Carbon Motors reports 10,000 preorders for diesel-powered E7 police car
Carbon Motors E7 - Click above for high-res image galleryAs it turns out, there's quite a bit of pent up demand for a purpose-built police car. Who knew that law enforcement officers were so fed up with their current fleet of Crown Vics, Chargers and Impalas? Apparently, that would be Carbon Motors, which is now reporting an impressive 10,000 preorders for its diesel-powered E7 cruiser despite the fact that production isn't schedule to start until 2012.
We can understand the interest. Each E7 will boast an impressive lise of features like 360-degree built-in police-duty LED lights, suicide rear doors with hose-out rear passenger compartment and a separate front compartment with high-tech touches like radar, LoJack, an automatic license plate recognition system, radiation and biological threat detectors and Carbon's exclusive On-board Rapid Command Architecture (ORCA), which features a large touch-screen display plus keyboard.
Perhaps the best bit of all is the aluminum-intensive space frame construction with composite body panels, which keeps weight down low enough that the 3.0-liter turbodiesel engine with 300 horsepower and 420 lb-ft of torque can propel the E7 to 60 in just 6.5 seconds and up to a top speed of 155 miles per hour. Fuel economy is pegged at 28-30 miles per gallon, which is well above what any current police vehicles are likely to achieve.
Gallery: Carbon Motors E7
[Source: Carbon Motors via Straightline]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Carlos 7:30PM (6/12/2009)
Here in Spain all the police car are diesel, it´s cheaper and the cars are more efficient. I can´t understand the public unit using petrol...impossible, and the Taxis???? never, no one.
Reply
mike 8:26PM (6/12/2009)
coolest. cop car. ever.
Reply
ale 9:18PM (6/12/2009)
completely agree, i like the term badass more.
polo 12:48AM (6/13/2009)
Mind-boggling waste of money. Last I heard police stations were reducing the number of patrol cars and laying off police officers to cope with reduced budgets....where are these police stations that are willing to pay double what a typical cruise costs...from an unproven company that only has some CGI pics to show for?
Something tells me those pre-orders don't include one $1 worth of deposits. This is a scheme to suck in investors and I hope it falls flat. Just imagine how many tickets they'd have to hand out to cover these things.
Reply
Chris 1:14AM (6/13/2009)
The cost of a patrol car is about $30,000 to $40,000. Rumors say the Carbon E7 will cost $50,000 to $60,000. Now, the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor is only kept for around 100,000 miles while the Carbon E7 will be kept until 250,000 miles. You need to look past the price tag alone and look at the savings of using diesel AND the overall life span of the vehicle. For what you're getting, I think it's a good deal. Have you ever driven an actual police car? I have, they suck. I have driven a CVPI and a Dodge Charger. They make awful police vehicles.
Anyway, It's great to see so many pre-orders. The more cars they make, the lower the price. That's usually the case but you never know. One concern I have is the location of the mobile data terminal. Right now it's at a pretty good level so you can kinda look at the screen while driving. You can't tilt the monitor or keyword from side to side. And the keyword is in an awkward location. I guess they expect you to type only with your right hand? A lot of officers do their reports in their patrol cars.
jpm100 1:03PM (6/13/2009)
"Carbon E7 will be kept until 250,000 miles"
That's kind of unknown, isn't it? Its one thing to build a handful of cars that run great for a while. Its another to make those handful last 250,000 miles. And a completely different thing to make tens of thousands of these cars last 250,000 miles without a high maintenance rate.
And being Aluminum Intensive also means difficulty doing restorative body work that isn't replacement. So anything above a fender bender and the car may never be right again without a lot of expensive work.
DasBoese 12:40AM (6/14/2009)
jpm,
a car lasts as long as it is designed to. This one is designed to last 250.000 miles under the stresses of patrol duty. The cars that are commonly used as cruisers aren't, subsequently they need modifications and frequent maintenance.
Also, the car's body paneling isn't aluminium, it's composite panels bolted to an aluminium spaceframe. Meaning repairs will indeed consist mainly of replacing broken panels. Which in this case is quite preferable, seeing as it can probably be done in a matter of minutes vs. the hours it takes to set a bent steel fender right. Not to mention the better impact resilience of most composite materials.
dustin 3:32PM (6/13/2009)
one major gripe, the keyboard looks like its in a VERY un-usable spot. our keyboards come off the mount so we can set them in our lap when doing reports. the design is nice though, and it will be interesting to see how these will hold up to the abuse we put our cars though. here in houston, we have a lot of bad streets in the ghetto areas (read: 1/2 of the city) and our cars take punishment 24/7.
also, it will be cool to be driving a car that no one else can, as I can't see them selling these like they do old crown vics.
Reply
Jdred 6:01PM (6/13/2009)
They won't. Carbon Motors retains the squad after the Dept. is done with it. It may be a big seller for larger Depts. and Federal agencies, but small Depts. will keep using Impalas, Explorers and Chargers. Because for5 what they want for one copy of a Carbon Squad a small Dept. can get two Chargers. Right now our turnaround time for a squad is about at 80,000 miles. For me, the Crown Vic was OK, but the Charger is much better.
I miss the old squared off Impalas and Diplomats though!
km 7:34AM (6/13/2009)
300hp 420lb/ft twin turbo diesel RWD getting 28-30mpg with 6.5sec 0-60. That was my favorite part. Hey, sell me something with that powertrain pweez.
Reply
Bill 11:15AM (6/13/2009)
Costs 2x, but has 2-3x the service life of current cruisers and offers double the mpg.
Plus, diesel stores easily & safely compared to gasoline, so it can be bought in the summer when diesel prices are usually at their lowest.
Reply
polo 2:07PM (6/13/2009)
"You need to look past the price tag alone and look at the savings of using diesel AND the overall life span of the vehicle."
Diesel in the US is only just recently lower than gas prices. Last year they were in noose-bleed territory, they could easily unexpectedly surpass gas prices again.. And what do you think the maintenance/repair costs are going to be on a limited production, custom car thats ran into the ground day-in and day-out? There is no cost-justification for this car.
"Have you ever driven an actual police car? I have, they suck."
Yes, and what "sucks" about them? They're not supposed to be smooth riding luxury mobiles or ego-boosters.
This 10K pre-orders press release seems like pure desperation to me. Its clear they DID NOT get any deposits from these alleged "pre-orders" and they are almost definitely non-binding. The only reason to make this type of press release is if they are hard on cash, and desperate to convince some last-minute investors. I could probably photoshop a fantasy police cruiser, make a pamplet and website, and send it out to a police stations asking if they'd be interested in a tricked-out pedestrian-crusher that had double the lifespan and fuel economy, and get just as many "pre-orders". If this actually does come out I'd be surprised to see more than 50 sold in first year.
Reply
Richard 9:04PM (6/13/2009)
"Diesel in the US is only just recently lower than gas prices. Last year they were in noose-bleed territory, they could easily unexpectedly surpass gas prices again."
How about, "For a few years, diesel prices went over gasoline prices - this almost never happens, and they're back close to their usual ratios once again." There, fixed that for you.
Besides, even if it gets back to 15% more expensive than gasoline, if its turning in double the economy, that's still not a bad deal and it gets better the longer you plan on using it - for example, 250,000 miles is a long way to amortize these up-front costs over.
There's a reason (and no, its not preferential tax treatment) that much of the rest of the world runs on diesel as its primary automotive fuel...
Richard 9:05PM (6/13/2009)
Having said all that, I totally agree with your estimate of what the "10,000 pre-orders" actually represent. Almost certainly nothing more than investor-bait.
leo 4:10PM (6/13/2009)
this looks like something from "pimp my ride".. cue hiphop gangster saying 'woz up'
Reply
Sean 11:32PM (6/13/2009)
I dig the hoseable rear interior. What a great idea! That would be even better for taxicabs.
Reply
downtoearth 5:14AM (6/14/2009)
If this is true, this will be pure robbery of taxpayer money. What Carbon Motors didn't tell you is that diesel cars total costs of ownership are much higher than gasoline equivalents.
5-year TOTAL costs (depreciation, maintenance, repairs, refueling, taxes)
2004 VW Jetta 2.0 115HP $31,341 [1]
2004 VW Jetta TDI 90HP $34,396 [2]
2005 Mercedes E 320 $48,830 [3]
2005 Mercedes E320 CDI diesel: $51,417 [4]
So... much higher initial price + higher total costs = no wonder USA are going bust.
[1] tinyurl.com/kuba74
[2] tinyurl.com/ms6onb
[3] tinyurl.com/mpxlrj
[4] tinyurl.com/klplah
Reply
104wb 2:09PM (6/14/2009)
You are...wrong. Why are you doing a five year comparison on cars that are already five years old? Is that what the police departments are going to be buying? Also, their 3.0L diesel performs like a 5.7-6.0L V8, and in general, such is true for most diesels; they perform better than a like-displacement SI engine. For example, the 2008 Grand Cherokee 3.0L v6 diesel is rated to tow 7300 pounds, the same as the 5.7L Hemi, more than the 4.7L v8 and much more than the 3.7L v6. From a fuel efficiencey standpoint, it's probably torque you'll want to equalize, since torque is the ability to do work and fuel efficiency is the ratio of work produced to the amount of energy available in the burned fuel.
Anyway, new cars, Edmunds 'true cost to own':
2009 BMW 335d: $62,876
2009 BMW 335i: $65,560
2009 MB E320 3.0L v6 bluetec: $75,276
2009 MB E350 3.5L v6: $78,939
2009 MB E550 5.5L v8: $91,612
the E320's performance falls between the latter two.
2009 VW Jetta TDI: $38,976
2009 VW Jetta SEL 2.5L: $39,880
In each the diesel costs less to own and uses 35-40% less petroleum. Win-win!
downtoearth 6:27PM (6/14/2009)
104wb:
> Why are you doing a five year comparison on cars that
> are already five years old?
Because only real values proved by observation matter, not blind guesses. You can predict neither repair costs nor depreciation of brand new vehicles.
Much simpler 5-year-old diesels, with a single turbocharger, no particulate filters, no NOx traps and fuel delivery systems working under pressure lower than 1800 bar are already more expensive than gasoline equivalents. Diesels of today will come up likely even worse due to dramatically increased complexity.
> Also, their 3.0L diesel performs like a 5.7-6.0L V8, and in general
>, such is true for most diesels; they perform better than a like-displacement SI engine.
This is probably the biggest nonsense I have ever heard.
Forced induction diesels perform:
- significantly worse than forced induction gasoline engines having the same capacity
- equal to forced induction gasoline engines having significantly less capacity
- similar to naturally aspirated gasoline engines having the same capacity
As a proof:
Data copied directly from the Volkswagen German website:
http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms/master_public/virtualmaster/de3/modelle/golf/golf/zahlen___fakten/daten.detail.0.5.html
0-62 times and EWG European fuel economy certification CO2 results, manual cars:
- VW Golf 6 TSI 1.4 single turbo + supercharger (as an antigal system) 160HP gasoline: 8,0 sec and 145 g CO2/km
- VW Golf TDI 2.0 single turbo + variable vanes (as an antilag system) 170HP diesel: 8,1 sec and 139 g CO2/km
- VW Golf TSI 2.0 single turbo 210HP gasoline: 6,9 sec and 170 g CO2/km
Notice that I presented gasoline engines comparable with modern diesels; virtually every modern diesel has:
- direct injection so the gasser should have it;
- a turbocharger so the gasser should have it;
- an antilag system so the gasser should have it
Notice also that I quoted CO2 emissions to compensate for diesel higher volumetric energy density. Since both diesel fuel and gasoline have the same carbon to hybrogen atoms ratio, CO2 emissions are fully comparable.
Results? Diesels are some 4% more efficient ((145-139)/139*100%) in converting chemical energy of fuel into work than comparable gasoline engines.
Diesel 30% higher efficiency is observable on a testbed only. In real life higher weight and smaller peak efficiency area completely negate this advantage when applied in passanger vehicles.
> For example, the 2008 Grand Cherokee 3.0L v6 diesel is rated
> to tow 7300 pounds, the same as the 5.7L Hemi, more than the
> 4.7L v8 and much more than the 3.7L v6.
And do you know why?
In case of diesel engines the same power output (as in similarly powerful gasoline ones) has to be transferred by the clutch and the gearbox at much lower revs. So these components need to sustain higher torques. That's the only reason for higher tow rating - the heavier drivetrain being ready to cope with it by design. Clutches and gearboxes in gasoline cars are much ligher since no high torques are to be transferred (same power is carried through by simply revving faster).
Designers could have made gasoline cars have the same tow rating. They didn't simply because towing is not the task for a car. It's the job of a truck or a tractor.
> torque is the ability to do work
No. Torque is just a ratio of power and rotational speed and says you whether given power is transferred by rotating faster with less twisting force of rotating slower with higher twisting force.
Please consult the first formula:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque#Conversion_to_other_units
> Anyway, new cars, Edmunds 'true cost to own':
> 2009 BMW 335d: $62,876
> 2009 BMW 335i: $65,560
As said, these are blind guessing, fortune teller's job.
> 2009 MB E320 3.0L v6 bluetec: $75,276
> 2009 MB E350 3.5L v6: $78,939
> 2009 MB E550 5.5L v8: $91,612
> the E320's performance falls between the latter two.
I'm sorry but the manufacturer of these cars disagrees with you.
0-62 in sec:
2009 E class 320 CDI 7A estate: 7.3 sec
2009 E class 350 CGI 7A estate: 7.0 sec
2009 E class 500 CGI 7A estate: 5.4 sec
So please just stop manipulating the data. Particularly when you respond to my comment.
Source: http://www.mercedes-benz.de/content/germany/mpc/mpc_germany_website/de/home_mpc/passengercars/home/new_cars/models/e-class/s211/technical_data.html
> In each the diesel costs less to own and uses 35-40% less petroleum. Win-win!
As said above, it uses 4% less petroleum than a modern comparable gasoline engine and costs more. It's clearly a loss-loss.
I don't even mention hybrids cause these simply murder diesels in terms of efficiency and total costs. I checked it for the
- 2004 Prius vs 2004 Civic hybrid vs 2004 Jetta TDI 90HP
- Camry hybrid vs Altima hybrid vs Accord hybrid vs Passat TDI 130HP
- Lexus RX400h vs Mercedes ML 320 CDI
- Lexus GS450h vs Mercedes E 320 CDI
and in each and every time hybrids had lower total costs of ownership and MUCH lower EPA energy impact score, so they needed less petroleum to run the same distance. No contest. And in each and every time I also verified the EPA fuel economy numbers for diesel cars whether they are fine or underestimated.
Basically, in case of heavy diesel SUVs and powerful diesels EPA numbers are bang on accurate. They are underestimared by 3 mpg for Jetta TDI diesels.
Reply
kawzuy 8:09PM (6/15/2009)
trust me, if you run a fleet of 2,000 police cars in a large country (which shall remain nameless) dealer service is a big part of the equation.....How many dealers have they lined up??
Reply