Looks like the Cygnet, which is nothing more than a reworked Toyota iQ wearing an Aston Martin badge, is headed to the United States.

Aston Martin’s been hinting for a while now that it would build the crazy mashup. It always made sense for the European market, where an upscale urban commuter that beats big-city congestion charges might sell well.

But Automotive News, citing absolutely no one, says Aston Martin plans to bring the car to the States. When that’ll happen remains to be seen.

We’re waiting to hear back from Aston Martin.

Automotive News, among others, questions why Aston might offer the Cygnet here. We’d wager Aston wants to improve the average fuel economy of its fleet to meet the CAFE rules. The iQ reportedly gets Toyota Prius–like fuel economy, which would go a long way toward offsetting the numbers of a car like the Rapide or the DB9 Volante.

To build the Cygnet concept, Aston swaddled a Toyota iQ in loads of leather and added a grille with a grin like the Cheshire Cat. Under the skin, though, it’s got the same 1-liter, three-cylinder engine as the 56-mpg Toyota iQ.

That doesn’t mean it won’t have an Aston-like price tag, though. AE says it’ll run $35,000.

Photo: Aston Martin

See Also:

• 007’s Aston Martin For Sale. Machine Guns Included
• Yes, Aston Martin’s One-77 Is Insanely Fast
• Livin’ the Dream at the Wheel of an Aston Martin One-77
• 6 Cars So Alluring They’re in an Art Museum
• Toyota’s 56-MPG iQ Is Coming to America

When Doug Small started drawing up plans for a homebrew electric car, he wanted to start with something lightweight, easy to work on and stylish. Naturally, he decided on an MG TD.

Purists needn’t worry, however, as no British roadsters were harmed during the construction of this electric car. This is a replica TD, a mere fiberglass shell atop the remnants of a Volkswagen Beetle.

Small, who lives in East Moline, Illinois, chose an old VW as a donor for the same reason so many Beetles end up battery-powered: They’re cheap, they’re easy to work on and they weigh almost nothing. While the replica body looks great, the primary reason for the Anglification was the 800 pound weight savings that came from replacing a Beetle’s steel body with a fiberglass shell that has neither roof nor pillars.

Small started planning the conversion four years ago and started construction in September, 2008. He did all the work himself.

“I started with a complete frame-off restoration from the chassis up,” he said. “The frame was infused with a new suspension, brakes, shocks, etc. The body was sanded, primed and repainted. The interior was pretty rough, so I completely started from scratch.”

Small crafted new door panels, trim and a wood dashboard, using aircraft switches and turned aluminum for an authentic look. Next up came the drivetrain, which consists of a rebuilt VW gearbox driven by the 40 horsepower D&D Electric DC motor, twelve 6-volt 240-amp lead acid deep cycle batteries and a few other easy-to-find parts.

“Everything was readily available online,” Small said. “The most difficult challenge was figuring out the battery layout. There was a bit of trial and error, but I finally found optimal battery positioning.”

The car has a range of 20 to 25 miles and the batteries take 6.5 hours to recharge. That’s not very far and not very fast, but Small says it’s ideal for a quick summertime jaunt along a country road. Top speed is 55 mph, though Small says it’s a fun car to drive at any speed.

“The performance is equivalent to a 40-horsepower Volkswagen Bug, but without the noise, oil leaks or gas consumption,” he said.

If it’s the looks that catch people’s attention, it’s the lack of that characteristic four cylinder engine note that holds their curiosity.

“The amount and types of looks the car receives is astounding,” he said. “There are many double takes and I think that the car might confuse people when they don’t hear an expected engine noise.”

Two weekends ago, the car got a second look from the judges at the Quad Cities British Auto Club who awarded the TD EV first place in the Special Interest category at the 2010 Autofest. We’re not sure if it’s in that category because it’s a replica, or because it was a British car without an oil leak.

Photos: Doug Small

Reuters is saying Spyker Cars NV may have been too optimistic on Saab's earlier sales goals. Shocking, I know. The global sales goal for Saab has been reduced to 45,000 this year, down from a previous target of 50,000. Spyker is now forecasting 2011 Saab sales at 80,000, down from 100,000 before, but it kept a long-term sales goal of 120,000 a year.

Not that the Saabistas want to hear this, but Spyker has never made a profit. Just last year, they lost $25.81 million, on sales of only $8.85 million. I’m no Bernie Madoff. But that doesn’t look very good. And now a report coming from Automobilwoche says Spyker has until the end of this week to file for bankruptcy or find new investors. And that’s not good news for the new products Saab needs to get into showrooms sooner than later.

For instance, BMW wanted to deliver engines for the Mexican-made 9-4X crossover and maybe the 9-3 compact. But that deal is stone cold now. And Spyker has been talking about launching a premium subcompact 9-2 model, and then enter it in the World Rally Championship. But before that can happen, the 9-2 needs to move beyond speculative concept drawings.

The big problem is that the cost of the 9-2 wasn't included in the turnaround plan Saab presented to its current investors and the Swedish government. So Saab needs to find another automaker that will supply a platform it can rebody.

Spyker was going to hook up with BMW’s next-gen Mini platform for its new 9-2 premium subcompact, but now Automotive News is saying Spyker head Victor Muller is chatting with three automakers (BMW included) for help with the 9-2.

Of course, being able to pay another automaker for the 9-2 platform may be a bit of  sticking issue as Muller takes his Saab cap in hand.

Do you think Saab will remerge as a real global player again?

Do you think enough Canadians even want the Swedish brand to return to our shores?

[Sources: Automobilwoche, Automotive News, Reuters]

The feds, eager to make fuel economy stickers easier to understand even as new technologies enter the market, suggest assigning all new vehicles a letter grade based upon their efficiency. The best fuel misers would, as you’d expect, get an A while the worst guzzlers would get a D.

Assigning each new car an overall grade based on fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions would the biggest change to vehicle window stickers in 30 years. The proposal is one of two the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation are considering under a sweeping effort to revamp vehicle window stickers for the 2012 model year. That’s when electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids are expected to hit the market in (relatively) significant numbers.

Current stickers provide each vehicle’s fuel economy in miles per gallon and an estimate of its annual operating costs. Under one proposal, the feds would add a letter grade summing up a vehicle’s energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions. Under the second, current stickers would be updated to include comparison of various vehicles’ fuel economy and emissions.

The goal is to provide consumers with a simple, straightforward way to compare the energy consumption and environmental impacts of all types of vehicles, from internal combustion vehicles to electric and plug-in hybrid. Regulators want some public feedback before deciding which proposal to adopt.

“New technologies such as battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids are entering the American market in greater numbers,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. “We need to provide consumers with labels that include fuel economy and environmental information so that buyers can make better informed decisions when purchasing new vehicles.”

The grades would range from an A+ to a D, perhaps to spare automakers from having to see their least efficient vehicles slapped with an F. To earn top marks, a vehicle would have to get at least 59 mpg or the equivalent, while anything getting 14 or below would earn a D.

Clearly some vehicles will blow the curve. An electric vehicle like the Nissan Leaf would get an A+, while a plug-in hybrid like Toyota’s forthcoming Plug-In Prius would earn an A. The average car like, the Toyota Camry, for example, would score a B-, while most SUVs and pickup trucks like the Ford F-150 would fare no better than a C+. Extreme performance machines like the Ferrari 512 Scaglietti would get a D.

A second proposed label would retain the current label’s focus on miles per gallon and annual fuel costs but update the overall design and add comparison information on fuel economy and emissions.

Automakers are, as you might expect, skeptical of the proposed changes.

“A car is generally a consumer’s second biggest expenditure, and automakers support providing our customers with meaningful information for decision-making on vehicles that meet their particular needs, but the proposed letter grade falls short because it is imbued with school-yard memories of passing and failing,” Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, told the Detroit News. The trade association represents the Big Three, Toyota Motor Corp., and seven other companies.

Automakers also worry letter grades amount to the government making a value judgment on vehicles.

“Grades may inadvertently suggest a government label of approval, when what we really want to do is encourage consumers to consider buying one of the many new technologies on sale,” Gloria Bergquist, spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, told the Wall Street Journal. The alliance is the auto industry’s largest trade group.

Both labels expand on the data currently available by providing new info about fuel consumption, tailpipe CO2 emissions and smog-related emissions. The new labels would provide information on a web-based interactive tool also accessible by smart phone.

When it comes to electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, the feds propose showing energy use by translating electricity consumption to miles per gallon equivalent, but the labels also would express energy use in terms of kilowatt-hours per 100 miles. GHG emissions would be measured only at the tailpipe and would not consider any “upstream” emissions from, say, electricity generation. That’s sure to be a bone of contention among EV naysayers who argue electric vehicles simply transfer emissions from the tailpipe to the power plant, even though some studies have shown the well-to-wheel emissions of electric vehicles are lower than internal combustion even when the electricity comes form coal-fired plants.

The feds will take public comment for 60 days after the proposal is published in the federal register, so click here if you want to sound off.

Photo: Ford. A dealership employee prepares a Ford Escape Hybrid for delivery. Under the feds’ proposed window sticker revisions, customers shopping for cars would more easily be able to compare different vehicles’ fuel efficiency and emissions.

Under one proposal, the feds would assign all new cars a letter grade based upon energy efficiency and tailpipe emissions. The label also would outline projected annual savings in fuel costs over the average vehicle. Electric vehicles would get an A+, while plug-in hybrids would get an A.

The most fuel efficient gasoline cars would earn high marks, and most SUVs would get a C+. Anything getting 14 mpg or less would earn a D. Just like so many schools these days, no one would get an F.

A second proposal calls for updating the current stickers. Electric vehicles would show energy use by translating electricity consumption to miles per gallon equivalent, but the labels also would express energy use in terms of kilowatt-hours per 100 miles.

The feds say the redesign is meant to make it easier for consumers to compare the fuel efficiency of various vehicles and technologies.

Along with a stunning array of classic vehicles, 10 finalists that will vie for Cruise Nationals Grand Champion were selected, each earning display space at the AutoShow in February. Now it’s your turn! Vote for your favourite, coming soon to autoshow.ca/cruisenationals!

What’s the most exciting part of setting a land speed record in an electric vehicle? Roger Schroer, who drove the student-built Buckeye Bullet to a record-breaking 307.7 mph, says the true thrill comes from witnessing the teamwork involved in building the car.

No, that’s not the feel-good copy of a cheesy press release. He says setting a land speed record in the Buckeye Bullet feels more like a successful experiment than a thrill ride. We caught up with Schroer as he returned home from the Bonneville Salt Flats after his third time setting a record in the Ohio State University streamliner. It turns out going that fast doesn’t really feel all that fast.

“Most of your sensation of speed is a visual sense, but at Bonneville it’s just a huge open plain of salt. It’s all white,” he says. “If you combine the relative lack of visibility with the lack of visual reference points and add in the control tests you have to do, you don’t quite get the sensation of speed I expected.”

Not to mention an EV offers a unique soundtrack, even at high speeds.

“In our car, I can hear the tires on the salt, the spinning of the electric motor and the noises from the rotating brake rotors and the drivetrain,” Schroer says. “I’ve got to think that’s somewhat unique amongst cars that go over 300.”

Schroer’s nonchalant attitude might come from his 26-year career as a test and development driver at the Transportation Research Center in East Liberty, Ohio, or his hobby of racing cars.

“It’s a lot different than the road racing, because in road racing, you’re concerned with how fast you exit a corner,” he says. “The challenge here is simply to keep the car pointed straight. At first glance, it seems pretty simple. I know that’s what I thought. But there’s a whole set of issues. At those speeds, aerodynamic issues come into play.”

Famed Bonneville racer Tom Burkland gave Schroer some advice: Think of the car as an airplane on the ground.

“The forces at those speeds are very significant — you have to pay attention to the longitudinal center of gravity and the aerodynamic center of pressure,” Schroer says.

That’s where experience is vital. In addition to keeping the car straight, Schroer concentrates on reducing wheel spin, shifting at the engine speeds specified by the car’s engineers and staying within mile markers.

“I’m trying to pay attention to whether things feel different and at what points,” he says. “At the end I want to deploy the parachutes and note the condition of the car — that’s a critical issue. That’s what’s going through my mind. I’m paying attention and trying to stay out of trouble.”

The Bullet, built by student engineers at Ohio State University’s Center for Automotive Research with help from Monaco-based boutique EV manufacturer Venturi, started its run for the record Aug. 23. Schroer hit a new record of 291 mph, then topped it Aug. 24 when he averaged 307.7 mph during two back-to-back runs. The team called off further runs after the Bullet’s clutch shot craps.

The time must be ratified by the rules-makers at the Federation Internationale de l’Automobile. But Dave Petrali, chief steward for U.S. Auto Club and an FIA timer, said there is no doubt the previous record of 245.5 mph, set in 1999 by Pat Rummerfield at the wheel of White Lightning, fell.

The EV is version 2.5 of the original Buckeye Bullet, whose 314.9 mph run in 2004 didn’t meet the FIA specs for a world record run. Version 2 was powered by hydrogen fuel cells and set the land speed record for a fuel cell vehicle at 302.877 in September 2009.

It took 11 months for the team to swap Bullet 2’s Ballard fuel cell for lithium-ion batteries from A123 Systems. The team is mum on details about the battery pack but it reportedly uses 1,600 cells. Only the power source has been changed — the body, chassis and electric traction system are all the same as the speeding Bullet’s previous incarnation.

If anything were to go wrong, Schroer has the benefit of a carbon fiber survival cell bolted within the car’s chrome-moly space frame. He’s also secured by the same six-point harness and the same foam padding used by Top Fuel dragsters.

Still, any queasy stomachs were the result of last-minute technical glitches and not the thought of driving nearly five times the speed limit.

“The last 12 days or so we’ve been so full of problems that it’s not such a matter of nerves as can we do it this time? Are we going to have any electronic issues, is everything going to work?” Schroer says. “It’s a complicated vehicle and everything has to be right. It’s not to say that I’m not excited. Your heart pounds a bit, but you try to downplay that.”

If anyone could pull off the record-setting run, it’s the folks at OSU, Venturi and A123Systems, he says.

“The whole deal is this team,” he says. “The point of the project is to expose the new young engineers to problem solving and challenges. It took three years to get the [original Buckeye Bullet 2] hydrogen fuel cell car right, but if you think of it in terms of what the team is supposed to accomplish, they work together and learn to solve problems. That’s what this is supposed to be about.”

With a successful record that’s sure to be ratified, the team’s attention has turned to building the Buckeye Bullet 3 and topping 400 mph.

“As far as I know, I’ll be involved with that and I’ll be looking forward to it,” Schroer says. “When I first went 300, one of my first thoughts was, ‘Can we go 400?’”

Photos: Ohio State University

See Also:

• Buckeye Bullet Sets EV Land-Speed Record
• Top Fuel Racing: Propelled by the Hand of God
• Mild-Mannered Suzuki Sedan Tops 200 MPH
• King of All Cars Tops 267 MPH
• What’s It Like Doing 268 MPH?
• Steam-Powered Car Breaks Century-Old Record
• Supercharged Jag XF Does 225 MPH at Bonneville
• This Day In Tech, Sept. 3, 1935: Campbell Shatters 300 MPH Barrier at Bonneville

Editor’s note: Few topics we’ve covered have generated as much debate among readers as Rick Cavallaro and his colleagues proving a wind-powered vehicle can travel downwind faster than the wind. Although we don’t expect this to quell the debate, Cavallaro and John Borton recount their adventure here.

Brainteaser, n — A puzzle that requires mental/cognitive activity to solve and generally includes thinking in unconventional ways with given constraints in mind.

What are the moments when a challenger meets a problem and classic brainteasers are born? Who would have imagined that a plane and a treadmill would end up as inextricably linked as PB&J? Did Monty Hall ever dream the dreams of mathematicians? And if a wind-powered vehicle races a floating balloon and wins are physics texts made obsolete?

Tracing the path of this last riddle leaves a line that passes through moments of competent genius followed by years spent in the stubborn pursuit of absolute silliness. Add a counterintuitive solution and a bunch of name calling amongst academic elites and you have the perfect recipe for an intellectual disaster.

Directly downwind faster than the wind, n — a.k.a. DDWFTTW. An idea that 99 percent of people declare impossible. Ninety-nine percent of the rest can’t figure out how it’s done.

In 2001 a friend asked Rick Cavallaro whether a sailboat could tack downwind such that it could beat a free-floating balloon to a point directly downwind. They both knew sailboats can sail faster than the wind, but can they do well enough to beat the wind to a destination directly downwind? It would seem obvious it is not possible, but Rick knew things aren’t always as they seem. He did a quick vector analysis and convinced himself it should be possible. It certainly would be in an ice boat due to its very low drag, but could it be done with a sailboat?

As it happens, Rick’s boss at the time was legendary ocean racer and sailing navigator Stan Honey. Rick asked Stan if it had been done. Stan had recently raced PlayStation, the one boat he knew had the performance to (theoretically) do it, but Stan wasn’t sure PlayStation actually had done so.

Rick is known to tease brains to a point well past reasonable annoyance, while John Borton’s best (and worst) trait is having no clue when to give up and no sense of scale. Rick has faith in the theoretical, but JB trusts his eyes more than equations scribbled on the back of an envelope. In fact, it was a brainteaser posted at a hang gliding forum that brought them together more than a decade ago. Given a challenge, be it intellectual or physical, the two of them generally can sweet-talk it into submission or beat on it until it succumbs.

Rick, being an aficionado of brainteasers, realized this could be a great one. If this principle could be used to make a wind-powered vehicle that can go directly downwind faster than the wind without tacking, it would really bend some brains. So he gave it some thought.

Story continues

Ho-hum. Another—the sixteenth this year—Toyota vehicle recall. This time for the bland-yet-popular, Canadian-made Corolla and Matrix models. If you happen to work for Toyota, at the corporate or dealership levels, this is yet another left-right jab to your company’s image. No doubt. And as Tony Alphen’s piece reads, “…the continuing negative publicity over the recalls and questions about the company’s longstanding reputation for quality and durability is a key reason why sales have slipped here this year while most rivals are recovering the recession.”

Historically, Toyota’s reputation for reliably (at the sake of styling, quality, and driving appeal) has kept its used car residual values at a higher-than-average value. But not any longer. The spate of recalls this past year has revealed what Toyota really is: Just another profits-first automaker, but with boring cars.

However this latest recall isn’t bad news for everyone. Especially if you’re in the market for a used compact car. If you’re in that group, and want to take advantage of a rare opportunity to get a leg up on a Toyota dealer, go in this weekend and shop for a used Corolla/Matrix in the 2005-2008 model years that fall under the latest recall. And make sure you bring in a copy of Alphen’s recall piece from today’s Star, just for added leverage.

Recalls aside, fundamentally, these cars are still good, basic pieces of transportation. Although they do drive like your dishwasher. And the interior plastics will remind you of your kid’s Lego. And their bland styling will make it difficult to find them in a crowded mall parking lot. But hey, at least they get descent gas mileage, there’s plenty of them on the used market, and the Matrix’s hatchback configuration means it can be a used as the sole ride for most one-car-only families.

And—most importantly for shoppers—the Corolla and Matrix will (or should) be on sale at a price that relates to their true value.