For 2008: Its Energy Independence, stupid

Tom Vilsack, the Democrat from Iowa, threw his hat into the race for the 2008 Presidential elections, and his platform is energy independence. Energy independence is the way to strengthen both National Security and the U.S. economy, according to Vilsack.

It's nice to see that energy independence appears to be gaining political importance, but let's hope it leads to real action and not just a lot of talk and pork-barrel legislation focused more on paying political favors than on results.

GM: SUVs, Flex-fuel SUVs, Hybrid SUVs, and Plug-In Hybrid SUVs

Is GM too reliant on SUVs when it comes to the American automobile market?

Biodiesel Hummers, Flex-fuel Tahoes, Dual mode hybrid Yukons, and Plug-In Hybrid Vues have been the focus of GM's green marketing efforts. Why are all of these vehicles SUVs?

The top selling hybrid vehicle in the U.S. is a small sedan, the Toyota Prius. Has GM just decided they don't care about this segment? At least in America is GM becoming a truck and SUV only automaker?

While I'm glad that GM loyalists will soon have an option to buy significantly more fuel efficient SUVs, where are the significantly more fuel efficient cars? GM must realize that many Americans are tired of where Detroit's focus on SUVs has taken America - world leader in global warming pollution, world leader in oil consumption, and completely dependent upon foreign oil.

If America simply got rid of all SUVs we'd be in a far better spot, but that's a whole other story. So, let's skip the SUV bashing. A hybrid SUV, especially a plug-in hybrid SUV, is far better than a plain old SUV.

Still, how about some hybrid cars? All these fuel efficient SUV efforts are important for GM's core customers; however, they will not be enough to convert many new customers to GM products.

Isn't it time for GM to take off the SUV blinders, or is it impossible for GM to succeed at anything other than SUVs and trucks?

GM's hybrid vehicle plans finally confirmed, or just pie-in-the-sky public relations?

Yesterday, after hearing Rick Wagoner describe the future for GM I wrote, "Unfortunately, however, GM's future plans are still pie-in-the-sky. Almost everything is still something GM is working on. When you consider that GM has been working on fuel cells for about two decades, how seriously can you take the automaker?" (more)

For example, GM announced they were working on a Saturn Vue Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle, yet they gave no timeline for when such a vehicle might be available. In fact, Wagoner said such a vehicle would be dependant upon clearing some technological hurdles regarding lithium-ion batteries.

Bob Lutz, product guru for GM, sees lithium-ion technology still about 3 to 4 years away. So, was the LA Auto Show a publicity stunt meant to achieve some positive P.R. while also providing a 3 - 4 year window where nothing has to happen?

Sure, Wagoner did describe plug-in hybrid vehicles as a "top priority" for GM, but he also gave himself a back door by noting the serious technological hurdles of plug-in hybrid technology.

While, GM is also close to finally offering its dual mode hybrid vehicles, it appears that GM is extremely committed to SUVs and is using hybrid technology, including plug-in technology, to provide green credentials for even its largest SUVs.

Consequently, I'm not sure if I'm really any more optimistic about GM than I was before I began to hear the I-car rumors. Nonetheless, I'm willing to give GM the benefit of the doubt - for now.

GM is supposed to go into more detail regarding these new developments at the Detroit Auto Show. There, hopefully, we'll also catch a glimpse of the new I-car.

If the I-car is actually a car and not an SUV, I'll be very impressed and much more hopeful.

GM 'officially' announces hybrid, electric developments

GM has now officially stated its commitment to alternative fuels and alternative technologies.

"I'm announcing today that GM is significantly expanding and accelerating our commitment to the development of electrically driven vehicles, beyond what we have already committed to with our fuel cell and hybrid programs," said Rick Wagoner, GM's chairman and chief executive. (more)

Unfortunately, however, GM's future plans are still pie-in-the-sky. Almost everything is still something GM is working on. When you consider that GM has been working on fuel cells for about two decades, how seriously can you take the automaker?

Still, I'm willing to give GM the benefit of the doubt - for now.

-- For more read -- GM working on Saturn Vue Plug-In Hybrid and GM to announce hybrid vehicle future today

GM working on plug-in Saturn Vue hybrid

According to the AP, GM is working on a Saturn Vue plug-in hybrid vehicle, although there is no timetable for when such a vehicle might be available. GM currently offers a hybrid Vue, but it is more of a mild hybrid vehicle. Ultimately, the production of the plug-in Vue hybrid will depend on lithium-ion batteries, something I wrote about earlier this morning. Consequently, it is a vehicle that shouldn't be expected, minimally, for at least 3 to 4 years.

Nissan Altima hybrid at LA Auto show

If you've been waiting to check out the Nissan Altima hybrid, you will finally be able to see it. Of course, you'll probably need to live in Southern California, where the hybrid Altima is debuting at the Los Angeles Auto Show.

GM to discuss its hybrid future today?

Today we find out a little more about the rumors that have been flying across the Internet regarding GM's turnaround plans. According to the Detroit News, GM's CEO Rick Wagoner is going to stress GM's new commitment to "energy diversity" - using "a variety of advanced technologies and fuels that emphasizes the use of electricity to power vehicles."

While GM has already announced plans to develop dual mode hybrid vehicles, the real buzz and speculation is regarding the I-car. The I-car, otherwise known as the icon car, is meant to emphasize GM's commitment to its green revolution, and most believe the i-Car is a plug-in hybrid vehicle that will be displayed in early 2007 at the Detroit Auto Show.

Still, this is pure marketing, pure buzz.

Already Bob Lutz, GM product engineer, whom not too long ago ridiculed the hybrid movement, has stated that lithium-ion technology - the key to plug-ins - is still 3 to 4 years away. Moreover, the Detroit News reported that "Wagoner won't commit to building a plug-in until the company can overcome technical hurdles and improve battery technology."

Hopefully, however, this isn't just a public relations move, but truly a new beginning for GM. I guess only time will tell.

-- See also - GM working on Saturn Vue plug-in hybrid vehicle

Commerical viability of plug-in hybrids to be tested in 3 year study

Argonne National Laboratory and the Electric Power Research Institute will conduct a three year research project to determine the commercial feasibility of plug-in hybrid vehicles for the U.S. Department of Energy.

"The objective of the multi-year research project is to provide a balanced and authoritative study of both the advantages of and the challenges to the design and commercial production of PHEVs. An assessment of potential social benefits of PHEVs, including reductions in imported petroleum-based fuels, enhancement of American energy security and air quality improvement will be key components of the study." (more)

Ed Begley Jr.'s electric SUV and tree-hugger haters

After I checked out a Yahoo video regarding Ed Begley's electric SUV, I thought I'd check out the comments. I was surprised at the negativity of some of the posts. Moreover, I was shocked by the amount of hate some have towards "tree-huggers". I guess it's probably no different than the hate some treehuggers have towards 'gas-guzzlers'.

Still, particularly since 9/11, isn't foreign oil dependency a national security issue? Consequently, isn't gas-guzzling far more than a tree-hugger issue?

What do 'gas-guzzlers' care about, if they don't care about global warming, pollution or national security?

Americans want 40 mpg cars, but how much will they pay?

A new survey by the Opinion Research Corporation demonstrates that, "more than three out of four Americans want the government to impose a 40-mile-per-gallon fuel-efficiency standard on American vehicles." (more)

Would those same Americans still want such a fuel efficiency standard if it was going to cost them an extra $5000 to purchase their vehicle? What if it was just $3000? What if it meant the collapse of the U.S. auto industry?

While surveys show that Americans are interested in fuel economy, far fewer Americans actually demonstrate this attitude in the show room. Sure, Americans might be moving out of some of the largest gas-guzzlers into slightly smaller gas-guzzlers, but the vehicles most Americans continue to purchase are nowhere near achieving 40mpg. Getting them to achieve 40 mpg isn't going to be cheap, at least not in the short term.

Consequently, I argued yesterday that tax incentives are key to achieving higher fuel economy. Ultimately, 40 mpg CAFE probably isn't going to happen, and if it does, there will be loopholes. Moreover, if Americans fully embraced advanced technologies, funded by consumer-based tax incentives, 40 mpg becomes a cake walk.

CAFE or Tax incentives: Best path to increased fuel economy?

Whether you want to fight foreign oil dependency or to help reduce global warming, increasing the fuel economy of automobiles is one of the best paths to achieving both goals.

So, what is the best path towards increasing fuel economy?

Many environmentalists, for example, believe that increasing CAFE to 40 mpg in the next decade is the best path. Yet, critics point out that CAFE has achieved very little since its inception. As a result America continues to increase fuel consumption year after year, critics often point out.

Additionally, the majority of Congress - both Democrats and Republicans - believe that increasing CAFE to 40 mpg would destroy the entire American automobile industry.

While I am an advocate for increasing fuel economy and even increasing CAFE, I do not believe that simply raising CAFE to 40 mpg is a very good solution. Technology must be a key component.

Inevitably, America needs a vibrant auto industry to help keep the economy strong. Surely, inept leadership at the Big 3 deserves much blame for their current weakness and our oil problems, as does every President and Congress in the last 20 years. Nonetheless, however, the past is the past, and it is time to move forward.

I say we can do better than 40 mpg in the next 10 years, far better. Hybrid vehicle technology is proving that we can surpass 40 mpg in the next decade if we use new technologies and start thinking outside of the box, and we should.

By giving citizens the financial power to offset the cost of hybrid technology with tax incentives, there will be plenty of reasons for automakers to start building more and more such hybrid vehicles. Additionally, tax incentives and some auto industry subsidies are a move that will pay for themselves in the long run via less military protection of oil supplies. Furthermore, would you not rather help subsidize American auto-workers to build super fuel efficient vehicles based upon important developing technologies, rather than to pay for their unemployment benefits?

Ultimately, foreign oil dependency and global warming do not have to be a crisis. Instead, let foreign oil dependency and global warming be an opportunity for American automakers to fully embrace advanced technology as the path to high-tech American jobs, a strong American economy, and a clean and secure country.

Ending foreign oil dependency as quickly as possible is one of the most important things the U.S. can accomplish in the next couple of decades. Achieving this goal will take far more than CAFE, it will take open minded consumers and a lot of tax incentives.

What will Ford's second generation hybrid powertrain offer?

While Ford has scaled back some hybrid vehicle plans, at least in the short term, the company is not ending its hybrid technology investment. In fact, Ford will be displaying its second generation hybrid powertrain at the Los Angeles Auto Show this week. The new powertrain will be displayed in a 2008 Ford Escape hybrid.

Toyota made huge gains in efficiency and power with its second generation hybrid drive compared to its first generation drive. As a result the Toyota Prius sent a notice to every automaker - the hybrids are coming, the hybrids are coming.

Could the second generation Ford hybrid powertrain provide a similar lift to the Escape hybrid or another Ford hybrid?

Perhaps.

Still, the next major revolution in hybrid technology might be dependant upon batteries, and those batteries - almost certainly lithium-ion batteries - might still be 3 to 4 years away from mass production viability. Even then, however, there might still be significant production limitations.

It will be interesting to see how Ford plays this angle. Will the second generation hybrid powertrain be optimized for both the current NiMH batteries and lithium-ion batteries? Is a plug-in option a possibility?

We'll soon find out.

Nissan stepping up hybrid plans

Nissan is going to develop its own line of lithium-ion batteries and use those batteries to produce electric cars available for sale in about 3 years. Since this report is coming out of Japan, it is hard to assess which markets Nissan is focused on for these new electric vehicles. In addition, to the electric vehicles, Nissan is also going to step up plans for hybrid vehicles, bio-diesel vehicles and diesel vehicles.

GM will probably save green revolution for Detroit

While GM is going to show the Saturn Aura hybrid and the GMC Yukon hybrid at the Los Angeles Auto Show, GM is probably going to save its major green offerings for the North American International Auto Show in Detroit according to the latest rumors. Nonetheless, GM's Rick Wagoner is still expected to touch upon GM's rumored green revolution at the Los Angeles Auto Show.

Hype continues to build around GM's possible plans to develop a new line of series hybrids as well as plug-in hybrids, in addition to full electric vehicles. Those plans might be mentioned at the Los Angeles Auto Show, but it appears that GM will wait for the Detroit Show to truly debut its green revolution.

Let's all keep our fingers crossed. If this is more truth than hype, it could be the greatest development to hit Detroit in decades.

Global Warming and Foreign Oil Dependency: Do you really need any more reasons to go hybrid?

Around ninety percent of Europeans believe that humans are causing global warming.

Do you agree?

If you do, then you realize how important it is that humans start taking much more responsibility for their contribution to global warming. One of the biggest impacts humans can have on global warming, especially in the U.S., is to reduce their automobile fuel consumption.

On the other hand, perhaps you are not yet ready to buy into global warming?

O.K., well what about foreign oil dependency? How do you feel about funding terrorism against the U.S.? How do you feel about putting an important aspect of the American economy into the hands of leaders of countries where the majority of their populations see America as an evil empire?

Regardless of whether you are concerned more about foreign oil dependency, or about global warming, isn't it time for a revolution against oil consumption?

While many are now clamoring for E85 and other forms of ethanol to address this problem, I think E85 is nothing short of a boondoggle, unless flex-fuel vehicles become significantly more fuel efficient.

Flex-fuel hybrids, for example, are an excellent idea.

On the other hand, flex-fuel Hummers aren't such a great idea. If we all drive flex-fuel Hummers or similarly sized gas-guzzlers, then we'll need all the ethanol we can make just to catch up with our increased fuel consumption.

Ethanol can be helpful, but it won't offer help much without significant gains in fuel efficiency.

Current hybrid cars offer nice gains in fuel efficiency today, but the real advantage of hybrids is their potential. In just another generation of technology - available in just a few years - average hybrid vehicles might achieve 100 mpg.

In the Southern half of the U.S. solar powered garages could power - theoretically - all of the fuel needs of these hybrids.

In the Midwest, home grown ethanol could be a good fuel for hybrids, but also for power plants that plug-in hybrids could plug into for clean electric fuel.

Perhaps in other areas, natural gas, hydrogen or even wind power makes me sense. Regardless, hybrids are able to utilize any of these fuels.

Flexible, adaptable and powerful hybrid technology offers a revolutionary tool to fight global warming and foreign oil dependency.

Invest in the future, make your next vehicle a hybrid vehicle.

Fuel efficiency (carbon) tax for gas-guzzlers?

In 2009 it will cost those living in London $48 dollars per day to drive in the city center, if they drive a gas guzzler. While this is a high fee, it is intended to reduce carbon emissions and make consumers responsible for their choices.

While President Bush hasn't been much of an advocate of the carbon trading system, many experts believe such a system is inevitable. Of course this carbon trading system would eventually have an effect on prices that consumers pay, but that price effect would probably be spread out amongst all products. Hence, the price of an economy car might see the same increase as the price of a gas-guzzler.

Would that be fair?

Consequently, would it be a good idea to create a carbon tax for consumers? Owners of SUVs and many other vehicles, such as gas guzzlers, regularly mention freedom of choice. Fine. Still, gas-guzzling does have an impact on the environment that affects even those whom choose not to drive gas-guzzlers to protect the environment.

Is that fair?

Thus, should these gas-guzzlers be forced to pay for their pollution and global warming emissions via a carbon tax or fee, especially when driving in urban areas where congested driving conditions cause the most pollution?

What do you think about a consumer based carbon tax?

Daniel Howes on the UAW and Big 3 problems

I read the automotive section of the Detroit News everyday, even though I don't live anywhere close to Detroit. So, why does a guy from Los Angeles care about the Detroit News? Because the Detroit News offers the pulse of the Big 3. While I've always considered Daniel Howes to be the most entertaining and open-minded Detroit News auto beat writer, I've regularly had issues with some of his views and with many of the views of the rest of the auto beat staff. Too often, the Detroit News has seemed just as lost in the past as the leadership at the Big 3.

The last couple of weeks, however, Howes has been on the attack, poignantly arguing that if Detroit (Big 3) doesn't start making significant changes - immediately - then Detroit automakers will have no one to blame but themselves.

Obviously, I couldn't agree more and I have constantly used hybrid cars as an example.

Well, today, Howes set his sights on Ron Gettelfinger of the United Auto Workers - an important aspect of Detroit's dysfunction. I highly recommend reading the article. Click here to read.

Overall hybrid sales - about the same as always

AutoWeek has posted a story about which hybrid vehicles are hot and which are not. Ultimately, the figures say about the same thing they save every month. The Toyota Prius accounts for about half of all hybrid sales. The Prius and the Honda Civic hybrid sell well regardless of gas prices, and the Honda Accord hybrid and the Mercury Mariner hybrid are the slowest sellers.

The most interesting thing about the story was a top ten list of why people buy hybrid cars. The list DOES not even include foreign oil dependency. How can that be?

Why do we keep talking about highway fuel economy?

Talk to transportation academics or government officials and the future of automobile transportation can be summed up in one word, congestion. Already the daily commute of a significant percentage of Americans is filled with stop-and-go and slow-and-go traffic - the worst driving conditions for both fuel economy and pollution. Even worse, not only are these conditions supposed to get worse for these Americans, the majority of Americans will soon also be facing these conditions.

Yet, whenever most automakers speak of fuel economy, it's always highway fuel economy.

If about half of America is already spending a significant percent of their driving time in congestion, with this percent expected to grow significantly in just the next decade, why do we continue to use highway fuel economy as the standard?

The truth is that most automakers are far less fuel efficient than they claim to be in real world driving, and the real world driving that causes the worst fuel economy and pollution is quickly becoming the norm and getting worse by the day.

Isn't it time to deal with reality, instead of living in the past?

Chinese slow to adapt to hybrids

For a country where most people ride bikes and don't own an automobile, its no surprise that the $40,000 Toyota Prius (cost in China) is a slow mover in China. While the government of China has been trying to get some control over pollution and global warming, it is not yet providing many incentives for consumers to help. Let's not forget we're talking about a country that is building a coal powered energy plant every 3 days. Eventually, however, China will have to take the threat posed by vehicle emissions to their country seriously.

For more on China and hybrid cars, check out Toyota Prius sales lag in China.

NYTimes review of Mercury and Vue hybrids

If you are interested in a hybrid SUV, particularly an American-made hybrid SUV, you might find the article Saturn Vue and Mercury Mariner: Hybrids, Mild or Seasoned, From the Motor City interesting. In a nutshell, the Saturn Vue hybrid is likable, but it comes a up a little short compared to other hybrid vehicles. The Mercury Mariner hybrid is a very fine hybrid vehicle, but costly. As I've stated in the past, the Vue hybrid might be a good buy for highway drivers looking for an economical American-made hybrid, though I still consider this hybrid SUV to be a mild hybrid. The Mariner hybrid is mostly a luxury hybrid that provides great performance and fuel efficiency, but it cannot really be defined as economical. Anyway, check out the rest of the article by following the link above.

Detroit must "think anew"

Last week I questioned an editorial by the Detroit News regarding fuel economy because of its complacency, and it's inability to foresee and realize that change must be realized by American automakers. Today, however, Daniel Howes of the Detroit News is singing my tune, telling politicians to give up the blame game while also telling Michigan and the Big 3 that it's time to change.

"The only questions are how and how quickly. Not, why us? Nor who's to blame for tampering with what U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow likes to call "our way of life" -- as if Detroit's automakers, their unions and others are immune to the laws of supply and demand. They aren't, no matter how freely some politicians may be willing to manipulate reality to suggest otherwise."

"Apologies to Sen. Stabenow, but "our way of life" is strangling Michigan because it was never designed to adapt to a changing world, much less accept that the economy and competition would change."

Evolution is often driven by small constant changes. Toyota, for example, is driven by small constant changes focused on increasing efficiency. This process, or Kaizen, led Toyota to hybrid cars - a new platform to increase efficiency. Inevitably the efficiency potential of hybrids has barely been tapped. Moreover, hybrids are adaptable to flex-fuel, hydrogen, gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, or even electricity, and they can lead to advanced batteries and fuel cell development.

Ultimately, hybrids exude change and flexibility. Today's hybrids are gasoline-electric, but tomorrow's might be flex-fuel plug-in hybrids and not long after that they might by hydrogen hybrids, or plug-in fuel cell hybrid vehicles. Hybrid technology is changing rapidly, adapting to the future.

Today, Democrats and the Big 3 appear very close to becoming fixated upon ethanol, a fuel which requires little change for the Big 3. Ultimately, ethanol won't really make the Big 3 any more adaptable, and it just might lead to another decade of complacency. Alternative fuels can help America, but not enough. Only significantly more fuel efficient automobiles can lead to real change.

Detroit must "think anew", and ethanol just isn't new enough.

Let consumers determine fuel efficiency?

This morning the Detroit News published an editorial against raising fuel economy rules because consumers aren't interested in fuel efficiency, they are interested in reliability, the paper argued. "Increasing fuel economy standards is again being pushed by advocacy groups, despite a clear mandate from consumers that other factors mean more when they go the showroom to buy cars and trucks."

As if automakers have done the greatest job in giving real choices to Americans. When you provide countless incentives to get someone into a gas-guzzler for less than a more fuel efficient model, many consumers will take that deal.

Additionally, the LATimes cited a report today showing that fuel efficiency is driving sales, at least in California. I guess the California auto market doesn't mean much to Detroit?

Also, while I understand consumer choice and believe in consumer choice, foreign oil dependency, according to multiple ex-CIA directors and many other security officials, is a significant threat to national security. Thus, is the paper arguing that consumer demand is more important than national security?

Let's also remember many Americans ARE choosing more fuel efficient vehicles.

Nonetheless, lets give consumer demand the benefit of the doubt. Let automakers build whatever they want. However, don't lecture me about the importance of America's auto industry when they are producing products that threaten MY national security. Don't ask me to buy American when it means giving money to terrorists and countries that HATE America.

In that case I will absolutely by a Toyota or Honda hybrid. I will ONLY buy fuel efficient vehicles, and I want the best fuel efficient vehicle money can buy - not some half-ass attempt.

Moreover, I don't want ANY of my tax dollars going to American companies producing products that threaten my National Security.

Consumer demand? Please! So, we should America remove all laws that ban any type of smoking because consumers demand cigarettes? Should we make all drugs legal because consumers want them?

While I'll acknowledge the fact that CAFE has largely been ineffective, I will not accept saying it is O.K. to build 14 mpg trucks that fund terrorism against fellow citizens because consumers want them. Something has to change. We can choose to make that change as a path to a more secure and prosperous future for America, or can we wait until our backs are against the wall and we are forced to change.

I guess it just goes to show how Old School so many Detroit-followers are still these day.

When I worked in the software field consumers NEVER wanted to upgrade, however, some software upgrades were required to make their software - their business - safer. Consequently, consumers really had no choice but to upgrade if they wanted to STAY in business.

The world changes, and when you work in technology you realize how quickly the world changes. Business at the speed of light, Bill Gates said of the digital world, which now includes automotive manufacturing.

Ultimately, companies that don't envision what customers will want in the future are doomed to the past. Whether Detroit thrives or dies WILL be determined by fuel efficiency - despite what consumer interest is today.

Are Democrats AGAINST the hybrid vehicle revolution?

In a bid to support geothermal power, Harry Reid today accused the Bush Administration of being "so oil-friendly that we have been able to get their attention on virtually nothing that is not oil related," Reid said. "They’re not that interested in renewables."

Hmmm??? While Democrats are looking to bail out the fuel inefficient Big 3, Bush did have the courage to tell Detroit to produce 'relevant' vehicles. Bush has also, on numerous occasions promoted hybrid vehicles and lithium ion battery development. In fact, Bush even went so far as to say that hybrid vehicles were the best way to change consumer behavior.

Is that the definition of "lack of interest"? Maybe, for a politician.

Moreover, Bush asked Congress to extend tax credits for hybrid cars, something which Congress chose not to do. Yet, now that Democrats have taken over Congress I've heard very little about hybrid vehicles and even less about tax credits for hybrid cars.

Instead, the whole Democratic platform now seems fixated on E85.

Even worse Democratic ranking members of Congress have already voiced their disinterest in raising fuel economy standards in the U.S. because they don't want to sacrifice jobs - Democrat supporting UAW jobs - for increased fuel efficiency. Quite a different tune the Democrats are singing now compared to just a couple of years ago when Democrats blamed Republicans for not raising fuel economy standards, even though key Democrats joined Republicans on that vote.

Can we stop playing politics, for at least one year?

I really wish Reid and some other Democrats would quit the partisanship. Didn't America vote for change? Well, let's start changing, please? Let's take the high road, Democrats. Lead by example.

Obviously, the Democratic Party wants to do as much as possible to tarnish the President in an effort to claim the White House. However, if they don't focus on doing something these next two years just to try to win the White House, they might just catapult Republicans back into power.

For years Democrats have done a lot of talking about what should be done, what Republicans didn't do, and they were right, the Republican Party failed the people and America.

Still, now its time for Democrats to stop talking and to start acting. When it comes to foreign oil dependency and national security, even global warming, nothing matters more than fuel efficiency.

Ultimately, the benefits provided by E85 are not going to amount to much if our energy consumption keeps going up. Democrats and the rest of Congress must focus on fuel efficiency. If they are not going to mandate tough standards, then help Detroit develop fuel efficient technologies, particularly hybrids and plug-in hybrids, and give consumers tax incentives to buy these global warming and foreign oil dependency fighters.

Even oil man Bush understood that issue.

Let's hope Democrats and the rest of Congress can finally start helping America instead of just blaming each other for what is wrong with America.

Hybrid sales up 30% in 2007 according to Toyota

Now that the Toyota Camry hybrid is being produced in the U.S., Toyota's ability to produce hybrids has increased. As a result Toyota is predicting a 30 percent increase in the sales of hybrid vehicles in 2007 versus 2006, which would equal more than 300,000 hybrids.

Flex-fuel hybrids or plug-in hybrids?

Last week, when I read that Toyota wasn't going to offer the Toyota Tundra hybrid until at least 2010, I posted the article Toyota's huge hybrid vehicle mistake. Essentially, I wondered why Toyota wouldn't offer a hybrid truck much sooner just to steal some truck buzz from GM.

Anyway, Autopia took the same news and spun it into the article flex-fuel hybrids gain speed and suggested that any smart automaker would display flex-fuel hybrids at the Detroit Auto Show in January.

Still, if Toyota isn't going to offer a gasoline-electric version of the Tundra until 2010, then a flex-fuel Tundra hybrid wouldn't be available until 2010 either. By 2010, however, I expect more than a flex-fuel hybrid Tundra, I expect a plug-in Toyota Tundra. Sure it would be nice if that plug-in Tundra hybrid were a flex-fuel hybrid, but I'll take a gasoline plug-in Tundra hybrid over a flex-fuel Tundra hybrid any day.

Consequently, if automakers are smart they will show off plug-in hybrids at the Detroit Auto Show. It already appears GM will be smart - at least from a PR standpoint.

The hybrid show stopper at the Detroit Auto Show, in my opinion, would be a Toyota plug-in hybrid vehicle. Having already produced several hundred thousand hybrid vehicles, Toyota could really kick it up a notch if they went hell-bent-for-leather on plug-in hybrid technology.

While GM has already picked up some positive PR for its potential plug-in hybrid showcase, Toyota could steal their thunder. Inevitably, whom does the world believe more when it comes to hybrid vehicles - Toyota or GM?

A Prius as a backup generator for your home?

I just got around to reading the article, A Plug-In Prius that Powers Your House, which talks about a PGandE program that would enable plug-in hybrids to essentially serve as backup generators during blackouts, etc. Even more interesting, PGandE - the Nation's largest electric utility - is having discussions with Toyota about producing plug-in hybrid vehicles. While I believe that plug-in hybrids are still a couple of years away from mass production, I think it is now inevitable that they will be mass produced, which is simply spectacular news.

Big 3 CEOs and President conclude meeting

The meeting between the President and the CEO's of the Big Three has ended. I watched a short post-meeting interview the Big 3 CEO's gave, which focused on three issues: ethanol, trade policy and healthcare. Overall currency issues dominated the question and answer session, followed by healthcare; however, GM's Rick Wagoner opened the interview with the statement that the Big 3 were ready to offer 50% of their vehicles as flex-fuel vehicles by 2012. It seemed obvious that Wagoner was trying to hammer home the point that the Big was doing their part (Of course you have to believe that E85 alone is a game changer for the industry) to counter the President's previous 'build relevant vehicles' statement.

All three CEO's said the meeting went extremely well. While Wagoner admitted that the President didn't agree with every point made by the Big 3, Ford's CEO Alan Mulally added that he was very impressed with President's knowledge of the issues and the quality of the dialogue while also noting that he felt the Bush administration was a "very supportive administration" - almost countering the pre-meeting politicking by Michigan Democrats.

Although Wagoner hogged the mic., I was very impressed with Mulally's optimism when he did speak. Mulally concluded the interview by answering a question that the auto industry did not expect a government bailout, and that the industry needed to do a lot more to build more fuel efficient vehicles that consumers want.

First Chinese produced hybrid vehicle hits autoshow

China's Chery Automobile has announced its plan to present the first Chinese produced hybrid vehicle at the Auto China 2006 Show in Beijing next week. Another Chinese automaker, Geely Automobile, has also announced plans for its first hybrid model.

(Source: Jalopnik)

GM less fuel efficient today than 10 years ago

While GM claims to have more fuel efficient vehicles on the road today than any other auto manufacturer, GM's fleet is .05 miles per gallon less efficient than it was 10 years ago. Both Ford and Chrysler made slight gains. Toyota, on the other hand, improved fuel efficiency by 1.5 mpg over the same decade.

"Improving motor vehicle fuel efficiency is a win-win-win solution that would not only lower consumer costs and help decrease our dependence on oil, but also improve the future prospects of U.S. car companies," said Mark Cooper, the consumer federation's research director. "It is essential that the new Congress move quickly to approve higher fuel efficiency standards in order for these benefits to be realized."

Additionally the report noted, "It is significant that Ford and GM showed only marginal increases in the percentage of vehicles meeting CAFÉ standards and have suffered severe financial setbacks."

Kind of ironic that the same day the Big 3 and Democrats are blaming Bush for Detroit's problems, the facts seem to paint a bit different story. I thought the Democrats were going to rise above partisanship, end their ties with lobbyists and provide a new direction for America?

Democrats, Big 3 Blame Bush for Detroit's Problems

The Big 3's top lobbyists met with Michigan's top Democrats to prepare for President Bush's meeting with the CEO's of the Big 3. The message: Detroit's problems are not Detroit's fault.

While Bush has told the Big 3 to build more relevant automobiles, the Big 3 have not listened. Instead Detroit blames health care and unfair trade practices.

Regarding relevant automobiles, GM responded, "Five million who bought our cars last year think they're relevant," GM's sales chief Mark LaNeve told The Detroit News in May. "Twenty million owners that we have just in our database probably think they're pretty relevant. The 1.1 million (GM) jobs are also voters and probably think it's pretty relevant."

"There have been no steps taken by this administration to support manufacturing. They need to understand, and I hope the Big Three will be blunt and direct with the administration, that their competitors are not companies overseas. Their competitors are countries overseas," Senator Carl Levin said.

(Source: DetroitNews)

Plug-in hybrid technology being tested

Valence Technology has partnered with EnergyCS to produce a plug-in Prius hybrid for the city of Sacramento to test for fleet viability. Likewise, Canada's Manitoba Hydro is also testing plug-in hybrid vehicles and their impact on the electric grid.

While it is great these developments are occurring, it seems plug-in hybrid technology is still a couple of years away from reality, and I hope that fact doesn't stymie hybrid investment.

The technology powering plug-ins, particularly lithium-ion batteries, will rapidly evolve in the next decade. A fleet of plug-in hybrids might not be cost-effective for cities such as Sacramento in the short term. Nonetheless, current hybrid vehicles certainly are cost effective today for Sacramento, and their purchase helps invest in the future of plug-in hybrids, which will definitely be cost effective in the future.

GM to launch hybrid vehicle marketing campaign

GM is preparing a new marketing campaign to promote its hybrid cars and other clean vehicles. Yet, GM's first full hybrid vehicles - first real hybrids - probably won't be available for sale until late 2007 at the earliest.

It sure is irritating - for me at least - when Bob Lutz states that GM could have already developed hybrids simply by using a fraction of one year's billion dollar marketing budget, then markets their hybrids before they even have any real hybrids on the road.

All you do is talk, talk, talk?

(Source: Car&Driver)

Ford to focus on fuel efficiency

Ford is set to focus on fuel efficiency.

Yeah, we've heard this before. Ford is going to lead the environmental revolution in the automotive world! One month Ford is going to produce 250,000 hybrids by 2010, the next month they've already given up.

Still, Ford's new CEO, Alan Mulally is worth believing - for now.

In his job at Boeing, Mulally was a follower of the Toyota Production System. Moreover, Mulally believes that higher fuel prices and global oil demand are the most important dynamics facing the automotive field heading into the future. Consequently, Mulally told the Automotive News that "So clearly, designing and building cars that people really like and that are going to be useful for their lives but also continue to improve (fuel) efficiency is what I think is going to be the most important thing."

While it seems obvious that fuel efficiency is becoming significantly more important, the ability to compete and profit as we enter into this new automotive world is easier said, than done. Hopefully, Mulally can find the right path.

Speaking of the right path.

It would be nice if the Big 3 were a little more focused on how to be more fuel efficient when they meet with the President on Tuesday, rather than focusing on health care and trade issues. It's sort of ironic that Ford's CEO is showing up in a Ford Escape hybrid and GM's CEO in a Saturn Vue hybrid, yet both automakers are getting their asses kicked in the hybrid vehicle segment.

It wasn't but just a couple of years ago when GM execs regularly ridiculed hybrids. Perhaps, if the Big 3 had been more focused on automaking the last few decades, rather than on financing and lobbying, they wouldn't be facing such hard times. Neither health care nor trade issues caused the hybrid lag in Detroit - that was pure corporate incompetence.

Lithium hybrid revolution 3 to 4 years away?

While you can't buy a plug-in hybrid vehicle today from any of the major auto manufacturers, you could buy a Toyota Prius and have that hybrid vehicle converted into a plug-in hybrid vehicle, but why would you do that?

Full hybrid vehicles, such as the Prius or the Ford Escape hybrid, have the ability to run completely on electric power, as well as the ability to generate electric power. In current hybrid technology this typically happens at lower speeds such as in stop-and-go or slow-and-go traffic, and this feature is one of the primary reasons hybrids are so fuel efficient.

Nonetheless, current hybrids have a limited ability to store energy because NiMH batteries in hybrids only have so much capacitiy.

Lithium ion batteries, on the other hand, enable a hybrid to extend this storage capacity, however, simply driving the hybrid probably won't generate enough electricity via regenerative breaking, etc to fill the batteries to full capactity.

Thus, why not plug the hybrid into an outlet and top the batteries off? Doing so with today's plug-in prototypes enables these hybrids to travel up to 40 miles on electric power alone, a distance greater than the average American commute.

This is the potential of lithium ion battery powered hybrid vehicles, and this is what has GM preparing to show off a prototype plug-in hybrid vehicle in early 2007 - probably at the North American International Auto Show. Still, according to GM's Bob Lutz, the real potential of a plug-in hybrid vehicle is still about 3 to 4 years away.

Lutz told The Detroit News that GM estimates it will take three to four years "to convert from 'power' lithium batteries to 'energy storage' lithium cells," which would allow vehicles to travel farther distances.

Imagine the ability to travel 100 miles on electric power alone with technology which will probably be available in just 3 to 4 years. Imagine the effect such vehicles would have on foreign oil dependency. Imagine adding a a few solar panels or a small wind turbine to your garage and powering your plug-in hybrid with completely green electricity.

So why just imagine it? Why not make this a reality?

Buying today's hybrid cars helps invest in this future. Additionally, we must put pressure on Congress to offer more incentives to both automakers and consumers for developing and buying these types of vehicles. In the long run, these investments in the future will more than pay for themselves.

Hybrid vehicles still offer excellent reliability - Consumer Reports

Hybrid vehicles are very reliable according to Consumer Reports survey research. The Honda Accord hybrid and the Toyota Prius hybrid are the number one and two most reliable family cars, and the Honda Civic hybrid took third place for most reliable small car. The Toyota Highlander hybrid and the Lexus RX400h took the first and fifth spots for most reliable midsized SUVs.

The only hybrid to suffer a bit this year compared to last year was the Ford Escape hybrid, which dropped from above average to just average.

(Source: CNNMoney)

GM's i-Car plug-in hybrid probably to debut at NAIAS

While unconfirmed, GM's prototype plug-in hybrid vehicle will probably be unveiled a the North American International Auto Show, although CEO Rick Wagoner might also cover the vehicle at a speech he'll be giving later this month at the Los Angeles Auto Show.