IS THERE A "DIESOTTO" IN YOUR FUTURE?

Autoweek and a number of "greencar" websites are breathlessly reporting on the latest Mercedes-Benz research engine: the Dies-Otto.

Dies-Otto (not to be confused with the late DeSoto brand of Daimler’s former partner Chrysler, and which is apparently German for Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI)) will provide more grist for the "anti-mill" mill of the radical CAFE increasers.

Daimler AG’s lab rats claim that the "DiesOtto" – which will debut at the Frankfurt Auto Show in a heavy S-Class sedan -- will hammer out about 134 horsepower per liter (2.2 horsepower per cubic inch of displacement) and160 lbs-ft of torque per liter (2.6 lbs-ft per cube) on gasoline. With a paltry displacement of 1.8 liters, M-B claims around 40 m.p.g. in a 4500 lb. S-Class. Acceleration from zero to 100 km (62 m.p.h.) is pegged at a leisurely 7.5 seconds – or about what a 25-year-old Thunderbird Turbo Coupe can run with a well-tuned SOHC Lima (Pinto) turbo engine (albeit without the DiesOtto’s part-throttle fuel economy).

Daimler relies on a tour de force of trendy internal combustion technologies for the "DiesOtto." In addition to HCCI and the massive computer system necessary to ward off auto-ignited self-destruction, M-B loads in dual, staged turbocharging (in principle, not unlike VW’s Twincharger system), direct injection with piezo injectors, variable valve operation and a variable compression system.

All of this is certain to enrapture automotive technophiles and incite the "greeniac" lobby to proclaim that the experimental DiesOtto "proves" CAFE should be immediately increased (nothwithstanding that M-B says its probably five years away from production)

And of course, M-B’s motives are to cope with the draconian CO2 limits proposed in the EU and to avoid some of the expense of "true" diesel aftertreatment. According to the current issue of Road and Track magazine, the EU carbon limits will require average fuel efficiency of more than 50 m.p.g. by 2020.

As for the "DiesOtto," running an such a "miracle" engine on a lab dyno is a lot different from the ability to mass produce reliable engines of the same ilk at a reasonable price. While eventually running an S-Class on a half-pint four popper is modestly impressive (although not so much to those intimately familiar with staged turbocharging), the reality is that such extreme, complex technology will dramatically drive up vehicle costs.

Thus, the unanswered questions are:

(1) how much will such HCCI engines cost?

(2) Will they be affordable for sub-luxury models?

(3) Will the 0-60 times drop from the reported glacial slowness to a suitably sporting range in production models?

(4) Will the HCCI and variable compression hardware hold up on the Autobahn? And

(5), will the repair industry have sufficiently trained technicians to affordably keep these complex engines at full song?

REGENERATIVE BRAKING AND TURBOS IN FORMULA ONE

Road and Track also reports in detail on the future of Formula One. In 2009, F1 will feature regenerative braking systems to add a few seconds of additional power each lap. The F1 turbo era will also return by 2012. This time, the turbo era will feature four cylinders of 1.3-1.5 liters displacement, unlimited rpm limits, "legal" pump gasoline (no more toluene?), but limits on the energy expended.

BUT WHAT ABOUT A HYBRID HCCI MUSTANG?

Developments such as VW’s Twincharging, M-B’s Dies-Otto, regenerative braking, and F1's rediscovery of turbocharging will undoubtedly trickle down to sporting machines for the road. Thus poses the obvious question – what about incorporating such developments in Ford Motor Company’s (F)beloved old warhorse, the Mustang?

While the Shelby GT500 is the current "gold standard" for hot Fords, it is obvious that such cars cannot be built in any appreciable numbers, if at all, under a 35+ m.p.g. Corporate Fuel Economy Average limitation.

Besides, the 5.4-liter GT500 engine is hardly optimized for fuel economy or high performance. Its Eaton Roots blower is inefficient at speed. It has no appreciable runner length for acoustic "supercharging." It has missed the variable cam and valve timing revolution. It does nothing to recover energy blown out the exhaust or ground away under braking. Moreover, FoMoCo’s own "green" grandstanding probably puts internal pressure on the "Total Performance" side of the business to tread with a smaller "carbon footprint."

But it’s simply not necessary to return to the bad old days of the Mustang II or champion a revival of the hated FWD PROBE-stang mess. The obvious "BOLD MOVE" solution? Build a high performance "green" Superstang on the current platform!

For psychological, historical and marketing reasons, a "Green-Stang" supercar should retain four-valve V8 power, even if in downsized displacement. Cylinder deactivation, HCCI and variable compression could significantly ramp up "off peak" efficiency without measurably compromising the full-throttle performance.

Hybrid-style idle shut off and "F1-style" regenerative braking could add efficiency, improve stop-and-go traffic economy, and allow for a small "electric torque-charger" motor-generator to boost to acceleration. If the auxiliary electric "torque-charger" motor is big enough, a plug in feature could be added to "cheat" the fuel economy tests even more.

Twincharging or staged series turbocharging, and variable geometry manifolding could optimize the torque outputs at multiple places on "the curve," giving the engine more responsiveness and flexibility (which were key factors in the appeal of "old school" large displacement powerplants). The patented "Supercooler" intercooling system and E85 or ethanol auxiliary fuel systems could allow for huge boost spikes when necessary.

More importantly, a "Green-Stang" would be a better technological "halo" car than an another underwhelming hybrid SUV or bland sedan. Performance buyers have shown a remarkable willingness to adopt new technologies sooner than the mass market (which views all that electro-mechanical "stuff" as a magical "black box") . . . and to PAY PREMIUM PRICES FOR IT! Currently, performance enthusiasts are paying thousands over sticker for the Shelby name slapped on a fairly underadvanced supercharged Mustang. Certainly, FoMoCo can afford to add "performance efficiency" technology under that bloated pricing curve!

Then as the new technology is established, it can trickle down to lesser, more ordinary models at lower prices.

The Mustang is central to the psyche of Ford. Thus it ought to be at the forefront of FoMoCo’s "green" propaganda efforts. But GT500-level (or better) high performance should not be sacrificed on the low carbon "alter." M-B’s DiesOtto and F1 each suggests a plausible "Way Forward."

NASCAR HATES FORD? FOMOCO’S DISMAL TELEVISION SEASON

The 2007 racing season has given fans who follow via television Ford Motor Company’s (F) 105-year racing tradition very few occasions to celebrate.

While FoMoCo is having an exemplary season in the World Rally Championship, the WRC has vanished from U.S. television in a haze of NASCAR tire smoke. (NASCAR is the "800,000-pound gorilla" of American motorsports television, guzzling television time faster than hogs rooting at an "All-U-Can-Eat" smorgasbord).

Ford’s Mustangs are also obtaining good results in the rarely-televised Koni Challenge Series. (One irony is that the Koni Challenge series cars are production-based, unlike the grotesque, tube-framed "funny cars" required by the National Association for STOCK CAR Auto Racing)

In the Koni Challenge’s senior sibling -- the Grand-Am series (a France Family sports car series that receives fractions of TV air time between NASCAR shows) -- FoMoCo’s tiny presence is seldom evident from the pictures. But FoMoCo has no presence within Grand-Am’s competitor: the more sophisticated and international American LeMans Series.

With Ford’s abandonment of the Champ Car World Series, its decade-long boycott of the Indy Racing League, and its continuing absence from Formula One, Ford has virtually disappeared from televised open wheel racing.

John Force Racing – FoMoCo’s only high profile factory-sponsored effort in all of big-time drag racing – has grimly faced on-track tragedy as well as sub-par elimination results.

Consequently, perceptions of Ford Motor Company’s motorsports efforts among U.S. television audiences turn on its NASCAR fortunes.

SO FAR, NOT SO GOOD.

To say that Ford’s 2007 NASCAR campaign is a disaster would be too kind.

Although FoMoCo has two teams on track for the made-for-TV, twelve-team "Chase to the Nextel (soon to be Sprint) Cup and a driver battling at the top of the undercard "Busch Series," Ford would be the NASCAR "in the cellar" if it weren’t for fledgling Toyota’s teething troubles.

Chevy is winning nearly all the Nextel Cup races and leading all the laps. Meanwhile, many Nextel Cup tracks are seeing more "race fans disguised as empty seats." But in the omnipotent mind of NASCAR, there's NO PROBLEM! Virtually the only way a Ford can get into the lead is if the Chevys pit.

The past weekend’s events in Canada and at Pocono dramatically demonstrated FoMoCo’s struggles. In the Canadian Busch race, Ford’s championship points contender dropped out, then Ford’s two lead cars (driven by Marcos Ambrose and Robby Gordon) took each other out, prompting NASCAR to cavalierly award the win to a Chevy driver (Kevin Harvick). Some charge that NASCAR ignored its own "no racing to the caution flag" rule by not resetting the field as it was before Ambrose’s retaliatory punt of Gordon, rewarding the thuggish Harvick – who earlier had caused even a bigger "beatin’ an’ bangin’" melee than the Ambrose-Gordon altercations-- with a "gift" win. Yet while NASCAR ignored Harvick’s rough driving and rewarded him with the win, it parked Robby Gordon.

Pocono was even worse for Ford fans, as former Ford driver (and championship winner) Kurt Busch stunk up the show in a Dodge "funnycar", followed by an endless parade of the usual suspect Chevy "funnys." Even the upbeat Team Ford Racing website struggled to put much of a positive spin on that result.

Maybe FoMoCo needs to recall its NASCARs . . . .

But the "problem" is really more NASCAR’s fault than Ford’s.

In earlier days, when "NASCARs" were more production based, the sanctioning body was often quick to step in with rules adjustments to even up the makes. In the so-called "modern era, except for perhaps 1985, when Bill Elliott dominated NASCAR’s superspeedway events (yet still lost the season championship to a "stroking" Chevy team), NASCAR has generally gone out of its way to pump up the fortunes of GM teams. And even then, NASCAR allowed GM in 1986 to race the hideous "cheater" Monte Carlo SS "Aerocoupe", the bizarre Pontiac Grand Prix 2+2 and a fleet of formerly front-wheel-drive Oldsmobiles and Buicks to counter the mass-production-based aerodynamic superiority of Elliott’s Thunderbird.

NASCAR history since 1971 is replete with examples of NASCAR tweaking the rules to make sure Chevy was competitive (or more than competitive) in "the show." But nothing in NASCAR history is remotely as disgusting as the freakish, aero-sensitive "common template" cars that are facilitating Chevys current dominance.

Chevy spinmeisters, gullible racing "journalists" and NASCAR’s P.R. operation claim that nowadays (in the non-stock "common template" age) "Everybody has the same stuff." This "common" gibberish blithely glosses over that "everybody" obviously does not have the same access to information, testing or simulation "now." Moreover, the Chevy teams now have a new, wholly non-production engine that NASCAR "gave" them. Ford’s teams are still struggling with an aging derivative of the Cleveland engine (that NASCAR allowed Dodge, Chevy and Toyota to copy and improve upon in clean-sheet designs). Only Ford now uses an engine design compatible any of its (former) production pieces.

Just as the fictional Harry Hogge said in the awful "Days of Thunder" movie – "they’re ain’t nothing ‘stock’ about a ‘stock car.’" But in NASCAR’s Ford-hating world, Chevys, Dodges and even Toyotas are allowed to be even less "stock" than Fords.

Chevrolet’s huge super-teams have also exploited a "high-tech, computer-driven, shop-based race simulators" loophole that caught Roush-Fenway and Ford’s smaller teams flat-footed in the boring, ugly, low-tech "Car-of-Tomorrow" roll-out. Yet NASCAR has taken no steps toward mandatory set-up and data sharing or allowing the teams without simulators to engage in more "real world" testing.

Obviously, if it were Ford leading all the laps and winning all the races, NASCAR would have acted by now (if only to protect its favored primadonna "stars," such as Tony Stewart, Dale Earnhardt, Jr., (turncoat) Jeff Gordon, and Jimmy Johnson). "Equal" in NASCAR still means some are more "equal" than others."

Equally obvious is that NASCAR doesn’t "hate Ford" so much that it won’t take buckets of Ford’s money for the season-ending Ford Championship Weekend. But it apparently can’t see fit to provide Ford teams with an equal chance of enjoying the fruits of that weekend!

If NASCAR was still a production-based series (which sadly it’s not), Ford could simply design and sell more competitive cars for "stock car" racing. But with NASCAR micro-managing the key specifications of the "modern [sic] NASCAR," Ford’s responses are very limited. Thus, there is no rational reason for NASCAR to permit the sort of Chevy dominance that has occurred in 2007.

So does NASCAR hate Ford? It sure looks that way to some.