The Truth About 60MPG

There is furious lobbying going on, as the automakers and the greens try to sway the Obama administration on future CAFE standards.  The greens, including Consumer Reports, NRDC, and others are claiming that not only is 60MPG feasible, but it will be good for us. Here are some of their main claims.

1)  60MPG will increase jobs and profitability of the Big 3.  Apparently, Citibank looked into a crystal ball and decided that the Big 3 market share and margins would increase with higher fuel economy vehicles.  But the Big 3 rely on large vehicles, even today, for a lot of their profits.  And jobs?  That depends.  If free trade with China continues, I see batteries and other components coming from China, which is a powerhouse in rare earth mining and raw materials processing.  Look at it this way--in the rise of Li-Ion batteries for tools and laptop computers, where are all the parts coming from?  China and Korea.

2) 60MPG will not cost much, and will pay for itself.   True, at $4/gal, a 60MPG car will pay back a sizeable premium in 3-4 years.  However, the cost estimates of some the technology are pie-in-the-sky.  What happens to li-ion battery costs if we start making millions of relatively huge car batteries?  Are the greens ready to strip-mine China for lithium?  What about the supply of rare earth metals for the powerful magnets needed by the motor/generators?   

3) Americans want 60MPG cars.  Sure they do--but they don't want to pay much for them.  As many surveys have shown, when you attach costs to highly efficient cars, interest drops off rapidly.  Today, there are numerous highly efficient small and medium cars available.  However, trucks and SUVs are still hot sellers.   What Americans really want is free efficiency.  They want large cars and cheap gas.  They want fat free french fries.

4)  60MPG is within easy reach, with off the shelf tech.  Sure, for small and mid-sized cars.  Give me a B/C platform and let me add a couple of thousand dollars in engine upgrades, more transmission gears, aluminum and high strength steel components.  You'll have a 60MPG small car that costs $25,000.  Great.  Now, how do you do it for a mid-sized SUV or minivan?  Or the Texas workhorse, the 1-ton pickup?  Not so easy.

Here are some of my thoughts about CAFE standards.

A)  Reducing vehicle weight will reduce overall safety, or add cost due to expensive countermeasures like additional airbags.  It's physics.  In a two car crash, the heavier car does better.  Until all the old heavy vehicles are off of the road, about 10 years after the lightweight ones are introduced, the new vehicles will be at a disadvantage.

B)  High CAFE standards will increase up-front costs, and reduce sales.   Suppose CAFE adds $4,000 in today's money to a typical family vehicle.  Some people will respond by buying used, some will buy smaller or cheaper, and some will defer their purchase.   Yes, you will save money down the road.  But you have to pay the down payment and the taxes now.  I agree with the AAM that sales volumes will be decreased.  Fewer new car sales means fewer jobs in sales and manufacturing.  However, there may be a renaissance in the old car repair industry, as people keep their old beaters longer.

C) High CAFE standards will reduce consumer choice.  How do you make a pickup truck which can pull a 10,000lb trailer, or haul 2,000lbs of bricks in its bed, which gets close to 60MPG?  I don't think it is possible.  Batteries are heavy and reduce payload.  Beefy suspensions and large engines all work against efficiency.  Even with efficiency improvements, in order to be able to sell pickup trucks, the automakers will have to get people to buy smaller cars to offset them.  That's how CAFE works.  The only way to do this is through price manipulation--either lose money on small cars, or jack up margins in large trucks.  Since method one nearly killed the Big 3 once already, I suspect the answer is going to be method two.  People who want muscle cars or pickup trucks will have to pay a lot more for them or do without.  Instead, there will be strong pressure on consumers to pick small cars and range limited EVs.  Products like high-performance sports cars may be very different under a 60MPG regime--slower, more expensive.

So what is the answer?

If you want to influence consumers directly, and do it in a transparent way, you need to tax fossil fuel.  Don't specify a fleet efficiency standard, rather, increase gas taxes slowly until consumers start to respond.  You can make it revenue neutral by rebating the taxes, or offsetting somewhere else.  But there isn't political will to do that.  It's easier to hide behind CAFE.  

Eventually, though, people will notice that CAFE is just another tax, just applied in a more complicated, hidden way.  Unfortunately, it may be too late, after the industry has changed in drastic ways.

---

Increase performance and gas mileage with a performance chip. Performance Chips Direct sells ECU chips for trucks and cars.

Tuesday Night Cruisers

A few pics from Woodward Ave as the sun was setting.

The Ritchie Boys At Holocaust Memorial Center

One of the Detroit area's hidden gems (well, it isn't that hidden) is the Holocaust Memorial Center. A fascinating, if grim, museum of Holocaust history with stunning architecture.

The HMC debuted a new exhibit this last weekend, about the Ritchie Boys, a unit of soldiers who were trained in intelligence gathering and interrogation techniques at the Army's Fort Ritchie, before being sent to Europe to help with the invasion. Many of the Ritchie Boys were Jews who had German language skills.

I went to the opening and shot a few photos.

Out front, a pair of (Brits!) WWII reenactors set up a very nice mini-camp, featuring a lovingly restored Jeep, as well as some excellent replica Browning machine guns, real Garands, and some token barbed wire.

Some old timers

A member of the Jewish War Veterans honor guard

One of the Ritchie Boys, Si Lewen, was an artist and sketched what he saw during the invasion

One of the Ritchie Boys tells his story

One of their misions was propoganda. The would drive around in a truck with a huge amplifier to broadcast German language de-motivation. This was dangerous work, as the Germans would often shoot towards the sound, and they eventually learned to run wires to the speaker some distance away, to draw the fire from the truck.

Paratooper uniform

My favorite part of the exhibit... they should have had more guns. They should have had a Colt 1911 and a Garand, at least.

Infantry uniform

Guy Stern, one of the Ritchie Boys, and also a director of the HMC, speaks about his experience

Class notes from Fort Ritchie, about identifying German weapons and units.

Tools of the trade.

Memorial Flame

A few more Jeep photos

If you haven't gone to the Holocaust Memorial Center, I suggest you take half a day and visit. It is pretty heavy, depressing stuff, but it is a good experience.

The MONOTYPE Car

Designer Fernando Ocana has published a Master's of Art project for an urban vehicle he calls MONOFORM. A 3-person compact city car, his design focuses on how the exterior of the vehicle interacts with the view of the city around it, by using various glass planes to reflect images.



As a pure design project, it is pretty neat. As a vehicle, it is of course unworkable. Rear stearing has inherent stability problems at high speed. Driver visibility in this vehicle doesn't look to be good. There doesn't appear to be any suspension travel. And, probably the most severe issue, the aerodynamics of this shape are probably unworkable.

Would anyone want to drive around in something that looks like a phone booth designed by Lockheed Martin stealth engineers having a bad day?

Green Vehicles RIP

Another one gone, another one gone, another one bites the dust.

Green Vehicles of Salinas CA has closed its doors. They were trying to develop an electric 3-wheeler, the Triac, but after burning through nearly $700,000 in state and local taxpayer funds.

The Triac was supposed to be another one of those rule-dodging vehicles which was considered by regulators to be a motorcycle and not a passenger car, because of its 3 wheel design.

According to the article here, the president of Green Vehicles notified the city of his company's failure via email. Nice.

So whey did the fail? The same reason that Aptera failed, and the same reason that most of the electric start-ups are going to fail. Building a safe, comfortable, reliable, affordable vehicle is not easy, and people are not as willing to experiment with such an expensive purchase as you might think.

When the dust settles, in a few years, I am convinced that the electric vehicles which are successful in the marketplace will come from the established automotive companies, with perhaps a niche player like Fisker or Tesla hanging on.

Despite the arrogant "we can do better" attitude of the start-ups, they are learning that the "old dinosaurs" do know a thing or two about product development and marketing.

CR (Still) Hates American Cars

Consumer Reports, which claims to be an impartial advocate for the consumer, to my mind is really a left-leaning organization of dubious intent. CR frequently tells consumers what CR thinks is best for them, rather than primarily taking their interests into account.  Witness their love for socialized medicine and CFL bulbs.  

Today's example, this blog posting from CR on "Best Used Cars Under $20,000"

Several CR staffers submit their choices, and all of them pick Honda or Toyota vehicles, except for two.  There is 1/2 a vote for a Ford Fusion, and 1 vote for a VW.  

Really guys?  You have $20,000 to spend, which is plenty, and you don't even consider some of the better American used vehicles, such as the Ford Escape, Chevrolet Equinox/Saturn Vue, Chevrolet Malibu, Ford Taurus, Chrysler 300?   

Consider: you can get a late model used Malibu or Taurus for under $20,000 which has all the trimmings, including leather heated seats, automatic lights, back up sensors, automatic climate control, etc. 

Space Shuttle Joke

Saw this suggestion for a practical joke making the rounds.

"When the Space Shuttle lands, everyone wear ape suits!"

Heh.

Nissan Leaf vs Chevy Volt Pricing

Nissan has announced that it is increasing the price on the 2012 Leaf, by $2,400 over the 2011 model, to $36,000.   Compare that to the price of the Volt, at $40,000.  Nissan also is capped at 20,000 units/year for the U.S. market, while GM has said it plans to produce 60,000 Volts in 2012.

If the Leaf is scarce, dealer markups may continue, reducing the price advantage further.  

Personally, if I was in the market for a plug-in car, I would probably choose the Volt over the Leaf, buying the gasoline hybrid capability for an extra $4,000 or less.

Auto Alliance CAFE Web Site

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has launched a web site to promote the automaker's side of the CAFE debate.  You can find it here.  

Toyota: No Electric RAV4 For You!

According to this source, Toyota will reserve its plug-in RAV4 product (co-produced with Tesla) for fleets and government entities, and won't sell them to the general public.

The Toyota RAV4 EV will make its comeback after first being sold 15 years ago. The vehicle won't be made available to consumers, Yoza said, instead they are focusing on "very strategic applications" such as fleets and car sharing programs. Despite being a BEV that could benefit from fast charging, the RAV4 EV will not include a CHAdeMO charging port. Yoza said Toyota will not offer fast charging on any vehicles until the SAE determines a standard.

 I can hear the shrieking of the BEV boosters all the way from my perch here in Detroit.  "Toyota thinks it's the 1990's!"  Several are probably loading up their super-8 movie cameras in preparation for "Who Killed The Electric Car 2".

Why would Toyota do it this way?  Simple.  Cost.  Chances are the RAV4 EV will be so expensive that Toyota doesn't want to lose a ton of money on them.  Think about the overhead for a new small volume vehicle--dealer training, special service tools, parts distribution.  Instead, by keeping it fleet only, Toyota can keep costs down by centralizing service and support.  

The RAV4 EV is mostly a product for CARB and the "green states" who follow California mandates.  It helps get Toyota the EV points it needs in California, so it can keep selling Tundras (13/17MPG) Sequoias (13/18MPG), FJ Cruisers (15/20MPG) and 4Runners (17/22MPG).   

CNG Civic: Cheap Running But Slow

The Honda Civic GX is slated to be sold to retail customers nationally in 2012 (it was only available in four states, previously).  Since it runs on compressed natural gas, it is relatively cheap to run, with CNG fuel economy in the range of 28mpg (EPA estimate) and CNG costing around $1.70/gal.  

However, there are some big trade-offs involved in driving a Civic GX.  Acceleration is poor, with 0-60mph times coming in at 12.6s according to Edmunds.  The range is limited compared to a gasoline powered car, or a Chevy Volt, typically around 200 miles.  And if you want to fuel at home, which is likely because CNG stations are not common, you need to install a CNG compressor which will cost you around $5000, installed.  

Does the Civic GX make more sense than a Chevrolet Volt?  It's a tough call.  The Volt's price (after subsidy) is around $33,000.  The GX price is about $30,000 if you include the cost of the CNG compressor.  For the extra $3,000 you gain the ability to fuel anywhere (if you run it on gasoline or charge at 110v).  CNG miles cost about $.07, while all-electric miles will cost you about $0.06 per mile.  

But the Volt gets to 60mph in about 8.5s, and in range sustaining (gas) mode has a range of over 300 miles.  I think while the government tax credit is in place, I'd take the Volt.

A Couple Evening Car Photos

I went to Woodward to get some ice cream today before sunset. Spotted a few neat cars.

This one appears to be a GM guy driving a late pre-production Chevrolet Caprice.

And this is a tail light of a new Cadillac SRX crossover. It surprised me, the shape of it, I had not noticed it before. It's like a little throwback fin, back to the 1970's.

Carbon Motors, Aptera, VPG, etc.

For a while, it looked like all of the smart kids knew how to make a better car, and how to run the business better than the big boys.  There was a "gold rush" of sorts, as electric car and other niche producers scrambled to set up shop and grab venture capital funding.   

Then the hard economic reality kicked in.   Making cars is hard.  It takes a huge amount of money, people, and time.  And the regulatory hurdles are enormous.

Look at the up-start graveyard.  Bricklin's Visionary Vehicles?  Nowhere.  Mahindra USA?  Limbo at best.  

Aptera is waiting for a federal loan which will probably never come.

So apparently is Carbon Motors, the purpose-built BMW diesel powered police vehicle.  Carbon requested $310,000,000, but is still waiting a year later.  

VPG, maker of a purpose built wheelchair accessible taxi vehicle, apparently got a $50,000,000 loan from DOE to produce a CNG version.  

Survey: U.S. Consumers Unwilling To Pay For CAFE

The Boston Consulting Group, a business consultancy, has issued an interesting report about how automakers can achieve the stringent 2020 fuel economy and CO2 emissions standards without having to resort to electric vehicles.  There is a lot of interesting stuff in there, and as I digest it I'll probably post more about it.

One thing that jumped out at me is this table.  In it, a majority 56% of survey respondents in the U.S. are not willing to pay any premium for an "environmentally friendly car".

And also, consider the odd result for the people who would, if they vehicle would pay for itself.  They are willing to pay up to $3,900 premium, but expect it to pay back in 3 years.  That implies an expected fuel savings of 325 gal/year at $4/gal.  A 27mpg car uses 444 gal/year with a typical 12,000 mile/year driver.  This means people expect the equivalent of going from 27mpg to 100mpg, for $3,900!   Clearly, this is not going to be realistic in any short term time scale. 

The closest vehicle we have now to 100mpg is the Volt, which carries a premium of about $15,000 (compared to a well equipped Cruze).  

So, basically, American consumers are saying, "we'd love fuel efficient cars--as long as they don't cost much (or anything) extra".

CAFE May Cramp High End Luxury Market

An interesting piece in the WSJ, here, expains that luxury car makers such as Porsche and Mercedes may be severely impacted by future CAFE rules.

Future U.S. government fuel economy regulations could saddle auto makers with steep fines or even bar the sale of certain models. Violations of proposed government standards could cost auto makers up to $25,000 a vehicle beginning in 2016, up from current levels of $5 to hundreds of dollars per vehicle.

The issue for the luxury automakers is that CAFE is a fleet average, not a per-car requirement. Large full line carmakers like GM can produce lots of Cruzes to offset a few Cadillac V8's. However, Mercedes doesn't sell enough high MPG vehicles to avoid paying today's fine. And when CAFE marches north of 50mpg average, Mercedes only option is to find some hybrid electric powertrains schnell.

I am not a fan of CAFE because of the way it hides regulation from the consumer, and distorts the car market. However, I don't see why luxury car makers such as Mercedes should be exempt. If CAFE is the regulatory regime, and the goal is to reduce fuel consumption, the luxury car makers should not be allowed to skate.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that powerful cars should be banned. But I think the wealthy folks who love European luxury cars can afford a "CO2 premium" for their sins. I also admit, bad economic policy aside, that I like the competitive advantage that CAFE gives the full-line automakers such as the Detroit 3.

IL Track Tested: 2012 Audi A6 3.0 TFSI Quattro

Inside Line tests hundreds of vehicles a year, but not every vehicle gets a full write-up. The numbers still tell a story, though, so we present "IL Track Tested." It's a quick rundown of all the data we collected at the track, along with comments direct from the test-drivers. Enjoy.

Audi completely redesigned the A6 for the 2012 model year with an emphasis on technology. And not simply the infotainment type, though with an 8-inch screen, advanced MMI and cellular Wi-Fi connecting you to things like Google maps, the new A6 certainly ticks that box. No, for the 2012 A6, Audi focused on building a lighter, more efficient sedan. That started by (thankfully) not increasing the size of the A6 -- which was already one of the largest vehicles in the class. So Audi increased the wheelbase and lowered the car and at the same time, employed greater use of aluminum to lighten the whole package by 176 pounds. That's a trend we can get behind.

And while Audi still isn't keen on offering a V8 for this A6, it has tweaked the supercharged 3.0-liter V6 to 310 horsepower @ 5,500-6,500 rpm and 325 lb-ft of torque from 2,900-4,500 rpm. If these stats sound familiar. it's because this is the same engine that's sitting in the 2012 Audi A7 which you should be familiar with as the sporty hatchback sibling of the Audi A6.

We already know how the A7 does on the track. Can the best-selling A6 keep up with the impressive numbers already set?

Vehicle: 2012 Audi A6 3.0T Quattro
Price as tested: $71,330 (Base 3.0 TFSI quattro tiptronic ($49,900); Aviator Blue Metallic ($475); Prestiga Package ($6,880); Bang & Olufsen Advanced Sound System ($5,900); Innovation Package ($5,800); 19" Sport Package ($1,500); Destination fee ($857)
Date Tested: 6-21-2011
Driver: Mike Monticello

Specifications:
Drive Type: Longitudinal, front-engine, all-wheel drive
Transmission Type: Eight-speed automatic
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 2,995/183
Redline (rpm): 6,450
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 310 @ 5,500-6,500
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 325 @ 2,900-4,500
Steering System: Electronic Assist, speed-sensitive power rack-and-pinion
Suspension Type (front): Independent multilink, coil springs, antiroll bar
Suspension Type (rear): Independent multilink, coil springs
Tire Size (front): 255/40R19
Tire Size (rear): 255/40R19
Tire Brand: Pirelli
Tire Model: P Zero
Tire Type: Summer performance
Brakes front: 14-inch ventilated discs with 2-piston sliding calipers
Brakes 13 in ventilated discs with single-piston sliding calipers
As tested Curb Weight (lb): 4,175

Test Results:

Acceleration
0-30 (sec): 2.0 (2.1 with T/C on)
0-45 (sec): 3.4 (3.6 with T/C on)
0-60 (sec): 5.2 (5.7 with T/C on)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.9 (5.4 with T/C on)
0-75 (sec): 7.6 (8.1 with T/C on)
1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 13.6 @ 102.0 (13.8 @ 100.8 with T/C on)

Braking
30-0 (ft): 28
60-0 (ft): 111

Handling
Slalom (mph): 67.2 (64.5 with T/C on)
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.90 (0.88 with T/C on)

Sound
Db @ Idle: 41.6
Db @ Full Throttle: 70.9
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 63.4

RPM @ 70: 1,700

Comments

Acceleration: Strong supercharged power right off the line and continues its strong flood of power through the quarter-mile. Transmission shifts quickly in Sport mode. Quickest run was a bit of an anomaly -- power braking in sport transmission mode with ESC off, but the upshifts were much more abrupt and lightning-quick and could not duplicate (a trick we've seen in other new Audis.) Manual shifting is via paddles or console lever. Blips throttle on downshifts but will not hold gears to rev limiter.

Braking: Not the firmest pedal ever, and with moderate travel, but incredibly consistent and stable stops. Very little nosedive at all and zero brake fade exhibited in six stops. Short stopping distances, too.

Handling: Skid pad: Steering feels very light and unfeeling around the skid pad, and there's significant understeer, but the chassis is very receptive to drop-throttle to keep the A6 on the arc. And those summer tires clearly have a lot of grip. Slalom: There's more substance to the steering during the higher speeds and transitions of the slalom. Grippy tires give a lot of confidence to throw the car around and AWD is a real boon for exiting at full throttle. The suspension feels oddly springy, though, as you transition back and forth. Overall, though, a confidence-inspiring car.

Mini Roadster Following Mini Coupe in Spring of 2012

Our man Takahashi has gone ahead and had his way with the press photos of the Mini Roadster by adding the details we've recently seen on the just released Mini Coupe. This gives us the closest view we're likely to have until official photos of the Mini Roadster are released. And this is something I can actually get behind. The Coupe, while offering what we hear is spectacular handling, is just goofy to me-- the Roadster could be a quirky, fun toy.

The Mini Roadster is expected in March or April of 2012 while the Coupe is set for a fall release with the same engines as the Coupe, highlighted by a 208-horsepower 1.6-liter turbo in the John Cooper Works edition.

Spy Photos:New 2013 Jaguar XE

Back in August of last year, we had the first renderings of the 2013 Jaguar XE, the small, all-aluminum sports car aimed square at the Porsche 911. The project was initially shelved because of all the hubbub with staying viable as a carmaker, but now, under Tata ownership, we seem to be back in the game of building cool cars.

The XE was initially reported to feature a retractable hard top eliminating the need for coupe and convertible models, but clearly here we've got a soft top. A modified version of the XF platform was discussed, but the XK elements seen here suggest we're looking at the same platform that already houses a coupe and convertible.

A range of V6 engines are rumored (possibly diesel for everywhere but here) for the base cars while gasoline V8s will highlight the top of the range. Currently, the 2011 Jaguar XK's 5.0-liter V8 makes 385 horsepower, but don't be surprised if there's an XER shortly after the car's launch later this year.

Spy Photos: 2013 BMW 6 Series Gran Coupe

These new spy photos of the 2013 BMW 6 Series Gran Coupe prove that, despite the 5 Series GT being a disappointment, BMW isn't done blurring lines. What we've got here is a latest-generation BMW 6 Series, but with some important differences, notably, four-doors. Odd for a coupe. Or, at least, it used to be odd for a coupe to have four doors until Mercedes-Benz went ahead and called the swoopy CLS a four-door coupe and it sold like hotcakes to dentists and lawyers and housewives from Miami to Beverly Hills. Clearly there was a market for a slightly less functional sedan with stylish body work. Audi noticed, too, and dropped the A7. And then there's the Panamera.

Finally, though, it appears BMW has caught up with the trend, finally showing a prototype of the 6 Series Gran Coupe which was greenlit last July.

We expect the four door 6 Series to offer the same engine as the 6 series in the U.S. which is a 4.4-liter V8 making 400 horsepower and 450 pound-feet of torque. Transmission options are a six-speed manual or an eight-speed automatic. Starting price for the 2012 BMW 6 Series is $83,875.

And don't count out an M version with, based on the 2012 BMW M5, 553 horsepower and a manual or dual-clutch transmission.

And here's the concept from Beijing last year.

Product Placement 101: New 2012 Volkswagen Beetle Gets Flashed by Britney

How to get your product seen by impressionable young girls? Have it in a Britney Spears video.

How to get your product seen by impressionable young boys? Have it in a Britney Spears video.

How to get boys into a Beetle? Give them the idea it's fast enough to get pulled over and cool enough to be flashed by Brit.

Volkswagen gets this, hence the 2012 Volkswagen Beetle's presense in Britney Spears' new video, I Wanna Go, which is after the jump. Car begins at around 1:15 and continues for quite a while.

Dyno-Tested: 2012 Hyundai Genesis 5.0 R-Spec

The 400-horsepower club sports members from various corners of the globe, but the 2012 Hyundai Genesis 5.0 R-Spec is the first entry from a Korean automaker to cross that threshold.

Naturally, one of the first things we did when we clapped our butts into the Genesis 5.0 R-Spec was to head over to the dyno at MD Automotive in Westminster, California. As we're certain you are, too, we were curious to see how well Hyundai's most powerful engine ever stacks up to modern V8s elsewhere in automobiledom. The results are across the jump.

Hyundai didn't bother dawdling a few hp near the 400 hp barrier with the 5.0-liter Tau, either, as its rated output is 429 horsepower at 6400 rpm. As for torque, it is said to churn out 376 lb-ft at 5000 rpm. This courtesy of all the hardware you'd expect to find in a modern luxury car engine -- direct injection, continuously variable overhead cams, roller rocker arms and 32 valves.

We've got a lot to cover here, so let's just jump right into it.

Here's what we measured at the Genesis 5.0 R-Spec's wheels on the Dynojet chassis dyno:

First off, this engine was dead-consistent on the dyno. I performed twelve runs and all of them were neatly stacked atop one another, each one tracing every bump and valley you see above.

The Tau 5.0 breathes well, generating more than 300 lb-ft to the wheels from 2300 to 6300 rpm, and it draws a second breath at 4600 rpm to give it a broad powerband. Those dips at 3700 and 4600 are a bit odd but nothing to get worked up over. Maximum torque of 342 lb-ft is reached at 5150 rpm, while the peak 364 horsepower was found at 6250 rpm.

Compared to its Tau 4.6 stablemate, these figures represent increases of 44 horsepower and 43 lb-ft at the flywheel. It just so happens that we've dyno-tested an Equus with the Tau 4.6. See here.

In our testing the 5.0 spun up 43 hp and 51 lb-ft more than the 4.6. This is very close to the difference that is claimed at the flywheel. So there's that. Character-wise, the two engines are nearly identical; the 5.0 simply ratchets the curves upward.

The Equus' dyno result above is truncated due to its downshift-happy transmission. Hyundai changed things up with the Genesis 5.0 R-Spec, as its go-pedal incorporates a transmission kickdown detent at the bottom of its travel, similar to some of the German makes. As such, the Genesis 5.0 R-Spec behaved on the dyno in allowing me to extract data across the entire rev range.

There's more. Hyundai reckons that the Tau 5.0 generates more power than the Infiniti M56's 5.6-liter V8. That's quite a tall order when you consider that the Tau 5.0 gives up more than a half-liter to the Infiniti and doesn't rev significantly higher. Both are equipped with direct injection.

It turns out that we've tested an M56 on this dyno, too. Here we see that the M56 doesn't relinquish anything to the Genesis 5.0 R-Spec at any point in their respective rev ranges.

Either Infiniti is being coy with its 420 hp / 417 lb-ft rating for the M56, or the Tau V8's rating is on the optimistic side. But they can't both be right.

More food for thought. This thing's a 5.0. Ford's got a 5.0. Also, Hyundai's 429 horsepower rating is so close to the 426-hp rating of the Chevrolet Camaro SS that I just can't help myself.

Yes, this chart pits Hyundai's luxury car V8 against those of two American pony cars, and that is a very silly thing. But power is power, and the numbers ought to pencil out. Granted, this was not a same-day comparison of all three cars, although the same dyno, operator and procedure was used for all three cars.

To recap, the Ford 5.0 is rated at 412 hp and 390 lb-ft, and GM pegs the Camaro SS at 426 hp and 420 lb-ft.

Ford's got a whopper of an engine in the Coyote 5.0, but you already knew that. The Ford spikes sharply upward in the midrange right where the Genesis falters, although the Hyundai out-torques the Ford below 3500 rpm. The Ford marches steadily away from the Hyundai after 6000 rpm. This is what direct injection and luxury-car tuning can do, for better and for worse.

Torque below 3500 rpm is similar between the of the Tau 5.0 and the 6.2-liter LS3 in the Camaro, but the Tau 5.0 doesn't quite out-power the LS3, contrary to what its flywheel rating suggests.

The conclusion? All in all, the Tau 5.0 V8 is in the mix. It's ultra-smooth, quiet and consistent and isn't afraid to rev. It is delivering perhaps just a hair less power to the wheels than expected when you consider the dyno results and ratings of other manufacturers' stuff. Nothing major, and it could simply be that other manufacturers build more of a hedge into their ratings than does Hyundai. Still, Hyundai would do well to under-promise and over-deliver if/when they slot the Tau 5.0 into the Genesis Coupe.

Sort of like what Ford did with the barnstorming Coyote 5.0.

--Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor

2012 BMW M5: 560 Horsepower vs 553 Horsepower

So there's been some confusion with the 2012 BMW M5 and its horsepower rating. Some people are reporting 553 horsepower, others 560. 560 is bigger and puts the M5 above the CTS-V in the horsepower war. The genesis of the confusion stems from two things: 1) The first information released was leaked and incomplete. 2) The information released was, primarily, in European units of measure. This means kW and DIN horsepower instead of the way we like it. The two numbers in question were 553 (or 552 -- more on this later) or 560.

560 was the number released by the press kit alongside the 412 kW rating. 412 kW maths itself out to be 552.5 horsepower -- round how you will. Fine, we blame DIN. But then the US press kit came out touting-- wait for it -- 560 horsepower and 412 kW. Sigh.

So what gives? Our engineering guru Jay Kav splains it after the jump.

Horsepower is a devilish thing since not all horsepower is measured using the same yardstick. Ferrari uses Cavallero (CV); the Germans like DIN; the Japanese have in the past used a JIS standard. Yeesh.

We at InsideLine ignore such foreign horsepower ratings. To come up with a horsepower number that is equivalent to SAE horsepower, we have to dig a little deeper.

Instead of using whatever is supplied, we look for the power as reported in metric units known as kilowatts (kW). Kilowatts are the standard in the world of power measurement, but nobody in Americaland thinks in kilowatts. So we convert kW to SAE-sized horsepower.

Do this to the 2012 BMW M5’s rated power – 412 kW – and you get 553 hp. BMW claims 560 hp, even in US guise. So we called BMW to clarify. It turns out that the new M5 will, indeed, produce 560 hp (SAE) and not 553. It’s a similar situation with the company’s X5 M engine, which is rated at 555 hp worldwide, kilowatt rating --408-- be damned.

Power-Up: 2012 Buick LaCrosse Gets Upgraded to 303 Horsepower

As if it was to just sit back and take the hits while its little brother Regal gets all of the attention from the horsepower gods, Buick has announced a horsepower upgrade for the 2012 Buick LaCrosse in the form of a 303-horsepower 3.6-liter direct-injection V6.

The nice new engine will be a no-cost option and is rated at 17 mpg city and 27 highway. The last time we tested a LaCrosse, it was a 2010 CXL 3.0 with 255 horsepower. It managed 60 in 8.4 seconds and the quarter mile in 16.4 seconds at 86 mph.

While we're glad to see this in the LaCrosse, we can't help wonder why it's not in the Enclave yet....

Lotus Confirms New In-House Engines

Lotus confirmed this week that it has been working on its own engine family since December, with the first fire-up scheduled for Aug. 18 (go ahead, mark your calendars). Intended for the redesigned Esprit, the first engine will be a 4.8-liter V8 that produces 562 horsepower at a screaming 9,000 rpm. A turbocharged version will produce at least 612 hp in an Esprit R model.

"Our engine is 80kg lighter than the Lexus V8 we were going to use," Lotus Engineering Director Wolf Zimmerman (an AMG veteran) told CAR Magazine. "It's also very compact with its dry sump -- it's 40 percent smaller, just 612 mm long. At 170kg, it's more like a race engine."

Indeed, it's been hinted that the new engine will make it into a racing application before the 2013 Esprit is launched. The next step would be dropping cylinders from the V8 to create an engine line-up that would include a 3.6-liter V6 and a 2.4-liter four-cylinder destined to be in the 2015 Elise. According to CAR, an automated single clutch automated manual will be used rather than a dual-clutch set-up and a hybrid is possible.