: 172 g/km
Mercedes GLK 220 (170 hp/400 Nm) - Fuel consumption: 6,9 l/100km CO2: n/a
Volvo XC60 D5 (185 hp/400 Nm) - Fuel consumption: 7,5 l/100km CO2: 199 g/km

All these cars are equipped with four wheel drive, and have comparable engine specs and prices, although the Volvo is a bit on the slow side when it comes to acceleration, and a bit expensive (comparable to the Merc and BMW, and more expensive than the Audi). And if you want an XC60 with fuel consumtion on par with the other competitors, you'll have to wait until the spring, and buy a 2,4D with 163 hp and front wheel drive only (consumption: 6,5 l/100km). Now, who will buy that, instead of a proper four wheel drive from Audi, BMW or Mercedes? And why on earth didn't Volvo keep the brilliant ethanol-enigine from the prototype, that could have given it an advantage amongst its competitors? I don't know. I just don't know.

Oh, Volvo, no!

Speaking of Swedish car manufakturers, Volvo is about to launch its new small-size SUV, the XC60, this fall. The concept, first shown at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit in 2007, was particularly interesting - at least to me - because of the 3.2 liter ethanol engine.

Almost two years later the production model will arrive at car salons with the following engine options: The old, gas-guzzling T6 engine, and the even older 2.4D and D5 diesel engines. What the heck happened to that ethanol optimized engine, that is all the more interesting today, with ridiculous fuel prices and CO2 awareness rising? Who will buy the XC60 with yesterdays engine technology? They can have all the new safety gadgets they want. I don't care. Give me a Volvo XC60 3.2 Flexifuel. We all know they've got the technology.